In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Buddhist-Christian Studies 21.1 (2001) 113-114 [Access article in PDF] Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies Paul Swanson Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture The annual meeting of the Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies (Tözai Shukyö Köryu Gakkai) met on 24-26 July 2000 at the Palaceside Hotel in Kyoto. Major papers were given on the general theme "Spirituality, Nature, and the Self," in preparation for participation in the Sixth Conference of (...) the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies on "Buddhism, Christianity and Global Healing" held at Pacific Lutheran University on 5-12 August 2000. Although the papers were repeated (in English) at the conference at PLU, the respondents were different.The first paper was given by Okumura Ichirö (a Carmelite priest) on "A Spiritual Pilgrimage: From Buddhism to Christianity." Father Okumura related the story of his spiritual journey, beginning with an interest in Zen and the works of Dögen; his first encounters with Christianity (which were negative); his struggle to understand the teachings of the Bible; his vision of a black-covered Bible with blank pages, and a scorched crucifix; the advice of his Zen Master Nakagawa to be baptized; and his encounter with St. John of the Cross and St. Therese, leading to his becoming a Carmelite priest. A response was given by Nishimura Eshin (Zen priest and Vice President, Hanazono University) who, in his usual feisty manner, noted an empathy for Fr. Okumura's spiritual journey while reaffirming the differences of his own Zen Buddhist faith.The second paper was by Hanaoka Eiko (Professor, Osaka Prefecture University) on "Problems of Spirituality: Facing the Twenty-first Century." Hanaoka approached the issue from her own background in Kyoto School philosophy, presenting five paradigms from which to consider spirituality--relative being, relative nothingness, nihil, absolute being, and absolute nothingness--promoting the paradigm of "absolute nothingness" as the most appropriate for the twenty-first century. The response by Onodera Isao (Professor, Seisen University) reaffirmed the significance of Nishida's philosophy while raising specific questions concerning Hanaoka's presentation, including the query as to how and where "Shinto" would fit in her proposed scheme.The third presentation, opening up the activities on the second day,wasa "research report" by Yagi Seiichi (Professor, Töin University of Yokohama) on "Developing a Theory of Practice for Dialogue Between Buddhism and Christianity." Yagi expressed [End Page 113] a desire to think about "religious practice" as the most important element in religion and couched his discussion in terms of jiga (ego) and jiko (self). He concluded that our contemporary civilization is built with an emphasis on the ego and that Buddhist-Christian dialogue should point to a way beyond egocentrism.The fourth paper was by Kobayashi Enshö (Professor, Hanazono University) on "Maya and Mary: Spirituality and Nature ofTwo Sacred Wombs." Kobayashi examined the respective developments concerning Maya, the mother of Siddhartha, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Buddhism and Christianity, pointing out various common elements as well as differences in the role and influence of "mother images" in the history of the two religious traditions. In response, Kawanami Akira (Professor, Töyö University) speculated that a reason for significant differences in the role of Maya and Mary could be due to the presence of Mary throughout Jesus' career, while Maya passed away one week after Siddhartha's birth.The fifth and final paper consisted of another "research report," this time by Takada Shinryö(Professor, Ryukoku University) on "Mappö and Eschatology: What Can Buddhism Learn from Christianity?"Takada, inspired by a symposium on the theme "What Can Christianity Learn from Buddhism"(sponsored by the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture in 1997), attempted to compare the meaning of eschatology in Christianity and that of mappö (the degenerate "latter" age) in Buddhism. Speaking from the perspective of Pure Land Buddhism, he emphasized the importance of the idea that "mappö is now" rather than a specific historical period.On the third day, a final summary and discussion was led by Ueda Shizuteru. As is the common practice for the meeting, all participants (about thirty) were invited to give a... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies:A Report on the 2008 Annual MeetingTerao KazuyoshiThe 2008 annual meeting of the Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies was held at the Palace Side Hotel in Kyoto on 1–3 September. The main theme of the meeting was the "Possibility of Religious Philosophy." The meeting consisted of four sessions, one research presentation, and a general overview on the final day.Two sessions were staged on the (...) first day. They dealt with a reconsideration of the religious philosophy of Jan Van Bragt (1928–2007), following the meeting in 2007, which generally covered his academic contributions. First, Keta Masako (Kyoto University) read a paper titled "A Configuration in the Contemporary World: A Response to Jan Van Bragt's Expectation and Disappointment at the Kyoto School of Philosophy." (Unfortunately I was unable to attend this session, so I am not able to summarize the presentation.) Next, Hanaoka Eiko (Nara University of Industry) presented a paper titled "In Search of the New Possibility of Religious Philosophy: Fundamental Experience and a Turning Point for Philosophy." She insisted that we need to keep in mind an overview of the religious philosophies of Nishida Kitaro, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji in order to understand Van Bragt's criticism of the Kyoto school. Nishida's ideas of the "logic of the place of nothingness" and the "unity of mind and body" work together, she suggested; this polarity was "one," in accordance with the idea of the "self-identity of absolute contradictions." But in Hanaoka's opinion, Van Bragt sometimes placed a disproportionate emphasis on one side of the polarity. Hanaoka identified ten polarities in Nishida's absolute nothingness: (1) philosophy of self-awareness and philosophy of existence, (2) substantial philosophy and non-substantial philosophy, (3) experience and rationality, (4) plurality and unity, (5) continuity and discontinuity, (6) temporality and eternity, (7) matter and spirit, (8) process and reality, (9) true self and ego, and (10) philosophy and the philosophy of philosophy. Hanaoka argued that Van Bragt's doubts would have disappeared if he had fully experienced love as that which emanates from the "oneness" of the polarity of absolute nothingness.On the second day of the meeting, Peter Baekelmans gave a presentation titled "The Faith of The Awakening Faith in Mahayana." While Baekelmans studied Buddhism, [End Page 147] particularly esoteric Buddhism, at Koyasan University, he became acquainted with the Daijōkishinron (The awakening faith in Mahayana) and began to translate it into English. He found that the Hindu term śraddhā meant both "hope for achieving the goal" and "confidence in the method," and that the former corresponded to the "faith of Mahayana" and the latter to the "generation of faith of Mahayana." Baekelmans then attempted to demonstrate that the Awakening of Faith was composed in India. In addition, from the perspective of phenomenology he argued that belief as the essence of the religious phenomenon and practice as the phenomenon itself together form a unified spirituality. The deeper that belief becomes, he said, the less important the difference between belief and practice becomes. Some textual scholars in the audience objected to that line of thought, suggesting that we needed more circumspect analysis in order to accept such a perspective.At the third session, Kim Seung-Chul (Kinjōgakuin University) read a paper on "Christian Theology Facing Religion and Science." He called the relation of religion and science a "double reflection," referring to theories by sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson and philosopher of science Ian Barbour. Kim interpreted religion and science in Nishitani as a "superposition" of existential order. Kim focused on two meanings of nondiscrimination according to Nishitani: "nondiscrimination in nature," found in science, and "nondiscrimination in love," found in religion. The former was symbolized by matter and the latter by life. The place where these two nondiscriminations coincide, he said, is exactly the "standpoint of emptiness." Kim concluded that we must recognize that this "standpoint of emptiness" was the place where the "problem of Christianity and other religions" and the "problem of Christianity and science" can be dealt with simultaneously as "in an absolutely equal status" for their resolution.Kobayashi Enshō (Hanazono University), the respondent to Kim's paper... (shrink)

The title of Marnie Hughes-Warrington's study, 'How Good an Historian Shall I Be?', is taken from a 1930 pam-phlet by Collingwood, in which, assuming that 'there are as many historians as there are human beings', he inferred that 'the question is not 'Shall I be an historian or not?' but How good an historian shall I be?'' . Hughes-Warrington takes this to be 'probably the most important question we can ask' . Indeed, she believes that 'historical education' is 'a duty (...) that we all must bear for our sake and for the sake of civilisation' . Hughes-Warrington thus situates proper histori-cal education within the wider process of civilization; this leitmotif being taken from Collingwood, for whom educa-tion is the means 'by which a civilisation keeps itself alive from one generation to the next'. (shrink)

「主体」はもちろんsubjectの翻訳語である。明治以降、この語がわが国に入ってくると、「主観」「主体」「主語」などさまざまな翻訳語があらわれる。たとえば西田幾多郎は、初期は「主観」をつかっているが、 後期になると「主体」しか出てこなくなる。この移行ははたして何を意味するのだろうか。戦後には、「主体性論争」がわき起こり、たとえば学生運動では「主体性」という言葉がキーワードとなった。明治期の受容から、 戦後、そして現代に至るまで、それぞれの時代の趨勢となった思想に伏流する「主体」を追い続け、日本近代思想史にあらたな視座を提供する、知的興奮にあふれた一冊。.

The propositional fragment L 1 of Leniewski's ontology is the smallest class (of formulas) containing besides all the instances of tautology the formulas of the forms: (a, b) (a, a), (a, b) (b,). (a, c) and (a, b) (b, c). (b, a) being closed under detachment. The purpose of this paper is to furnish another more constructive proof than that given earlier by one of us for: Theorem A is provable in L 1 iff TA is a thesis of first-order (...) predicate logic with equality, where T is a translation of the formulas of L 1 into those of first-order predicate logic with equality such that T(a, b) = FblxFax (Russeltian-type definite description), TA B = TA TB, T A = TA, etc. (shrink)

Cet article examine le rapport entre l’Idée platonicienne du Bien et l’au-delà de l’essence de Levinas.

In this article Kobayashi Toshiaki discusses the importance in all periods of Karatani’s oeuvre of the notion of an “exterior” that necessarily falls beyond the bounds of a system, together with the notion of “singularity” as that which cannot be contained within a “universal.” The existential dread vis-à-vis the uncanny other that Karatani in his early works of literary criticism had initially found to be the underlying tone in Sōseki’s works remained with Karatani himself throughout his career and is (...) what had drawn him closer to philosophy. This sense of the “exterior” to—or other than—the normality of consciousness and the meaningfulness of the world is then extended and applied as the “exterior to systems” in his analyses of logical, mathematical, and linguistic systems, in his reading of Marx’s discussion of capitalist economics, and most recently in his analysis of commodity exchange between communities. (shrink)

西田幾多郎(一八七〇‐一九四五)の人生。それは一人の人間の個別的な営みを超え、明治から昭和に至る奔流のただなかに姿を見せ始めた「日本」を集約し、体現するものだった。同時代の多彩な資料に基づく実証的手法 によって克明に描き出される哲学者の苦悩と格闘の人生に、近代日本の成立過程に現出した幾多の問題系を照射する斬新な評伝的批評。.

西田幾多郎の中心概念「永遠の今」を外部の多様な言説に向けて開放することで、西田哲学の新たな可能性を切り開く。プラトン、アウグスティヌス、ハイデッガー、九鬼周造、デリダ、アガンベン、木村敏といった西洋哲 学、宗教学、現代思想、精神病理学の代表者たちの議論と西田の言説を突き合わせ、その緻密な解釈と検証を通して、これまで時間論で見逃されてきたカイロスの系譜とその意義を照らし出す。既成の西田研究に問題を投げ かける著者十年の集大成。岩波現代文庫オリジナル版。.