This article presents Minobe Tatsukichi’s emperor organ theory as a novel understanding of the temporality of founding. In contrast to a conventional framework of founding which legitimizes the constitution by postulating the pre-constitutional power of “the people,” emperor organ theory invents “the people” out of the Meiji Constitution as a democratically empowered subject to-come. In so doing, emperor organ theory calls upon the transformation of shin-min (臣民), the presumed subject of the emperor, into koku-min (国民), the people of this (...) constitutional state. However, emperor organ theory also highlights the contingency of founding moments: though koku-min emerged through the Diet as a conceptually new political actor in Japan’s nascent constitutional state, it never solidified its sovereign status as “the people.”. (shrink)

Kur’an’ın kendine has birbiriyle irtibatlı kelimeler dünyası bulunmakta-dır. Doğru bir Allah tasavvuru, Allah-âlem, Allah-kul, âlem-kul ilişkisinin nasıl olması gerektiği bu kelime dünyası tarafından anlatılmaktadır. Bu nok-tada Kur’an’da herhangi bir konu anlatılırken aralarında sıkı irtibat olan kelime grupları kullanılmıştır. Örneğin Allah Kur’ân’da kendisini, Rakîb, Alîm, Basîr, Habîr, Latîf vb. lafızlarla insanın idrakine yansıtmakta ve böylece doğru bir Allah Tasavvuru oluşmasını amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, öncelikle ra-ka-be /رقب kökünün etimolojisi üzerinde durulacaktır. Zira bir kelimenin dildeki asli anlamı ve türevleriyle beraber sonradan kazandığı anlamların (...) tespiti, ilgili kelimenin anlam sahasını keşfetme ile mümkündür. Akabinde bu kökün türevlerinden “Rakîb” kelimesi ile anlam ilişkisi olan ve Yüce Allah’ın Kur’ân’da kendisine nispet ettiği sıfatlarından, Alîm, Basîr, Habîr, Şehîd kelimeler tahlil edilecektir. Bu bağlamda doğrudan olmasa da dolaylı olarak Allah’ın görmesini ve gözetlemesini ifade eden kelimelere ve ilgili âyetlere yer verilecektir. Böylece ra-ka-be kökünün Kur’an siyakındaki anlam sahası ortaya konulmuş olacaktır. (shrink)

後期水戸学の中心的存在で水戸学の本流であった藤田幽谷の青少年期の学問成果に注目し、その形成の一端を明らかにする。幽谷門下の吉田活堂を中心とする水戸の国学、そして『大日本史』や『扶桑拾葉集』の研究を経て 辿り着く、幽谷研究の決定版。.

Schopenhauer assumes that our physical drives, on which depend our desires and wants, set the ground of knowledge and being. These drives are in the very source of our biological as well as our intellectual acts, i.e. at the essential content of man as a rational being. Moreover, not only men, but all beings, organic and inorganic get objectivity as a product of will. Will is the thing-in-itself which shows itself in the reality as a whole and in individual objects. (...) Schopenhauer argues that the thing-in-itself is will. In short, he will say that the “thing-in-itself” has an intelligible quality and that it is “will”. Kant associates the unknown character of the first cause with the inconclusive research of causes. This case, known as “the third antinomy”, takes the principle of causality to the impossibility of the existence of the first cause. Schopenhauer’s famous criticism of Kant relies on this point. Thus, he goes on to construct his own theory of causality and of space-time. Schopenhauer does this in the context of the sufficient reason principle. This study examines how this principle is handled by Schopenhauer in the famous fourfold root doctrine. According to Schopenhauer, there are four principles that govern four separate classes of objects. It is precisely this last principle which opens the way to Schopenhauer's metaphysics of will. His original interpretation appears at this point against traditional metaphysics. This study examines the theoretical roots of this philosopher's later, practical tendencies. (shrink)

dai 1-kan. Nishida Kitarō -- dai 2-kan. Keiken to jikaku -- dai 3-kan. Basho -- dai 4-kan. Zen, kongenteki ningen -- dai 5-kan. Zen no fūkei -- dai 6-kan. Dōtei "Jūgyūzu" o ayumu -- dai 7-kan. Maisutā Ekkuharuto -- dai 8-kan. Hi shinpi shugi -- dai 9-kan. Kokū/Sekai -- dai 10-kan. Jiko no genshōgaku -- dai 11-kan. Shūkyō to wa nani ka.

Nishida Kitarō, the cofounder and central figure of the Kyoto school, once stated that to be is to be implaced. Nishida’s second generation Kyoto School descendant and current representative of the Kyoto School, Ueda Shizuteru, furthered this concept to understand both place and implacement in terms of a twofold world or twofold horizon. Nishida initially understood the self in its unobjectifiability as a kind of place wherein subject and object correlate. But this placial self came to be seen as itself (...) implaced within a contextualizing place wherein it can interact with things in the world and with other subjects in an “I-thou” relationship, but which ultimately is further implaced in an abyssal place of absolute nothing. He developed this understanding of place in terms of the socio-historical world and ultimately in terms of the divinity that negates itself in kenōsis to make room for the world of many. Roughly speaking and in a variety of versions, Nishida takes the system of places to involve the following: the place of beings or objects, the place that is consciousness, the place that is the world of human interactivity, and finally the place of absolute nothing. Ueda on the other hand, focuses on the twofold structure of place itself as involving the twofold structure of the horizon of experience. We are implaced in the world that in turn is implaced in a boundless openness. Our place is twofold in that there is the world of significances on this side of its horizon and the a-meaning of the nothing beyond its horizon. While Nishida formulates the system of places in terms of place of being, place of relative nothing, and place of absolute nothing, Ueda uses the fraction symbol as world/open expanse to convey his idea of “world amidst the open expanse.” I will explore this legacy of place as Nishida first formulated it and then as developed more recently by Ueda. While doing so I will also discuss each of their relations to phenomenology. Nishida was developing his theory of place cotemporaneous to the careers of Husserl and Heidegger. While he was aware of their work, it was only to a limited extent and he was quite critical of both thinkers and phenomenology in general. On the other hand, Ueda is quite knowledgeable of the phenomenological movement of Europe, having studied under Nishida’s student, Nishitani Keiji, who had studied under Heidegger and, himself, having studied in Germany. He incorporates the insights of Husserl, Heidegger, Bollnow, Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, Eliade, and others, in developing his own understanding of place. What both Nishida and Ueda offer vis-à-vis a phenomenology of place is a sophisticated analysis of that other to being that place as defined and limited must assume: what Nishida calls the absolute nothing (zettai mu) and what Ueda calls the open expanse (kokū). I will then end by looking at the implications these ideas have for our current situation of globalization in the contemporary world. (shrink)

Nishida Kitarō, the cofounder and central figure of the Kyoto school, once stated that to be is to be implaced. Nishida’s second generation Kyoto School descendant and current representative of the Kyoto School, Ueda Shizuteru, furthered this concept to understand both place and implacement in terms of a twofold world or twofold horizon. Nishida initially understood the self in its unobjectifiability as a kind of place wherein subject and object correlate. But this placial self came to be seen as itself (...) implaced within a contextualizing place wherein it can interact with things in the world and with other subjects in an “I-thou” relationship, but which ultimately is further implaced in an abyssal place of absolute nothing. He developed this understanding of place in terms of the socio-historical world and ultimately in terms of the divinity that negates itself in kenōsis to make room for the world of many. Roughly speaking and in a variety of versions, Nishida takes the system of places to involve the following: the place of beings or objects, the place that is consciousness, the place that is the world of human interactivity, and finally the place of absolute nothing. Ueda on the other hand, focuses on the twofold structure of place itself as involving the twofold structure of the horizon of experience. We are implaced in the world that in turn is implaced in a boundless openness. Our place is twofold in that there is the world of significances on this side of its horizon and the a-meaning of the nothing beyond its horizon. While Nishida formulates the system of places in terms of place of being, place of relative nothing, and place of absolute nothing, Ueda uses the fraction symbol as world/open expanse to convey his idea of “world amidst the open expanse.” I will explore this legacy of place as Nishida first formulated it and then as developed more recently by Ueda. While doing so I will also discuss each of their relations to phenomenology. Nishida was developing his theory of place cotemporaneous to the careers of Husserl and Heidegger. While he was aware of their work, it was only to a limited extent and he was quite critical of both thinkers and phenomenology in general. On the other hand, Ueda is quite knowledgeable of the phenomenological movement of Europe, having studied under Nishida’s student, Nishitani Keiji, who had studied under Heidegger and, himself, having studied in Germany. He incorporates the insights of Husserl, Heidegger, Bollnow, Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, Eliade, and others, in developing his own understanding of place. What both Nishida and Ueda offer vis-à-vis a phenomenology of place is a sophisticated analysis of that other to being that place as defined and limited must assume: what Nishida calls the absolute nothing (zettai mu) and what Ueda calls the open expanse (kokū). I will then end by looking at the implications these ideas have for our current situation of globalization in the contemporary world. (shrink)

In the ancient Arabic dictionaries, the root “ḍ-r-r” has three main meanings: “to harm”, “to gather” and “strength”. In the course of history, many words have been derived from these root meanings and have acquired various meanings. In the present article, the words derived from the root “ḍ-r-r” are semantically analyzed. First, the etymological origins of the root as well as its compounds and their meanings in early Arabic dictionaries are analyzed. In this context, it was aimed to determine the (...) literal and figurative meanings they acquired over time. In doing so, Arabic poetry of the Jahiliyyah period and hadiths were also utilized. Afterwards, in order to determine the semantic meaning pattern of the root “ḍ-r-r” and its compounds, words containing antonymous and proximate meaning relations with this root were included and their semantic relations were compared. While words have “essential meanings” that they always carry and do not lose no matter which system they enter, there are also “relative meanings” that do not originate from the root of words but arise from the system of relations they are in. For this reason, in the next stage, it was aimed to determine the relative meanings of the related words in the Qur’anic context by including the uses of the root “ḍ-r-r” and its derivatives in the Qur’an. Finally, various uses of words that have a semantically antonymous or proximate relationship with the root “ḍ-r-r” and its de-rivatives in the Qur’an were presented and their semantic pattern was tried to be determined. (shrink)