Nature in Our Experience: Bonnett, McDowell and the Possibility of a Philosophical Study of Human Nature
Nature in Our Experience: Bonnett, McDowell and the Possibility of a Philosophical Study of Human Nature
复制标题
我们经验中的自然：邦尼特、麦克道尔和人性哲学研究的可能性
DOI：
10.1007/s11217-019-09700-0
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
Misawa Koichiro
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haruna Teruya;Aiko Kohara;Natsuki Yano;Haejin Kwon;Changwan Han;長廣利崇;長廣利崇;長廣利崇;髙田一宏;岡本工介;髙田一宏;諏訪晃一;高橋味央;棚田洋平;瀬戸麗;高田一宏;諏訪晃一;髙田一宏;髙田一宏;高橋味央;高橋未央;高橋未央;棚田洋平;高橋味央;高橋味央;髙田一宏;岡本工介・新谷龍太朗;瀬戸麗;松原信継;松原信継;松原信継・間宮静香・伊藤健治;松原信継;松原信継・間宮静香・伊藤健治（編著者）ほか;松原信継・間宮静香・伊藤健治;志村聡子;志村聡子;志村聡子;鈴木敦史;鈴木敦史;鈴木敦史;鈴木敦史;深作拓郎;深作拓郎;杉本憲子;杉本憲子;杉本憲子;杉本憲子;杉本憲子;杉本憲子;杉本憲子;Misawa Koichiro;三澤 紘一郎;Misawa Koichiro;三澤 紘一郎;Misawa Koichiro;Misawa Koichiro
迈克尔·邦内特（Michael Bonnett）长期以来一直试图恢复自然的概念，从而挑战我们重新思考其对各种教育问题的深刻影响。邦尼特批评“后现代”和“科学主义”对自然的解释都没有认识到自然是超越性的和规范性的，他提出了他的现象学启发的自然观，即“自我超越”，这与“我们对自然的经验”的概念有关。然而，尽管邦尼特的论点有着巨大的优势，但它可能会掩盖涉及自然界的真实的问题的解决方式：我们的本性问题，它首先使我们能够体验自然。在本文中，在回顾了邦尼特的自然观，并考虑到他对理查德·罗蒂对自然现实性的攻击的批评之后，我将试图说明约翰·麦克道尔复活的第二自然的亚里士多德概念如何能够补充邦尼特的项目，并使我们的感性的自然性是人类所特有的这一观点变得可信;通过这一方法，人性问题可以（重新）定位在对大自然的讨论中，并在当前日益边缘化非科学的智力努力的智力环境中，再次被纳入教育哲学研究的范围。我还将简要地反思第二天性的概念的相关性，以斯蒂芬博尔特最近提出的“从生物学的角度来看教育”的想法。
Michael Bonnett has long attempted to rehabilitate the concept of nature, thereby challenging us to reconsider its profound implications for diverse educational issues. Castigating both ‘postmodern’ and ‘scientistic’ accounts of nature for failing to appreciate that nature is at once transcendent and normative, Bonnett proposes his phenomenology-inspired view of nature as the ‘self-arising’, which is bound up with the notion of ‘our experience of nature’. Despite its enormous strengths, however, Bonnett’s argument might obscure the ways in which the real issue involved in nature is addressed: the issue of our nature, which enables our experience of nature in the first place. In this paper, after reviewing Bonnett’s view of nature and considering his criticism of Richard Rorty’s assault on the reality of nature, I will try to show how the Aristotelian notion of second nature that John McDowell has reanimated can supplement Bonnett’s project and render plausible the idea that the naturalness of our sensibility is unique to human beings; through this approach, the issue of human nature can be (re)located in discussions of nature at large and, connectedly, brought again within the scope of the philosophical study of education in the present-day intellectual climate that increasingly marginalises non-scientific, intellectual endeavours. I will also briefly reflect on the relevance of the notion of second nature to Stephen Boulter’s recently proposed idea of ‘education from a biological point of view’.