宗教哲学研究
Online ISSN : 2424-1865
Print ISSN : 0289-7105
33 巻
選択された号の論文の12件中1~12を表示しています
特集 身体と宗教
  • 棚次 正和
    原稿種別: 原著論文
    2016 年 33 巻 p. 1-14
    発行日: 2016/03/31
    公開日: 2017/03/10
    ジャーナル フリー
    Theories of mind-body relationship can be classified into two ideal types: a mind-body separate theory and a mind-body integrative one. The former asserts that mind exists separated from body, and the latter that mind and body must be integrated into one. In modern French thought, Henri Bergson's philosophy belongs to the former, and Gabriel Marcel's philosophy the latter. Bergson affirmed that through his philosophical investigation of this matter and studies of Christian mysticism as well as acoustic memories of words, mind was independent from body including brain, therefore life probably survived after death, whereas Marcel analyzed existence, that is, the fact of living here and now in terms of ‘incarnation’ and ‘itinerary,’ and attempted to elucidate human-beings inevitably united with body as homo viator making a journey looking up to Being as ‘promised land.’

    We think it is possible to unify the mutual opposite theories mentioned above if we take ‘body as mind’ into account. Among the clues to find a solution is the transformation of prayer. It has, at least, two meanings. One is the transformation of prayer itself. As prayer gets deeper, Negai(wish) is being changed to Inori(proclamation of life). The other is the mind-body transformation through prayer. Such a consideration as this will be able to lead us beyond the mind-body dichotomy.
  • 杉本 耕一
    原稿種別: 原著論文
    2016 年 33 巻 p. 15-28
    発行日: 2016/03/31
    公開日: 2017/03/10
    ジャーナル フリー
    Later Nishida found a clue about how to analyze the structure of the human being that acts in the world of historical reality within the problem of the body. Nishida noticed that the human being possesses a body and makes things outside of himself by using it as a tool. This implies, on the one hand, that he has creative freedom, which other animals do not possess. However, on the other hand it is precisely because of this freedom that man cannot but come into conflict with the external world and suffer from the contradiction between the self and the world. Another of Nishida's remarkable ideas on the body is that the human being cannot be defined merely as a bodily being, but that it is connected to the dimension of that which transcends the body. In this essay the author attempts to clarify Nishida's unique idea on that which transcends the body and to examine how bodily action and the action of the body that transcends the body are related. This contemplation offers suggestions about how one is to understand Nishida's thoughts on religious practice. The author's considerations are based on Nishida's interpretation of the words of the Zen master Pao­chi of Pan­shan, which Nishida learned from D.T.Suzuki.
  • 魚住 孝至
    原稿種別: 原著論文
    2016 年 33 巻 p. 29-42
    発行日: 2016/03/31
    公開日: 2017/03/10
    ジャーナル フリー

    In „Zen in der Kunst des Bogenschießens“ schildert Eugen Herrigel den von ihm durchlaufenen Lern- und Übungsprozess unter Anleitung eines Meisters, für den die Essenz des Bogenschießens im Zen liegt. Herrigel führt aus, wie er durch die Übung des Bogenschießens zur Erfahrung der „absichtslosen Ichlosigkeit“ gelangt.


    In dieser Arbeit wird auf der Grundlage von Herrigels Werk analysiert, wie die Transformation von Körper und Geist mittels des Übungsprozesses erfolgt. Hierzu wird auch der schriftliche Nachlass von Herrigels Meister Awa Kenzo in die Deutung einbezogen. Außerdem wird untersucht, wie Herrigel die Erfahrungswelt des Zen-Buddhismus in seinem Nachlass „Der Zen Weg“ interpretiert.

  • 竹内 綱史
    原稿種別: 原著論文
    2016 年 33 巻 p. 43-56
    発行日: 2016/03/31
    公開日: 2017/03/10
    ジャーナル フリー

    Die Absicht dieses Aufsatzes ist es, die Beziehung zwischen dem Problem vom Nihilismus und Nietzsches Verständnis des menschlichen Leibes zu erörtern und die Wichtigkeit dieser Problematik für Nietzsche zu erklären.


    Der Nihilismus bedeutet, nach Nietzsche, zuerst eine gewisse Trennung von dem Ich und der Welt. Für das menschliche Ich sind die Werte, wie z.B. Nützlichkeit, Schönheit, Heiligkeit, usw., entbehrlich, nach denen es in der Welt leben kann. In dem modernen wissenschaftlichen Weltbild gibt es aber keinen Wert in dieser Welt selbst, sondern alle Werte sollten nur als menschlich, nämlich als Erdichtungen vom Menschen, gelten. Dieses Weltbild hat es also „wertlos“ gemacht, in der Welt zu leben.


    Nietzsche aber reduziert diese Trennung auf einen Zwiespalt innerhalb des menschlichen Leibes. Der Leib ist für ihn viel urspünglicher als das Ich. Zarathustra sagt, „Leib bin ich ganz und gar“ und der Leib ist, sagt Nietzsche, „ein Gesellschaftsbau vieler Seelen“. Weil wir modernen Menschen uns über Jahrtausende hindurch das wissenschaftliche Weltbild, das in der christlichen Weltanschauung seinen Ursprung hat, „einverleibt“ haben, bekam unser Leib als Gesellschaft endlich eine Moral, die uns verbietet, ungewisse Dinge zu glauben. Diese Moral innerhalb unseres Leibes, das heißt das „wissenschaftliche Gewissen“, trennt uns von der Welt der Werte.


    Für den Leib als Organismus oder Lebewesen ist aber die Welt der Werte eigentlich. Von diesem Standpunkt aus ist das wissenschaftliche „wertlose“ Weltbild eine Art der Idiosynkrasie vom modernen Menschen. Nietzsche behauptet, dass durch Veränderung unserer Einstellung zum Leib die Trennung von dem Ich und der Welt überbrückt werde und dann die große Spannung der Zwiespalt innerhalb unseres Leibes eine Energie erzeugen solle, um die Möglichkeiten menschlicher Zukunft zu erweitern.

論文
  • 梅野 宏樹
    原稿種別: 原著論文
    2016 年 33 巻 p. 57-68
    発行日: 2016/03/31
    公開日: 2017/03/10
    ジャーナル フリー

    In his epoch-making study, Bertrand Russell criticized Leibniz’s ethics as “a mass of inconsistencies.” Leibniz formally emphasizes human responsibility for his/her wrong actions, and affirms the possibility of following reason in spite of the attraction of sensible pleasure. Nevertheless, Russell insisted that Leibniz’s hidden philosophy, which he really held, necessarily concludes an extreme intellectualism. This position makes morality meaningless, because it holds, “all sin is due wholly to ignorance.”


    This paper responds to the criticism. First, Russell ignored the fact that the primitive passive force (which is one of the essences of Monad) produces passion via corporeal representation by confused perceptions. But passion plays an important role, i.e. the cause of evil will. However rightly human understanding judges, passion intervenes between the judgment and volition. That is why we commit sins in spite of our clear understanding.


    Second, even if our perception is largely confused, we can realize that to follow reason is truly good, for God is the Supreme Reason. Then, by virtue of our good will, we can improve our understanding little by little, and pursue moral good.


    Accordingly, Leibniz’s true philosophy is not an extreme intellectualism which denies morality, but a moderate intellectualism which recognizes mutual influence between human understanding and will. As good or evil will takes part in human action, those who will are responsible for it.

  • 山根 秀介
    原稿種別: 原著論文
    2016 年 33 巻 p. 69-81
    発行日: 2016/03/31
    公開日: 2017/03/10
    ジャーナル フリー

    It is often said that William James and Henri Bergson share a lot of ideas on philosophy: the importance of direct experience, the anti-intellectualism, the notion of reality as changing, etc. There is, however, a fundamental difference between them, which is strongly connected with the core of James’s philosophical thought as well as that of Bergson’s. The purpose of this study is to compare the pluralistic ontology in James and the ontology of pure duration in Bergson, thus to elucidate the similarity and difference between the two, and finally to find out where the difference comes from.


    It is true that both the ontology of James’s “radical empiricism” and that of Bergson’s “pure duration” agree to admit the plurality of our experience, consciousness, and universe. Especially, “the discontinuity-theory” of the former and the concept of “unities of duration” of the latter form the base of the plurality in a surprisingly similar way. Nevertheless, they differ in how to consider the unity of multiple beings. On the one hand, Bergson observes that each element of duration is determined by the whole, and reflects it at the same time; the unity of duration is holistic and organic. On the other hand, James thinks that this unity is not real and insists the absolute multiplicity of elements. This opposition is derived from the difference in the notion of “relation”.

研究ノート
書評
feedback
Top