大问题和小细节之间的“反思平衡”——从“行动”和“行为”的概念区分谈起

华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版) ›› 2005, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (4): 16-23，30, 121.

大问题和小细节之间的“反思平衡”——从“行动”和“行为”的概念区分谈起

童世骏

华东师范大学, 哲学系上海社会科学院, 上海 200062

收稿日期:2005-01-04 出版日期:2005-07-01 发布日期:2005-04-25
作者简介:童世骏(1958-)，男，上海市人，华东师范大学哲学系教授、中国现代思想文化研究所副所长，上海社会科学院研究员

A Reflective Equilibrium between Big Questions and Small Particulars——Conceptual Distinctions between Action and Behavior

Shi-jun TONG

Received:2005-01-04 Online:2005-07-01 Published:2005-04-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

一些哲学译本和论著中出现的“行动”和“行为”之间的概念混淆, 是学术研究和日常生活中经常看到的许多概念混淆之一。澄清这些概念混淆, 提出新的概念区分, 守护对概念区分的敏感性, 是哲学研究的重要任务。这不仅意味着要对西方哲学文本做更确切的翻译, 而且意味着要对“二分法”作积极克服而不是简单摒弃, 要把概念分析和丰富想象结合起来; 这不仅意味着要用新的概念区分来代替或补充旧的概念区分, 而且意味着要设法寻找分析开来的几个方面之间的“中项”, 并通过进一步概念分析而展开新的研究, 力求达到大问题与小细节之间的“反思平衡”。

关键词: 行动, 行为, 概念区分, 二分法, 反思平衡

Abstract:

The conceptual confusion between"xing dong" (action) and "xing wei" (behavior) in quite a few philosophical translations and writings in Chinese is one of many conceptual confusions as frequently seen in our academic researches as well as in our everyday life.It is a major task of philosophy to clarify these conceptual confusions, to develop new conceptual distinctions, and to cultivate our sensitivity to conceptual distinctions.This not only means that we should keep translations more fidelity to their Western originals, but also means that we should positively overcome rather than simply deny varied"dichotomies", we should combine conceptual analyses with rich imaginations, and we should replace old-fashioned conceptual distinctions with new-types.Moreover, we should try our best to find out some"middle terms"that can mediate between those aspects that have been separated from each other, and to advance our research through newer and better work of conceptual analyses.All this means that we should, in our philosophical research, aim to have a "reflective equilibrium"between important problems and seemingly trivial distinctions.

Key words: action, behavior, conceptual distinction, dichotomy, reflective equilibrium

中图分类号:

童世骏. 大问题和小细节之间的“反思平衡”——从“行动”和“行为”的概念区分谈起[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2005, 37(4): 16-23，30, 121.

Shi-jun TONG. A Reflective Equilibrium between Big Questions and Small Particulars——Conceptual Distinctions between Action and Behavior[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2005, 37(4): 16-23，30, 121.

参考文献 17

1	Frederick Stoutland, 1981, Philosophy of Action: Davidson, von Wright, and the Debate over Causation, in Guttotm Flostad[ed. ], Contemporary Philosophy: A New Survey, Volume 3: Philosophy of Action, Martimus Jijh off Publishers, Hague/Boston/London.
2	Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0, 1998, "Intentionality".
3	金岳霖 1983, 知识论. 北京: 商务印书馆.
4	维特根斯坦. 陈嘉映译. 哲学研究[M]. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 2001.
5	尤尔根. 哈贝马斯. 曹卫东译. 交往行为理论(第1卷)[M]. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 2004.
6	Juergen Habermas, 1987, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Band 1, Suhrkamp Verlag.
7	Juergenn Hebermas, 1984, Theory of Communicative Action,, vol. 1, translated by Thomas McCarthy, Beacon Press, Boston.
8	Richard Rorty, 1999, Philosophy and Social Hope, PenguinBooks, London & NewYork.
9	Nicholas Rescher, 2001, Philosophical Reasoning: A Study in the Methodology of Philosophizing, Black well Publishers.
10	CharlesS. Peirce, 1955. Philosophical Writings of Peirce, selected ande dited with an introduction by Justus Buchler, Dover Publications, Inc., NewYork.
11	JuergenHabermas, 1995, Vorstudien und Ergaenzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
12	RichardRorty, 1989, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Cambridge University Press.
13	JuergenHabermas, 1972, Knowledge and Human Interests, translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro, Heinemann/London.
14	JohnRawls, 1999, Collected Papers, edited by Samuel Freeman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England.
15	JohnRawls, 1999, A Theory of Justice, revised edition, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mas sachusetts.
16	DagfinnFollesdal, 1996, Analytic Philosophy: What is it and why should one engage in it?Ratio, Vol. Ⅸ, December, No. 3, p. 202.
17	KarlPopper, 1986, How I See Philosophy? in S. G. Shanker and GroomHelm(ed. ): Philosophy in Britain Today.

[1]	汪春春. 非典与疫病研究：对五个关键视角的回溯[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2023, 55(4): 119-128.
[2]	易凌峰, 李腾, 林芹, 宋婕. 创业型领导、挑战性压力与员工创新行为——团队认同的调节作用[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2023, 55(3): 143-154.
[3]	李洋. 论摄影与图像分离的可能——摄影与图像的哲学考察[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2023, 55(2): 70-79.
[4]	王振源, 龙偲偲, 陈阳, 余明阳. 企业家慈善行为对消费者购买意愿影响的研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021, 53(3): 146-157.
[5]	甘莅豪. 论新闻报道中的误导性行为[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021, 53(2): 93-103.
[6]	王时中. 从“旁观的逻辑”到“行动的逻辑”——以米塞斯对韦伯的批评看话语体系的转换[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2020, 52(6): 115-123.
[7]	刘迎霜. 恶意诉讼规制研究——以侵权责任法为中心[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2020, 52(1): 97-106.
[8]	陈忠. 空间生产的涂层化及其伦理约束[J]. 华东师范大学(哲学社会科学版), 2019, 51(5): 154-159.
[9]	卢俊秀. 城市公有住房的居住权、政府责任与行为逻辑——以上海S社区为例[J]. 华东师范大学(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 50(4): 131-138.
[10]	陈志伟. 孟子的道德行动与人格生成[J]. 华东师范大学(哲学社会科学版), 2016, 48(2): 46-51.
[11]	胡范铸. 幽默语言、谎言、法律语言、机构形象修辞、实验修辞学……研究的逻辑起点 ——基于“新言语行为分析”的思考[J]. 华东师范大学(哲学社会科学版), 2015, 47(6): 1-9.
[12]	马维强,邓宏琴. 集体化时代乡村干部“反行为”研究 ——以山西平遥双口村为考察中心[J]. 华东师范大学(哲学社会科学版), 2015, 47(6): 70-77.
[13]	王盛；石建伟；周萍. 雇佣关系中员工心理契约的形成研究及其管理启示[J]. 华东师范大学(哲学社会科学版), 2014, 46(6): 139-145.
[14]	章素珍. 意向和行动：逻辑关系还是因果关系？ ——冯?赖特之逻辑关系论证[J]. 华东师范大学(哲学社会科学版), 2014, 46(1): 33-39.
[15]	吴兴华. 行动的没落 \| ——阿伦特论异化之源[J]. 华东师范大学(哲学社会科学版), 2014, 46(1): 47-52.