Proceedings of the 11th Interdisciplinary Symmetry Congress-Festival of the International Society for the Interdisciplinary Study of Symmetry. Special Theme: “Tradition and Innovation in Symmetry - Katachi”.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Ōmori Shōzō and Kotodama Theory: How Can We Overcome the Need for Bodily Encounters?Maki SatoIntroductionŌmori Shōzō is known for his theory of tachi-araware monism. Tachiaraware monism is his attempted counter-argument to the Cartesian dualism of the object–subject divide, or in his words, a divide between physical (butsuri, mono, science, object) and non-physical consciousness (ishiki, koto, perception, incident), perception (chikaku, 知覚) and conception (shikō, 思考). His concept of Kasane-egaki is (...) also often cited as a core concept of his theory of time.1 The main aim of this paper is to first overview the works of Ōmori since there is only a limited amount of his translated work so far.2 Consecutively, the paper focuses on Ōmori’s theory of kotodama and its related arguments with an intention to expand his concept of Kowaburi into the ethics of online encounters during the pandemic.The world in 2020 was suddenly forced to face the pandemic caused by COVID-19. What COVID-19 alerted us to is tremendous, and there are countless problems that the invisible virus has revealed. Among those are the hidden problems of contemporary society, not limited to the discrimination among races, gender, and jobs (white-collars versus essential workers), the problem of zoonosis, and the related environmental problems (climate change and intrusion into wild nature) caused by over-exploitation of nature. In developed countries, most students and those serving as intellectual workers face their daily lives being overly occupied with online lectures and meetings. COVID-19 worked to normalize remote work, which further normalized and forced our everyday life to shift to cyberspace. [End Page 101]In introducing and overviewing Ōmori’s philosophy, this paper attempts to see the current situation through Ōmori’s philosophy to draw out some ethical implications related to non-physical online encounters and how we can perceive human interactions and relationships under such conditions. Under the constraints caused by COVID-19, humans’ limitless desires to interact with others are expanding more so to the sphere of cyberspace, leading to technological development, such as VR. In short, first, the paper overviews Ōmori’s philosophy. Second, through the overview of Ōmori’s philosophy, the paper seeks adaptable philosophy of his that may work as soft binding grounding ethics for cyberspace encounters where substantial bodily encounters are void. In doing so, the paper intends to draw out weak binding ethics implied in Ōmori’s philosophy that may work to empathetically engage with others in cyberspace where embodied encounters with others are dissolved.Ōmori Shōzō and His Philosophy: A Short Introduction and OverviewIn his short essay introducing the Japanese philosophy of the 1970s, Yasuo Kobayashi coined the term “Komaba quartet” by selecting four active eminent philosophers based on the Komaba campus at the University of Tokyo.3 Among them is Ōmori Shōzō (1921–97), aligning with Hiromatsu Wataru (1933–94), Sakabe Megumi (1936–2009), and Inoue Tadashi (1926–2014). Ōmori is the oldest of the Komaba quartet and received higher education before World War II. He served at the Naval Technology Institute Mitaka Laboratory during the war with his physics degree from the Tokyo Imperial University.4 After the war, he studied philosophy at the University of Tokyo with an interest in phenomenology, leading him to study at Harvard and Stanford in the United States.During his professorship at the University of Tokyo, he inspired countless students who are now leading the philosophy academy in Japan, such as Noe Keiichi (1949–) and Noya Shigeki (1954–). In the round-table discussion titled “Explanatory Round-Table on the Charm of Ōmori’s Philosophy,” four of his former students—Iida Takashi and Tanji Nobuharu, in addition to Noe and Noya—worked on selecting his works. It is impressive to read that all four [End Page 102] of them recall how exciting and inspiring it was to take his classes.5 Iida recalls that Ōmori’s classes were exceptional since philosophy courses were all about reading, with might and main, the texts written in a language other than Japanese at the University of Tokyo. However, Ōmori, with his postwar American education, welcomed discussion with the students and was keen on questioning... (shrink)

Why would a philosopher choose to convey his ideas in the form of Manga? This discussion between Masahiro Morioka, author of Manga Introduction to Philosophy, and the translator of its French edition, Pierre Bonneels, shows how philosopher and artist Morioka became acquainted, through images, with fundamental abstract notions. After a short historical analysis of the aesthetic advantages of Manga, consideration is given to this unique way of provoking thought. On this basis, theoretical aspects of “time” and the “I” proposed by (...) Ōmori Shōzō are compared with Morioka’s Manga presentation. Although the questions raised are universal, the authors note that the use of Japanese metaphors enables these two thinkers to draw on a concrete understanding of notions like temporality and identity. (shrink)

Ce texte présente une partie de la pensée trouvée au sein de l’oeuvre de jeunesse du philosophe japonais Ōmori Shōzō qui appartient à l’école de Tokyo. L’objet de l’analyse proposée est celui de la logique. Le défi est de décrire que la nécessité des énoncés logiques exacts repose sur l’expérience. Ainsi cet examen découvre et expose le logicisme hyper empirique auquel Ōmori nous invite. Nous parlerons du sens possible de la logique « non scientifique » pour insister ensuite sur le (...) sens scientifique de cette dernière. Finalement, nous discuterons de la provenance de la nécessité que comportent en elles les phrases logiques. Nous présenterons ainsi deux origines distinctes de la nécessité. (shrink)

reel 1-4. A. Okamatsu Yōkoku kankei -- reel 5-8. B. Shokan -- reel 9-28. C. Taiwan kankei -- reel 29-36. D. Minami Manshū Tetsudō kankei -- reel 37-40. E. Saiban kankei -- reel 41-45. F. Daigaku kankei -- reel 46-54. G. Rippoe kankei -- reel 55. H. Dokushō (shoehin katarogu-rui) -- reel 56. I. Takushoku kankei, J. Ōshū kikō kankei (1) -- reel 57. J. Ōshū kikō kankei (2) -- reel 58-72. K. Nōto rui -- reel 73-112. L. Genkō, ronbun (...) -- reel 113. M. Chōji kankei, N. Sonota (1) -- reel 114-122. N. Sonota. (shrink)

水戸藩に仕えた儒者・会沢正志斎が畏友・青山延光と交わした書簡を翻字・解題。歴史的事件を背景にした幕末史の一級史料。.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Guest Editor’s IntroductionNakajima Takahiro 「東京学派」とは聞きなれない名称であろう。日本研究において「京都学派」は大変よく知られている。たとえ「京都学派」が、「無の論理は論理ではない」と述べた上で、戸坂潤が発明した批判的な概念であったとしても 、現在ではそれは西田幾多郎や田辺元を中心とした一大哲学運動として世界的に認知されている。ところが、西田にしても田辺にしてももともとは東京帝国大学で学んだ学生であった。また、戦前においては、井上哲次郎か ら桑木厳翼へと続く東京帝国大学哲学科の流れは、当時の社会状況と相互に影響しあって、一定の意義を示していたのである。また、大森荘蔵、廣松渉、坂部恵といった戦後の東京大学の哲学者たちは、「京都学派」の問題 系を乗り越えることを重視していた。 この特別号では、発見的概念として「東京学派」を用いて、戦前・戦後におけるその意義と広がりを探究することにした。それは東京大学もしくは東京帝国大学に限定されたものではなく、それ以外の東京圏の大学との相互 交流も含まれるものである。「京都学派」に対しては、政治との距離をどう測るかがしばしば議論されてきたが、「東京学派」は政治により密着したものである。日本の近代の哲学の有している政治性そして倫理性を考える のであれば、やはり「東京学派」の議論は避けて通る ことのできないものである。 無論、「学派」というほどのまとまりを「東京学派」が有しているわけではないことも確かである。西田幾多郎が「京都学派」で果たした中心性は、「東京学派」にはない。そこで、トマス・カスリスが示唆するように、「 学派」の代わりに「サークル」や「スタイル」という言葉を使った方がより正確かもしれない。それでも、あえて「東京学派」と呼ぶのは、「京都学派」に比べて関心を持たれることの少ない、しかし当時は圧倒的な影響力 を有し、戦後決定的に忘却されていった東京の哲学者たちに光をあて、近代日本の哲学の総体を明らかにしたいからである。「東京学派」の研究は緒についたばかりである。今後、国際的な研究の高まりを期待しながら擱筆 する。The “Tokyo School” may be an unfamiliar term to readers. The Kyoto School is very well known in Japanese studies. Even if the Kyoto School is a critical concept invented by Tosaka Jun, who stated [End Page 2] that “the logic of nothingness is not logic,” it is now recognized worldwide as a major philosophical movement led by Nishida Kitarō and Tanabe (...) Hajime. However, both Nishida and Tanabe were originally students at Tokyo Imperial University. In addition, before the war, the output of the Department of Philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University, from Inoue Tetsujirō to Kuwaki Gen’yoku, had a certain significance because it interacted with the social conditions of the time. In addition, postwar philosophers at the University of Tokyo, such as Ōmori Shōzō, Hiromatsu Wataru, and Sakabe Megumi emphasized overcoming the problematics of the Kyoto School.In this special issue, we use the Tokyo School as a heuristic concept to explore its significance and spread in the prewar and postwar periods. It is not limited to the University of Tokyo or Tokyo Imperial University but includes interactions with other universities in the Tokyo area. While the Kyoto School has often been discussed in terms of how to measure its distance from politics, the Tokyo School is more closely connected to politics. If we consider the political and ethical dimensions of modern Japanese philosophy, we cannot avoid discussing the Tokyo School.Of course, it is true that the Tokyo School is not as coherent as a “school.” The central role that Nishida fulfilled in the Kyoto School is perhaps lacking in the Tokyo School. Therefore, as Thomas P. Kasulis suggests, it might be more accurate to use the term “circle” or “style” instead of “school.” Nevertheless, I dare to call it the Tokyo School because I would like to shed light on the Tokyo philosophers who were less popular than those of the Kyoto School but whose influence was overwhelming at the time and who were definitively forgotten after the war, so as to clarify the totality of philosophy in modern Japan.Research on the Tokyo School has only just begun. I am writing this introductory note in anticipation of further international research on the Tokyo School. [End Page 3]Copyright © 2023 State University of New York Press... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Guest Editor’s Concluding RemarksMaki SATO 本特別号は戦前・戦後の東京、特に東京帝国大学、東京大学を活躍の場に据えた哲学者たちの智の営みに光をあて特集した初の試みである。「東京学派」との掛け声に対して、いったいどれくらいの論文が集まるのだろうか 、蓋を開けてみるまでは全く分からなかった。特別号編者の一人としては、東京という場で行われた様々な哲学者たちによる知的営みのうち、いつの時代の、どの哲学者が研究対 象となっているのかを知ることは大変興味深かった。巻頭論文としては、『日本哲学小史(Engaging Japanese Philosophy: A Short History)』を上梓されたオハイオ州立大学名誉教授のトマス・カスリス先生に、2019年1月下旬に東京大学東洋文化研究所にて行われた国際ワークショップ「日本哲学と東京大学の哲学」、また同年11月下旬 に東京大学本郷キャンパスにおいて開催された集中講義でお話しいただいた内容に基づき、基調論文を執筆いただいた。快くお引き受け下さったことに、ここに心から感謝の意 を示したい。 今回、収録した論文が取り上げていたのは、井上哲次郎(1856~1944)、清沢満之(1863~1903)、桑木厳翼(1874~1946)、大森荘蔵(1921~1997)である。西周(1829~1897 )がphilosophyを「希哲学」と翻訳してから、新たな学問として日本に哲学が根付き、西洋哲学の解釈から日本独自の哲学へと花開き始めた頃の哲学者が主に取り上げられている。東京の哲学者たちの知的営みの 多くは「京都学派」と比較すると忘却され、埋もれてしまった概念が他にも多々あるだろう。しかしながら、東京という場所において、彼ら哲学者たちが掴もうとしていた新たな概念は、常に確実に日本の中枢、政治や経済 のダイナミックな動向への応答としてあったものである。今後、日本哲学を通して私たち人類の行く先を見据える上でも、東京という場所において活躍した過去の哲学者たちが、言葉や概念で掴もうとしていたものを、本特 集号が、再度、取り上げて見直す一機会にな れば幸いである。 [End Page 125]This special issue is the first attempt to highlight the intellectual activities of philosophers who were active in prewar and post-war Tokyo, particularly at the Tokyo Imperial University and the University of Tokyo. I had no idea how many papers we would receive under the special issue “Tokyo School” until we closed (...) our call for papers. As one of the editors of the special issue, it was exciting to know, among the intellectual activities conducted by various philosophers based in Tokyo, which philosophers were the subjects of contemporary research from which period. It is fascinating to see and to read how the philosophical thinking of the past may resonate and still keep on inspiring us to face humanity’s issues of the twenty-first century.For the opening article, we invited Professor Emeritus Thomas P. Kasulis of Ohio State University, who published Engaging Japanese Philosophy: A Short History back in 2018, to write a keynote paper. He kindly sent us an article based on his presentations at the international workshop “Japanese Philosophy and the Philosophy of the University of Tokyo” held in late January 2019 at the University of Tokyo’s Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia and during an intensive lecture held in late November 2019 at the Hongo Campus. I would like to express our sincere gratitude to him for contributing to this special issue.The papers included in this volume cover Inoue Tetsujiro (1856–1944), Kiyosawa Manshi (1863–1903), Kuwaki Genyoku (1874–1946), and Omori Shozo (1921–97). The focus of this volume is on philosophers from the period when philosophy took root in Japan as a new discipline after Nishi Amane (1829–97) translated the word “philosophy” as tetsugaku. The late nineteenth to the early twentieth century was a transition period when philosophical thoughts began to blossom from an interpretation of Western philosophy into a unique style of Japanese philosophy, which I see as an attempt at amalgamation to close the gap between West and East.Compared to the well-studied Kyoto School centered around Nishida, from the Tokyo School there are probably many other concepts that have been forgotten and buried. The new concepts that philosophers of Tokyo were trying to grasp were always a response to the significant trends of the time, including responses to the dynamism of Japan’s political and economic situation, Tokyo being the capital of Japan. We hope that this special issue will provide [End Page 126] an opportunity to take a fresh look at and discover what the philosophers active in Tokyo were trying to grasp through words and concepts that still engage well with universal questions that remain relevant to the humanity of the current time. [End Page 127]Copyright © 2023 State University of New York Press... (shrink)

In this anthology, works of ten Japanese thinkers, many of whom are no longer alive but who have been household names among the Japanese intellectual community, are selected and translated into English, accompanied by a brief introduction of each thinker. An additional three substantial essays by scholars of Japanese philosophy make this volume a compelling read for anyone interested in the Japanese philosophical endeavor since 1945. This anthology clearly goes beyond the familiar parameter of the Kyoto School of Philosophy.

L’acte de la philosophie japonaise est celui d’un évidement de soi: acte d’accueil des traditions philosophiques du monde, acte en résonance, créateur d’une terminologie, d’une logique, d’une conceptualité originales, s’alimentant aux sources d’une pensée mythique jamais tarie. Les textes présentés ici en feront sentir l’inclassable nouveauté: cette philosophie n’est ni purement shintoïste, bouddhique, chrétienne, néoconfucianiste ; elle n’est ni « orientale » ni « occidentale », mais proprement japonaise.