亚里士多德注疏文献的历史与古代哲学研究的多重向度  

The History of Aristotle's Commentary Literature and the Multiple Orientations of Ancient Philosophy Studies

作　　者：常旭旻[1] 黄成达 CHANG Xumin;HUANG Chengda(School of Philosophy and Social Development,Huaqiao University,Xiamen Fujian 361021,China)

机构地区：[1]华侨大学哲学与社会发展学院,福建厦门361021

出　　处：《上饶师范学院学报》2024年第4期37-46,共10页Journal of Shangrao Normal University

基　　金：国家社科基金重点项目(18AZX014)。

摘　　要：关于亚里士多德著作的研究催生了众多的希腊语、拉丁语、阿拉伯语注疏文献,这些注疏文献是不同文化对亚里士多德著作及其思想进行接受与改造的成果,构成了亚里士多德文本的多元接受史。文本的不同接受与多元流传不仅具有文献学意义,也为当代亚里士多德哲学研究揭示了多元的文本史路径和不同的理论史取向。亚里士多德著作希腊文注疏创作及其流传不仅具有多重向度的历史学意义,而且也历史地生成了“原本研究”“接受史研究”“历史比较研究”三个不同向度的古代哲学研究方法路径,从关于“第一实体”的唯名论与唯实论立场之争可见,我们对古代哲学论题的研究,不仅仅是针对古代哲学家自身文本的争论,而且必然融合了来自后世注疏文献的接受与比较等思想史向度的要素。Studies of Aristotles writings have historically generated numerous commentaries in Greek,Latin,and Arabic.These commentaries not only represent the reception and transformation of Aristotle's writings and his philosophy by different cultures but also constitute the history of the pluralistic reception of Aristotles texts.The different receptions and pluralistic circulation of texts not only have philological significance,but also reveal multiple textual history paths and different theoretical historical orientations for contemporary Aristotelian philosophical research.Greek commentaries on Aristotle's writings and their circulation not only have a multi-directional historiographical significance,but also historically generate three different orientations of approaches,such as"original study,""reception history study,""comparative history study".From the dispute between the nominalist and actualist positions of the first substance,it can be seen that people's research of ancient philosophy is not only aimed at the original debate on the texts of the ancient philosophers themselves,but also necessarily integrates elements of intellectual history such as the reception and comparison of the commentaries literature from later generations.

关 键 词：亚里士多德 注疏文献 古代哲学 研究方法 

分 类 号：B502.233[哲学宗教—外国哲学]