人間存在論と間柄の倫理(続) : 和辻哲郎とK・レーヴィット
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
Heretofore we have traced, point by point, the common ideas of the two philosophers, Watsuji and Loewith, about human beings through their works, under the working hypothesis that Watsuji owes his basic ideas and terminology to Karl Loewith. Now that we have established our hypothesis, we intend to find differences in the views between the two scholars. First of all, we retrace the meanings of their common fundamental terms (namely, 'world,' 'human being' and 'person-to-person relationship'); we find that these terms have clearly different implications of meaning between the two thinkers. Indeed, we think that the most important point of difference between the two scholars' theories is in their basic metaphysics, which sustains the ideas of human beings and person-to-person relationships. For Loewith, who is a disciple of Martin Heidegger, the metaphysical basis of his theory of human beings and the correlation of 'I' and 'thou' is 'Sein,' namely the Being itself, the inquiry into which is, in fact, the central theme of Occidental metaphysics. Therefore, it is self-evident that, for him, the Being, which exists for itself as the most original substance, stands beneath the existence of human beings, such as 'I' and 'thou.' On the other hand, Watsuji, though he is also a disciple of Heidegger, does not accept his master's metaphysics as an inquiry into the meaning of Being. He maintains that 'Being' means only existence itself and that human beings and their cooperative relationships are simply the way to it. Therefore, compared with Loewith, he makes rather light of the idea of the 'correlationship of I and thou'; rather, he lays stress on the importance of Hegelian ethical systems or organizations ('Sittlichkeit' or 'Jinrin-teki Soshiki'). As a matter of fact, Watsuji does not think that 'Being' is the ultimate reality. Rather, he seems to accept another kind of ultimate metaphysical reality, whichshould not be called by the name of 'Being' or 'substance,' but which should be named Buddhistic 'Kuh' ('Vanity' or 'Unsubstantially'). In his view, only this unsubstantial reality is the origin or basis of the existence of human beings; from it, everything, every man and society itself must emerge into being.
- 東京女子大学の論文
- 1999-09-20