Hiromatsu Wataru

La recepción y comprensión de la filosofía japonesa en el contexto académico hispanohablante todavía carece de una estructura coherente. Después de la nada intenta corregir algunos sesgos persistentes y subyacentes en los libros disponibles en español sobre filosofía japonesa: el nacionalismo metodológico, el criterio en la selección de los autores y la categorización de la transmisión del conocimiento de figuras, escuelas o textos de la contemporaneidad filosófica en Japón. De este modo, el valioso aporte de esta obra no es solo (...) sumarse a la tarea de proyectar globalmente la filosofía japonesa para hacerla más accesible al lector hispanohablante, sino también contribuir al esfuerzo de identificar los temas filosóficos contemporáneos que surgen en y desde Japón, recuperando autores poco estudiados como Tsuchida Kyōson, Miki Kiyoshi, Tosaka Jun, Maruyama Masao, Tanaka Mitsu, Karatani Kōjin o Nagasaki Hiroshi, entre otros. (shrink)

1960年代以後、日本の思想・哲学に大きな影響力をもった廣松渉(1933‐94)。この独自な哲学者の人と思想と時代と影響関係の全体を思想史上に位置づけ、その思考過程を精密に追跡した、気鋭の書。.

Hiromatsu Wataru’s philosophical thought revolves around an analysis of what he calls the “fourfold structure.” According to Hiromatsu, all phenomena in the world are structured in such a fourfold manner that “a given presents itself as something to someone as Someone,” and these four moments of the phenomenon are not independent elements, but exist only as terms of the functional relationship. This paper surveys and critically examines this theory of the fourfold structure, and shows, in particular, how this theory, while (...) largely presented as synchronic structural analysis, contains some conceptual motifs going beyond the synchronic framework. Specifically, with a focus on the process in which there arises a meaning common to different phenomenal givens and to different knowers, my analysis suggests the way in which phenomena are dynamically structured and thereby displaced in meaning as well as in the knowers’ role relationship. (shrink)

In his project of going beyond the “modern worldview,” Hiromatsu Wataru attached great importance to Ernst Mach’s philosophical thought and Einstein’s theory of relativity as challenging the premises of modern philosophy, which he characterized as substantialist and bound by the subject / object schema. This paper surveys Hiromatsu’s analysis of Mach’s phenomenalist element-monism, specifically his critique of Mach’s insufficient break with modern philosophy; his inquiry into Einstein’s relativity theory with a focus on its intersubjective cognitive structure; and the way he (...) extends his views on these themes to a general ontological-epistemological theory of the “fourfold structure.” Finally, it examines questions about Hiromatsu’s arguments regarding the tension between the dimensions of synchronic structure and structuring movement. An earlier version of this paper can be found as “Philosophers” in John T. Blackmore, Itagaki Ryōichi, and Tanaka Setsuko, eds., Ernst Mach’s Influence Spreads, 425–76. (shrink)

The present volume is the latest example of what scholars of Japanese philosophy have been up to in recent years. The papers collected here, most of them presented at conferences held in Barcelona and Nagoya during 2016, have been arranged in four thematic parts. The first two parts cover the history of Japanese philosophy, as their topics extend from premodern thinkers to twentieth century philosophers; the last two parts focus on Nishida and Watsuji respectively.

Le texte qui suit est la traduction d’un texte du philosophe japonais Wataru Hiromatsu, intitulé « Imiron Kenkyû Oboegaki ». C’est un article publié dans le Nagoya Kogyô Daigaku Gakuhô en 1965. La traduction a été faite à partir de la version contenue dans...

Le présent article a pour but d’expliciter le caractère d’existence de la signification du point de vue de la sémantique. Il est ici prouvé que la signification ne peut être en tant que telle ni psychique, ni physique, ni même métaphysique, ce qui nous pousse à nous opposer à toutes les vues qui ont eu cours sur la signification. Car la signification consiste, en soi et pour soi, dans le rapport quadripartite...

This is a set of essays and translations that covers comprehensively all of Japanese philosophy.

Mochizuki clear Division of the "Marxist theory of history" is a 20th century book on Marx's one of the best. His "historical theory" is based on the 1960s Japanese Marxist scholars of three peaks: Hiromatsu philosopher, historian Otsuka Hisao, economists and peace Tian Qingming criticism on the basis of absorption is comprehensive and go beyond these three. Mochizuki "historical theory" is the core concept of "civil society", "All" and "community", he and "all" related concepts and "community" of translation is worth (...) learning. (shrink)

"German Ideology" is an important historical materialism of Marx and Engels expounded the text. This is mainly reflected in the Community on the history, compared to theory, the theory of primitive accumulation, these three are logically interrelated. However, Taubert Shibuya version and version are completely ignored in this association, severed the intrinsic link between these three, therefore, in principle, are unreasonable editing. The wide pine version is the organic unity of these three together, really showing the true meaning of Marx's (...) historical materialism, which is proof of the wide pine version of the editorial principles of rationality. On the other hand, the wide pine view, the development of Marxist philosophy, in essence, is the theory of alienation to the images from the paradigm of the theory of transformation, and the "German Ideology" is precisely the theory on the images for this foundation. In this sense, the "German Ideology" Marx's "Das Kapital" has a decisive significance in the history of the formation. "German Idelogy" is an important text in which Marx and Engels expounded the materialist conception of history. This conception is mainly embodied in the theories of Community, Comparison and the Primitive Accumulation, which are interlinked in logic. However Shibuya's and Taubert's editions have completely ignored thte relations and severed their inherent relationship. Consequently, Shihuya's and Tauhert's editorial principles are unreasonable. However, Hiromatsu's edition unites these three theories organically, and really unfolds the true connotation of Marx's historical materialism, which precisely proves that Hiromatsu's editorial principle is reasonable. On the other hand, in Hiromatsu's opinion, the development of Marx's philosophy, in essence, is the transformation of the paradigm from the theory of alienation to the theory of Reification. It is precisely in "German Ideology" that one can find the foundation of the theory of Reification. In this sense, one can say that "German Ideology" is of decisne significance in the history of the formation of Marx's "Das Kapital". (shrink)

Hiromatsu that the issue of the epistemological basis of modern style and composition mechanisms and limitations to reflect, first of all need to focus on problem-Kantian philosophy and composition mechanisms. Kant's philosophy in general problem-that is, a priori logic-based logic, epistemology and ontology "Trinity" philosophical framework, the understanding of human and synthetic a priori judgments of pure reason and its capacity may be why. This potential problem-his mouth, a very significant epistemological problem - namely, "the main international co-subjectivity" issue, we (...) need to be studied carefully. Hiromatsu believes that in order to reflect on the question formula, which is based on the contemporary epistemology, and its construction mechanism and limitations we first of all need to place our starting point on Kant Philosophy's question formula and its construction mechanism. The general question formula of Kant's philosophy is based on the philosophic "trinity" of logics, which is based on transcendental logics, epistemology and ontology. Based on this frame, this question formula tries to explore the possibilities of epistemology and the innate synthetic judgment and capability of the pure reason. Underlying this question formula is a quite significant epistemological issue, which is: intersubjectivity's common subjectivity, which calls for attentive study. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected DocumentsSteven HeineSourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected Documents. Translated and edited by David A. Dilworth and Valdo H. Viglielmo, with Agustin Jacinto Zavala. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1998. Pp. xx + 420.Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected Documents, translated and edited by David H. Dilworth and Valdo H. Viglielmo, with Agustin Jacinto Zavala, is a new translation of twentieth-century Japanese philosophers and (...) is the second book in a series on Resources in Asian Philosophy and Religion that had been devised and edited by the late Charles Wei-hsun Fu (the first book was Stuart D. B. Picken's Essentials of Shinto: An Analytical Guide to Principal Teachings [Westport: Greenwood Press, 1994]). Here, a team of translators who are all very well known for their expert work in the field provide a series of selections from seven philosophers, each of whom is associated with the Kyoto School approach to comparative philosophical analysis.The seven thinkers include: (1) Nishida Kitarō, the founder of the Kyoto School, which is based on a synthesis of Western thought, particularly German Idealism, and the Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy of emptiness or universal nothingness (Nishida remains by far the most important representative of the school, and he has had numerous works translated into English, often by Dilworth and/or Viglielmo); (2) Tanabe Hajime, Nishida's first and foremost disciple, who approached the notion of absolute nothingness from the standpoint of Pure Land Buddhist other-power and repentance; (3) Kuki Shūzō, who was known for his travels to Europe and his work on aesthetics and contingency; (4) Watsuji Tetsurō, who pioneered the field of cultural anthropological history in Japan; (5) Miki Kiyoshi, who criticized Nishida in light of Pascal and Kierkegaard as well as Hegelian dialectics; (6) Tosaka Jun, a sharp Marxist critic of Nishida, who during the 1930s attacked the apparent accommodations of his colleagues with the Imperialist authorities; and (7) Nishitani Keiji, who developed the Zen perspective implicit in Nishida's philosophy by emphasizing the religious-conversion experience that emerges from a contemplative awareness of the universality of absolute nothingness.The translators provide a substantial introductory essay discussing the biographical and conceptual issues in the development of the life and thought of each philosopher. This section is very useful, and generally goes into more depth and detail than other materials available in English. The translations themselves, which cover a wide variety of styles and methods of argumentation, are clear and readable, though at times a bit imprecise and inconsistent. A main issue involved in evaluating the book has to do with the selection of thinkers and passages translated. Unfortunately, there are no philosophers represented here who are not in the circle of the Kyoto School. There is no question of the dominance of Nishida and his followers (and critics) in the realm of Japanese philosophy, but other voices reflecting the positions of Marxism, phenomenology, logic, structuralism, and postmodernism could have had some representation. One problem is that the reader is given very little indication of current trends (since the writings of Nishitani, the last philosopher [End Page 311] on this list, are already several decades old). And there is certainly nothing in this volume to point to future concerns and tendencies in Japanese philosophy.On the other hand, given the book's content, a positive feature is that the translators have fulfilled an important goal of choosing selections that have not previously appeared in English but which are nevertheless representative and crucial for understanding the overall significance of each thinker's approach. Therefore, Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy will serve as a beneficial supplement or complement to existing sources. It is a handy compendium that puts readers in touch with the full variety of Kyoto School philosophers, including those who vary from and argue with Nishida.By the late 1990s, it had become impossible to discuss Nishida and the Kyoto School without dealing at least in part with the question of political implications: to what extent, if any, were these thinkers involved in supporting and promulgating the doctrine of the imperial order, which sought hegemony throughout Asia. The key figures, especially Nishida, Tanabe... (shrink)