著者

平尾 昌宏

出版者

立命館大学哲学会

雑誌

立命館哲学 (ISSN:09146342)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.27, pp.67-94, 2016

著者

平尾 昌宏

出版者

大阪産業大学

雑誌

大阪産業大学論集. 人文・社会科学編 = Journal of Osaka Sangyo University (ISSN:18825966)

巻号頁・発行日

no.27, pp.53-71, 2016

著者

平尾 昌宏

出版者

大阪産業大学

雑誌

大阪産業大学論集. 人文・社会科学編 (ISSN:18825966)

巻号頁・発行日

no.13, pp.21-34, 2011

---

This article is a part of a series of the researches that chase the history of reception of Spinozism in Germany, and is the second half of an oral report at the congress of the Spinoza Society of Japan (at Osaka University, on Feb. 27, 2010) which took up Moses Mendelssohn's debut work "Philosophical conversations". In that report, his understanding of Spinozism which appeared in the book was surveyed, and its historical contexts were confirmed. In the first half, the context from Wolf to Mendelssohn, and in the second half, the context from Mendelssohn to his successors was treated respectively. This paper presents the latter. We have pointed out Mendelssohn's understanding of the similarity and difference between Spinoza and Leibniz. In this paper we trace the reception of the two points after Mendelssohn. On the similarity of Spinoza and Leibniz: Mendelssohn saw the similarity of both between Spinoza's parallelism and Leibniz's preestablished harmony theory, and this understanding was criticized by Lessing, was quoted affirmatively by E. Platner, and was criticized again by Heydenreich. On the difference of Spinoza and Leibniz: Mendelssohn considered that Spinoza had subsumed all things in the god and Leibniz had recognized the outside of God. This consideration was accepted by Platner and Maimon and through these two philosophers, Spinozism was formulated as "Acosmism". The famous formulation of Hegel that Spinozism is Acosmism is not Hegel's original one, but the conclusion based on these contexts.

著者

平尾 昌宏

出版者

日本ライプニッツ協会

雑誌

ライプニッツ研究 (ISSN:21857288)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2, pp.69-87, 2012-11-03 (Released:2023-11-14)

著者

平尾 昌宏 ヒラオ マサヒロ Masahiro HIRAO

雑誌

大阪産業大学論集. 人文・社会科学編

巻号頁・発行日

vol.23, pp.1-23, 2015-02

---

本稿は前稿に続く,日本語を糧とした哲学的な思索の試みである。日本語や日本文化を論じる近年の哲学的試みには安易な一般化,飛躍が見られる。そこで前稿では確かな地歩を築くため,問題を「いる/ある」両動詞の用法に絞り,空虚な思弁を避けるため,国語学,日本語学研究を参照した。従来「いる」と「ある」の使い分けは,これらの動詞が述語づけられる主語のカテゴリーと,話者の認識という二つの観点から論じられてきた。だが,この二つの見解はともに厳密には成り立たない。そこで前稿末尾では,両動詞の使い分けは話者と主語との関係を示すという新たな仮説を提示した。本稿では,この仮説と従来の二説との関係を考察し,次の諸点を指摘する。(1)これら三説中でわれわれの仮説が最も一般的で,従来の二説を包括できること,(2)しかし,その一般性の故に,われわれの仮説はまだ内実を欠くこと,(3)ただ,従来の二説をわれわれの仮説に基づいた例文解釈のパラメータとして利用できることである。

著者

平尾 昌宏

雑誌

大阪産業大学論集. 人文・社会科学編 = Journal of Osaka Sangyo University. Humanities & Social Sciences (ISSN:18825966)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.27, pp.53-71, 2016-06

著者

平尾 昌宏

出版者

立命館大学

雑誌

立命館哲学 (ISSN:09146342)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.16, pp.63-85, 2005

著者

平尾 昌宏

出版者

大阪産業大学

雑誌

大阪産業大学論集 人文科学編 (ISSN:02871378)

巻号頁・発行日

no.121, pp.79-96, 2007

著者

平尾 昌宏

出版者

大阪産業大学

雑誌

大阪産業大学論集 人文・社会科学編 (ISSN:18825966)

巻号頁・発行日

no.10, pp.49-67, 2010

---

Hamann is distinguished from some thinkers in his generation of "Sturm und Drang", such as Goethe and Herder. It is obvious that he was not a spinozist, indeed, Spinoza was a deadly foe for Hamann. Hamann wrote no book on Spinoza, however, he expressed his sentiment about Spinoza in his letters to Jacobi during Pantheism Controversy. They show us one of the most interesting examples of reactions against Spinozism in those days. Hamann honestly admits the difficulty of reading Spinoza's "Ethics". He challenges and challenges Spinoza and Jacobi's "Spinoza-letters", but they repel him. Spinoza's style and method in "Ethics" turndown Hamann. They are considered obvious trickeries for Hamann. Indeed we can not say that this kind of sentiment in Hamann's letters to Jacobi is "philosophical" statement, but, at the same time, it is nothing but expression of his own "philosophy". At first, for Hamann, Spinoza's philosophy is a false construction because it is a system and every system is rootless. Hamann says that everything is local and individual, and arises from "History". Secondly, the form of "Ethics" is a sign of "Purism of Reason", which is applied to the philosophy of Kant by Hamann in his "Metakritik". In this sense, Spinozism and Kantianism are both his targets. The next generation, like Schelling and Hegel, belongs to a kind of Spinozist and tries to integrate the realism of Spinoza and the idealism of Fichte. They think within the framework of <Spinoza and Fichte>. But the framework of <Spinoza and Kant> appears only in Hamann (and Maimon). It goes without saying that Jacobi was a bitter critic of Spinozism. But he formed an estimate of its charm. Spinozism as a system was typical of all philosophical systems for Jacobi. Therefore he made a strong influence on German idealists, whose model was Spinoza's system of philosophy. On the contrary, Hamann did not have any respects to Spinoza. Therefore Hamann's criticism on Spinoza had no influences. This absence of influence over German idealists is a very result of Hamann's own thought of uniqueness, and also belongs to one scene in the history of Spinozism in Germany.

著者

平尾 昌宏

出版者

京都ユダヤ思想学会

雑誌

京都ユダヤ思想 (ISSN:21862273)

巻号頁・発行日

no.2, pp.56-76, 2012