Ontology=存有論; Chinese ontology=中國存有論; Copula=繫詞; Noumental ontology=無執存有論; Comparative philosophy=比較哲學
摘要
存有論是探討「作為存有的存有性」(being qua being)的一門學問，也是探討存有的絕對基礎的一門學問，不容許相對性的存在。雖然，我們可以採取西方意義的存有論來理解中國哲學，但相當程度中，會扭曲中國哲學發展的格調；甚至，即使是西洋哲學關於存有論的反省，存在不同思想家的解析格局間，仍有著詮釋上的空間，讓具有絕對意義的存有論，也存在相對詮釋的可能。漢語語言沒有如同印歐語系繫辭(尤其是be 動詞)的發展，所以也沒能發展出西方意義的存有論。探討中國的存有論，可以類比西方意義的存有論，也可以從特殊思維模式，探討中國式的存有論，端看研究的旨趣所在。本研究希望能對比東西哲學中，關於存有論的討論，以對比不同思維模式間的異同。理解「存有論」具有相對的絕對性，正足以提醒吾人，只有在客觀地省思與實踐中，才有可能真正開展出有意義的存有論！
As investigating “being qua being”, ontology is a discipline studying absolute bases of all things existed in which there’s no room for relativity at all. Though we can use western standard to catch Chinese Philosophy, yet to a considerable degree, it would distorted the style of Chinese Philosophy. Moreover, ever in the history or Western philosophy, different thinkers developed quite different interpretive framework about “Ontology” which illustrates a certain kind of relativism itself. There’s no “Copula” in Western sense (especially verb to be) in the ancient Chinese language tradition, and that’s the very reason Chinese couldn’t develop Ontology in the Western sense. To discuss so-called Chinese Ontology, we could study by either copying the Western correspondent pattern to or basing on Chinese own thinking structure. In this paper, the authors try to compare the different thinking patterns between Chinese and the Western philosophies, in order to find out the relativity amount the so-called absolutism. Only in the process of objective reflection.
