Abstract

Nishida Kitarô’s is generally depicted as a philosopher of nothingness. In the present paper, I would like to discuss this suggestive but ambiguous characterization, starting the enquiry with the seminal essay he wrote in order to answer to the critique of his celebrated topological logic, by Sôda Kiichirô. Firstly, I focus on the last sections of Nishida’s essay, to make clear in what sense we can still speak of “being” within the frame of such an unfathomable logic of nothingness. In other words, Nishida is a philosopher of nothingness to the extent that he meditates being. Secondly, I demonstrate that the very notions of nothingness and being can be logically articulated through a topo-logy that yields new insights into the idea of “predication”, according to what I call a “second sketch of topo-logization”. Now, what is the ultimate meaning of such a topology for Nishida? Finally, I establish how a painstaking reading of his late 1944 correspondence with Mutai Risaku reveals his unsuspected project of reapprehending metaphysics under the form of “topological logic”, rather than “logic of place” or “place-logic”. 摘要 西田幾多郎通常被描述為「無」的哲學家。左右田喜一郎曾經批評他 著名的拓樸學邏輯，在本文中，筆者先談西田回應左右田的批評，據此討 論「無」這種暗示性但又曖昧不明的描繪。 首先，筆者把重點放在西田這篇文章的最後幾個部分，以便釐清在 「無」這種深不可測的邏輯架構下，如何能繼續討論「存有」。換言之， 西田只在「存有」的思考方面，才稱得上是一位「無」的哲學家。其次， 筆者將具體說明，依照所謂「拓樸化的第二概略」，即可透過一種對「述 詞」的觀念提出新見解的拓樸學，在邏輯上清楚說明「無」與「存有」的 概念。對西田而言，這樣一種拓樸學的終極意義為何？最後，筆者將證 明，只要費心閱讀西田與霧臺理作在一九四四年末期的書信往來，即可理 解他如何在「拓樸學邏輯」，而非「場所邏輯」的形式下，重新理解形上 學。