左右田喜一郎對西田幾多郎的批判：一個形上學的問題

The Critique of Nishida Kitarô by Sôda Kiichirô: A Metaphysical Issue

一九二七年，西田幾多郎提筆對左右田喜一郎的批評做出回應，代表他首度以暗示的方式重建他的拓樸學邏輯－－筆者會討論這個說法－－尤其關係到某種形上學的詭辯。更正面的一點，這篇文章幫助我們釐清他對自康德以降的德國哲學史的理解。以這篇文章為基礎，筆者有意透過這個機會，以英語綜合整理個人在這個領域的詮釋之核心，亦即以絕對虛無的本體論和邏輯之間的差異為主軸。此外，筆者將找出西田幾多郎和梅洛龐帝某些方法之間的關係，尤其是針對「創作」這個觀念。筆者專注探討這篇文章的前兩部分，企圖解開自我覺醒和虛無之間錯綜複雜的概念性關係。首先，筆者會探討從認識論到心理學的巨大改變，重新釐清西多郎和形上學的關係。其次，筆者會重新思考西多郎「征服本體論」的觀念，凸顯出我所謂「拓樸化的初步輪廓」。

In 1927 Nishida Kitarô wrote a response to the critique of Sôda Kiichirô, represents an unprecedented occasion to rebuild, in a suggestive way, his ＂topological logic＂-an expression to be discussed in this paper-, in particular concerning the quirks of a certain kind of metaphysics. More positively, it helps us to cast some light on his understanding of the history of German Philosophy since Kant. Taking this essay as a cornerstone, I would like to take the opportunity to synthetize, in English, the core of my interpretation in this field, centred on the distinction between ontology, mê-ontology, and logic, if not metaphysics, of absolute nothingness. What is more, I will interrelate certain schemes in Nishida and Merleau-Ponty, especially the idea of ＂making＂. I focus here on the first two sections of the essay, as I attempt to untangle the intricate conceptual relations between self-awakening and nothingness. Firstly, I explore the significant shift from epistemology to psychology, casting a new light on the relation of Nishida to metaphysics. Secondly, I reconsider his idea of overcoming ontology, distinguishing what I call ＂a first sketch of topologization＂.