人称的構造の素描

人間存在には人称的構造がある.人称的構造の理解は,スタンスとしての人称という考え方を取り入れることで深まる.はじめ,人間存在の表面は,一人称と二人称の混淆だ.しかし,向かい合う両者が,スタンスとしての人称として,先駆的二人称となれば,エゴイズムとしての「おもて」の一人称は消去され,純粋な愛となる.その際,直接的な一人称はなくなるが,相手の愛の恵みを受け止める「座」として,深いところに間接的一人称が生まれる.両者に新しい自我としての間接的一人称が生まれることにより,一人称-三人称関係の生成も促される.一個の人間存在は,その中に一人称,二人称,三人称を同時に含む球面構造をなしている.愛に始まる人称的構造は,新たな苦悩も生むが,その苦悩はまた癒される.社会は癒しと苦悩の循環の繰り返しとして成立する.The human being has a personal structure. The understanding of the personal structure gets deepened by adopting the conception of "person as stance." Initially, the "face" of the human being contains the mixture of the first and the second persons. However, when the persons as stance of the two who are facing each other become the anticipatory second persons, the first persons of the "faces" as egoism are erased from them and they become pure love. Consequently, the immediate first persons vanish and notwithstanding the indirect first person comes to birth, in stead, in the depth as the "seat" for accepting the love of the facing other as "grace." Through the birth of the indirect first persons as new egos, the generation of the first person - third person relationship is facilitated. A single human being has the sphere structure consisting of the first, second, and third persons at the same time. The personal structure starting with love produces new sufferings, though the sufferings get consoled in turn. The society is understood as the circular repetition of the sufferings and the consolations

先駆的二人称から見た存在

存在は一ではなく,二へと分裂している.オイディプースは真実を知ったとき,記憶と現実の真実の二重性へ飛躍し苦悩した.存在の分裂を「存在の球面理論」で表象できる.球の表面は「対象化できないもの」を表し,裏面は球の中心に位置する視「点」によって「対象化されたもの」を表す.存在の分裂の苦悩を癒すものは,倫理的に与えられる「先駆的二人称」である.先駆的二人称とは,一人称が三人称との出会いを予期し,先駆的に二人称のペルソナをつけることである.先駆的二人称の愛によって,分裂した存在はゆっくりと和んで行く.先駆的二人称から見ることによって,一人称の知とも三人称の知とも異なる二人称の知が始まる.そこに「存在科学」の立場がある.The structure of being is not unity. Being is split. The sphere model of being is presented to represent the split structure of being, the outside plane of the sphere represents the unobjectifiable aspect of being, and the inside plane of the sphere its objectified aspect. The objectifying "point" of view is located in the center of the sphere. The sphere model represents the split of being topologically. Oedipus jumped into the split of being and bore the agony of the identity crisis to his death. The agony of the split being is consoled by the anticipatory second person. The persona of the second person is put on by the first person in anticipation of the facing of the third person. The being is viewed from the anticipatory second person with love. Ontological science is constructed as the view from the anticipatory second person. The approach of the anticipatory second person toward being is different from the approaches of the first and the third persons. Life is considered as the slow gradual motion toward the unification of the split being

存在の表と裏

存在の問題について考える上で,存在には表と裏があると考えるのがよいであろう.存在の表面の学は人文科学的研究であり,存在の裏面の学は自然科学的研究である.表面からは裏面は見えず,裏面から表面は見えない.この対立する二つの学を安易に統合することなく,方法論的二元論によってプラグマティックに繋ぎ,二つの学の「学際的研究」をすることが求められる.そのような考え方を樹立するためには,西田哲学の主客未分の「場所」における主客の分節という考え方を応用し,表面の学における「場所」の直接性と裏面の学における主客分離の間接性の間を変換する空間を基礎とすべきであろう,存在科学はそのような学際的研究の上に基礎づけられるべきであろう.In thinking about the problem of being, it would be good to recognize the idea that there are two sides to it; the face and the other side to being. The study of the face of being can be considered to be the humanistic approach to being and that of the other side of being the natural scientific approach to being. It must be emphasized that the other side of being cannot be seen from the face and the face cannot be seen from the other side. The two approaches to being should not be unified directly. Instead, the "interdisciplinary" connection of the two studies should be made possible pragmatically through the "methodological dualism." To establish such a connection we need to create a space where the immediacy of "basho (or topos)" in the study of the face of being can be transformed to the indirectness of the subject - object separability in the study of the other side of being, by means of the analogical application of Nishida philosophy. Ontological science should be based on such an "interdisciplinary" study

存在科学へ向けて

There is a critical dissociation between the philosophical ontology such as those of Heidegger and Nishida and the ontology behind the natural sciences. In order to dissolve the problem, it is important not to be biased toward one side or the other of the two. If we consider the philosophical ontology to be one pole of the discussion, we need another pole, which may be called \u27ontological science\u27, to study the basis of the philosophical ontology from a scientific point of view. Ontological science will study the physiological and psychological mechanisms behind the conceptual actuality of \u27being\u27 meant by philosophers such as Heidegger and Nishida. Because these two poles stand against each other, they cannot be merged into a single solution easily. At present, however, we should recognize the significance of the both poles and try to solve the discrepancy between the ontology on one side and that on the other by circularly going around these two poles of the study, since we cannot tell which pole is more basic than the other simply from the philosophical point of view. For that reason, we should establish ontological science. Ontological science will play an important role in the progress of the modern ontology from the side of natural sciences, where \u27being\u27 has not been considered a topic of study so far