| 从剔除先见到为先见的合法性辩护--培根与加达默尔先见学说比较 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 崔永杰.从剔除先见到为先见的合法性辩护--培根与加达默尔先见学说比较[J].山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,47(3):22-25. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 崔永杰 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 山东师范大学,政治法律学院,山东,济南,250014 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 培根视先见为认识的障碍 ,认为先见与认识的可能性及客观性相悖 ,应彻底剔除先见 ;加达默尔则认为先见是主体自身的存在状态 ,是理解的必要基础和前提条件 ,应为先见的合法性辩护。从培根主张剔除先见到加达默尔主张为先见的合法性辩护 ,体现了人类对先见作为自身认识结构由否定性探讨向肯定性探讨的转变。
|
| 关 键 词： | 四假相说 先见 主体认识结构 理解 |
| 文章编号： | 1001-5973(2002)03-0022-04 |
| 修稿时间： | 2001年2月1日 |
From Regeting Prejudice to Defending the Legality of Prejudice --Comparison of Prejudice Doctrine Between Bacon and Gadamer |
| |
| Cui Yongjie.From Regeting Prejudice to Defending the Legality of Prejudice --Comparison of Prejudice Doctrine Between Bacon and Gadamer[J].Journal of Shandong Teachers' University(Social Science Edition),2002,47(3):22-25. |
| |
| Authors: | Cui Yongjie |
| |
| Abstract: | Bacon and Gadamer are the tipical representative personage of probing into prejudice doctrine in the Western philosophy. Their standpoint has obvious differences which touch upon a series of important questions on prejudice. Bacon considers it negative that foresight functions in cogntion, so we shall reject it thoroughly. While Gadamer considers prejudice is essential foundation and premisal condition of understanding, so we shall defend the legality of prejudice . Bacon poses rejecting prejudice and Gadamer advocates defending the reasonability of prejudice, which embodies the transformation of probing into cognitive structure of man himself from negation to approval. |
| |
| Keywords: | doctrine of four idols prejudice cognitive structure of the subject understand |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
