著者

荒井 宏祐

出版者

文教大学

雑誌

文教大学国際学部紀要 (ISSN:09173072)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.9, no.1, pp.1-18, 1998-10

---

This paper elucidates Rousseau's three-dimensional perception of nature. He first viewed nature with the compound vision of his mind. In this perceptual mode, for example, he not only celebrated the beautiful charm of vegetables,but also perceived their ecological function. Second, he recognized the general characteristics and structure of flowers, but also perceived "ľordre des choses" in the world, reflecting a perceptual insight into the natural environment. Third, he often drew out social implications from observed natural phenomena, thus perceiving "signs" in the natural world that indicated essential aspects of his thought on the relations between humans and society. Thus, Rousseau viewed nature through the refractive lens of his own soul. It is said that Rousseau used. the term "nature" in many diverse ways. In this paper, I introduce an alternative thesis. Rousseau's wide and deep vision of the natural environment opens the reader to the idea of virtue as a possible solution for social dilemmas we confront in contemporary environmental problems. The will of each individual must be reconciled to the general will which may exist in the global ecosystem, as Rousseau anticipated in the context of "Discours sur ľ Économie Politique", "Émile" and "Du Contrat Social". J.-J.ルソー(Jean-Jacques Rousseau,1712~1778)はその著作の中で、ある言辞をしばしば多義的に用いることがある。カッシーラーは「社会」や「sentiment」の「二重語義によくよく注意しなければならない。」と述べ、また恒藤武二は「一般意志という語はルソーにあってはきわめて多義的に使用されている。」と指摘している。とりわけ「難解な語」とされているのが「自然」であり、平岡昇はこの語が「本来彼に独得な両義的思考法の好対象」ではないかと言っている。舟橋豊は、この語義の分析を試み、ルソーの「自然」とは、「神であり、宇宙を統べる整然たる法であり、人間界の正にして善なる自然法であり、崇高美あふれるアルプスの山河であり、さらには生まれながらにして善なる人間の本性でもある。」と述べている。平岡はまた、ルソーの「自然」は彼自身の「多様で自由な使用法を通じて人々の心につよく訴えかけてくる魔力」を持つとしている。 たしかに「自然」の語は、「ルソー的ディアレクティック」とともに、あたかも『オデュッセイアー』にあらわれる魔女セイレーンの「甘く楽しい歌声」のように、我々を「前よりもっと物識りになりお帰り」願うがごとく、さまざまな声をもって語りかけてくるようである。 ともあれルソーの「自然」の中には、上記舟橋の分析にも「アルプスの山河」とある通り、自然環境が含まれていることは明きらかである。これまで筆者は、ルソーの自然環境としての「自然」認識のうちには、生態作用を持つ「環境」としての「自然」認識が含まれていることなどを指摘するとともに、これらとルソーの文明社会批判や「自然人=エミール」の「自然現象・事物の教育」=「環境教育」との関連などに考察を加えてきた。本稿では、これらをもとに、ルソーの自然環境としての「自然」の多義性の特徴についてさらに考察と整理を試みるとともに、新たに彼の「自然」あるいは「環境」認識と、その政治思想上の基本概念の一つである、「一般意志」・「徳」や、「万物の秩序」とのかかわりを探り、これらをふまえて現在環境問題に関連して注目されつつある「社会的ジレンマ」問題との関係を、他の諸言説とともに一瞥することで、ルソー思想の現代的意義の一端に触れてみた。 これらはいまだ試論的段階ではあるが、その目的は、これまでの検討にひきつづき、ルソーの社会・教育・政治・宗教・国際平和・文学などの諸思想・言説と、「自然」あるいは「環境」認識がいかなる関連を有するのかを探索することにある。

著者

丸山 鋼二

出版者

文教大学

雑誌

文教大学国際学部紀要 (ISSN:09173072)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.19, no.1, pp.139-156, 2008-07

---

After Islam was brought into the west area of the Eastern Turkistan (Xinjiang) by the Qara-Khan Dynasty in the 10th century, it took 500 years until the establishment of Islamization in the Eastern Turkistan when the Buddhism power was expelled from Hami (the east of Xinjiang) in 1513. At the beeginning of the 12th century, the Qara-Khan Dynasty was driven away from the eastern Central Asia by non-Islam Qara Khitay. From the beginning of the 13th century the eastern Central Asia was also under the rule of non-Islam power, the Mongol Empire. During the two hundred years, Islam lost its superior position in the central part of the Silk-Road. Islam confronted with the biggest crisis due to the prosperity of Buddhism and Nestorianism.The reason is that both Qara Khitay and the Mongol Empire executed a generous policy toward religions. Propagation of various religions was allowed to be held freely, resulting in the change of religioussituation in Xinjiang from separation between Islam and Buddhism into simultaneous coexistence of various religions. In the Turpan Basin of east Xinjiang, under the rule the Uyghur Kingdom(高昌回鶻王国Khocho Uyghur Kingdom), Buddhism reached its height of prosperity. The erecting of stone cave temples and the translation of the Buddhist scriptures to Uyghur language were carried out on a large-scale. In the south and west parts of Xinjiang, Islam was continuously the main religion though decline occurred to some extend. In north Xinjiang, Nestorianism was popular. The policy of treating all religions equally was maintained in the Mongol Empire. The Buddhist Uyghur people who developed an advanced culture and Muslims who demonstrated the ability in financial economy were promoted to be senior officials regardless of their religious belief, supporting the rule of the Mongol Emipre in such a way.

著者

椎野 信雄

出版者

文教大学

雑誌

文教大学国際学部紀要 (ISSN:09173072)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.11, no.2, pp.23-42, 2001-02

---

Various research programs in the "new" sociology of scientific knowledge emerged in the latter half of 1970s. British sociologists such as Barnes, Bloor, Mulkay, Collins and so forth were challenging the Mertonian functionalist sociology of science. The aim of the new sociology of scientific knowledge has been to investigate and explain the "contents" of scientific knowledge per se. Ethnomethodological studies of scientific practices were surrounded by the emergence of these "new" programs in social studies of science. Although ethnomethodological studies of science have often been understood without being distinguished from these "new" programs, it seems that ethnomethodological studies differ from these programs in their perspective on language, science and action. In spite of their commitments to a supposedly "radical" view of scientific knowledge, the new sociologies use some conventional social science terminologies and explanatory formulae, and seem caught in a trap concerning the usage of ordinary language in social science and philosophy. Garfinke's ethnomethodology appears to advocate a complete departure from these conventional views of language and science which the new programs have taken over. We will make sense of ethonomethodological studies of science by reviewing how ethonomethodology sees the "new" programs. In this paper we would like to leave a port to the sea of argumentation by regarding ethnomethodologist M. Lynch's studies of science as leading light. Ethnomethodology's agenda is, according to Lynch, to reconsider what it means to produce observations, descriptions and explanations of something "actual." Garfinkel's program is not interested in explaining scientific facts by reference to the social context of their production. The program does not try to construct comprehensive models of activities and institutions. Its objective is to examine how scientific works are produced from the disciplinary-specific Lebenswelt of scientific projects. The aim is not to explain "discovery" as a matter of "social construction" but to try to gain a better understanding of scientific work.