最新文章
歸檔
2011 (32)
2014 (53)
2016 (53)
2017 (55)
2018 (98)
2019 (88)
2020 (67)
2021 (80)
2022 (134)
2023 (156)
正文
世界哲壇上從上一世紀初開演直到今天仍未收場的一場大戲就是由一種非哲學的文化和政治力量將海德格爾推上了大師的寶座，然後他在那個寶座上最終完成了這種非哲學力量運作下的必然的邏輯宿命：宣判哲學終止了。
在這場世紀鬧劇中，海德格爾先是由於各種原因被戴上了“很厲害，他的文章很重要但又很難懂”的大師的光環，然後後來的人(不論是所謂的學術專家還是普通粉絲們)就跟著上演了一場“皇帝確實穿了美麗的新衣”的鬧劇。
要想認清海德格爾哲學的錯誤麵目就不能象很多人那樣隔著海德格爾頭上的光環霧裏看花似地從各種哲評中來砸吧海德格爾多厲害的傳奇，而是要進到他的文章的字裏行間去揭穿這場鬧劇中種種虛幻。本文先以一例向有興趣的朋友揭示海德格爾的混亂邏輯，以後有時間的話還會陸續再提供更多的例子。
本文所用的海德格爾的原話引自Joan
Stambaugh 翻譯的海德格爾的題為《On Time and Being》的講稿（http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexphenomenology/files/2013/05/Martin-Heidegger-Joan-Stambaugh-Translator-On-Time-and-Being-1977.pdf），由於不同語言之間的翻譯常受語言環境的影響，哲學翻譯對此尤為敏感，所以讀者在讀本文時應以對語義的領會為主，而將本文中文翻譯措辭僅作參考。
在這場世紀鬧劇中，海德格爾先是由於各種原因被戴上了“很厲害，他的文章很重要但又很難懂”的大師的光環，然後後來的人(不論是所謂的學術專家還是普通粉絲們)就跟著上演了一場“皇帝確實穿了美麗的新衣”的鬧劇。
要想認清海德格爾哲學的錯誤麵目就不能象很多人那樣隔著海德格爾頭上的光環霧裏看花似地從各種哲評中來砸吧海德格爾多厲害的傳奇，而是要進到他的文章的字裏行間去揭穿這場鬧劇中種種虛幻。本文先以一例向有興趣的朋友揭示海德格爾的混亂邏輯，以後有時間的話還會陸續再提供更多的例子。
本文所用的海德格爾的原話引自Joan
Stambaugh 翻譯的海德格爾的題為《On Time and Being》的講稿（http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexphenomenology/files/2013/05/Martin-Heidegger-Joan-Stambaugh-Translator-On-Time-and-Being-1977.pdf），由於不同語言之間的翻譯常受語言環境的影響，哲學翻譯對此尤為敏感，所以讀者在讀本文時應以對語義的領會為主，而將本文中文翻譯措辭僅作參考。
海德格爾關於時間是四維的論證：
中文譯文：
時空通常被理解為在兩點間所測得的距離意義上進行計算的結果。在這個計算裏，時間被表示為一條線加上參數因而時間的一維性便通過數字的度量表達了出來。時間的這種被思考為當下的連續序列的維度性，是從三維空間的表達中借用過來的。
但是在有關時間的計算之前且獨立於這樣的計算，與真時間的時空相關的是由將來，過去和現在彼此交互穿插和開放而構成的。相應地，我們以一種易為誤解的方式稱之為維度的實際上屬於真時間而且隻屬於真時間。維度由打開的穿透構成，在這種穿透中，未來的到來成就了已經發生的，已經發生的帶來了未來，而且兩者間的這種相互的關係造成了雙方的開放性。根據這樣的三重給與的思維，真時間證明是三維的。我們再重複一遍，維度在這裏不僅是被考慮為可以度量的領域，而更是一種穿插，一種給與和開放。隻有後者才使我們能夠表達和限定一個可度量的領域。
但什麽是決定真時間的三個維度的統一的根源，也就是依據各自的存在來給與的三種相互作用的方式的統一的的根源呢？我們都聽過這樣的說法： 萬物消失在到來之中；即便是當下本身也總是上演著來臨與產生，也就是某種向存在的轉化。我們無法將這樣思考出來的存在歸於時間的三個維度中的任何一個，或好像很顯然地歸於當下。相反地，時間的三個維度的統一是由彼此之間兩兩相互作用構成的。這種相互作用已證明是真正的延展，對於時間的意義來說起著核心作用，可以權且稱作第四維---不僅僅是為表達方便而權且言之，而是事實的本質。
真時間是四維的。
-------
以上的中文翻譯是基於下麵的英文翻譯：
Time-space as commonly understood, in the sense of the distance measured between two time-points, is the result of time calculation. In this calculation, time represented as a line and parameter and thus one-dimensional is measured out in terms of numbers. The dimensionality of time, thought as the succession of the sequence of nows, is borrowed from the representation of three-dimensional space.
But prior to all calculation of time and independent of such calculation, what is germane to
the time-space of true time consists in the mutual reaching out and opening up
of future, past and present. Accordingly, what we call dimension and
dimensionality in a way easily misconstrued, belongs to true time and to it
alone. Dimension-ality consists in a reaching out that opens up, in which
futural approaching brings about what has been, what has been brings about
futural approaching, and the reciprocal relation of both brings about the
opening up of openness. Thought in terms of this threefold giving, true time proves
to be three-dimensional. Dimension, we repeat, is here thought not only as the
area of possible measurement, but rather as reaching throughout, as giving and
opening up. Only the latter enables us to represent and delimit an area
of measurement.
But from what source is the unity of the three dimensions
of true time determined, the unity, that is, of its three interplaying ways of
giving, each in virtue of its own presencing? We already heard: In the
approaching of what is no longer; present and even in the present itself,
there always plays a kind of approach and bringing about, that is, a kind of
presencing. We cannot attribute the presencing to be thus thought to one of
the three dimensions of time, to the present, which would seem
obvious. Rather, the unity of time's three dimensions consists in the
interplay of each toward each. This interplay proves to be the true extending,
playing in the very heart of time, the fourth dimension, so to speak-not
only so to speak, but in the nature of the matter.
True time is four-dimensional.
But prior to all calculation of time and independent of such calculation, what is germane to
the time-space of true time consists in the mutual reaching out and opening up
of future, past and present. Accordingly, what we call dimension and
dimensionality in a way easily misconstrued, belongs to true time and to it
alone. Dimension-ality consists in a reaching out that opens up, in which
futural approaching brings about what has been, what has been brings about
futural approaching, and the reciprocal relation of both brings about the
opening up of openness. Thought in terms of this threefold giving, true time proves
to be three-dimensional. Dimension, we repeat, is here thought not only as the
area of possible measurement, but rather as reaching throughout, as giving and
opening up. Only the latter enables us to represent and delimit an area
of measurement.
But from what source is the unity of the three dimensions
of true time determined, the unity, that is, of its three interplaying ways of
giving, each in virtue of its own presencing? We already heard: In the
approaching of what is no longer; present and even in the present itself,
there always plays a kind of approach and bringing about, that is, a kind of
presencing. We cannot attribute the presencing to be thus thought to one of
the three dimensions of time, to the present, which would seem
obvious. Rather, the unity of time's three dimensions consists in the
interplay of each toward each. This interplay proves to be the true extending,
playing in the very heart of time, the fourth dimension, so to speak-not
only so to speak, but in the nature of the matter.
True time is four-dimensional.
你這樣的垃圾並不少見。。。。不論在哪個網站有你這樣的垃圾出來後除了會說海德格爾是對的之外，說不出半點為什麽他是對的為什麽我是錯的。。。。典型的皇帝新衣的鬧劇中跑龍套的。。。。本來如果僅是海德格爾的哲學有問題也不值得這麽批，關鍵就是這個世界上太多你這樣的垃圾汙染了人類的哲學。。。。要批的就是你這樣的垃圾。。。要打的就是你這樣的垃圾所上演的皇帝新衣的鬧劇。。。。。
別了垃圾！最後還要輕輕滴稱呼你一句：“垃圾“