「我們是誰，誰是我們」的另徑詮釋

An Alternative Interpretation of “‘Who Are we?’ / ‘Who are We?’”

張鼎國教授在其遺作，《「誰是我們？」／「我們是誰？」》一文中，從「人民」、「共同體」、「科技」、「歷史」等四個脈絡，爬梳了海德格政治哲學的幾個階段和轉折。本文將以第二部份「人民與共同體」為主要發展的脈絡，進一步討論「人民」與「共同體」的概念。 就在《誰》文以「誰是我們？」／「我們是誰？」作為思考起點的同時，實際上，我們必須更徹底的問，「我們能否說我們」的這個問題？換言之，若「我們」總是溢出或者難易區辨，我們如何能說我們？或者，換個方式提問，若我們可以說我們，那便必須進一步追問「我們何以成為我們」？ 與《誰》文不同的是，若《誰》文想要說明的是海德格如何以政治存有論思考人於當代中的處境，本文所要思考的則是，人如何不僅僅是在政治存有論的面向思考如何於當代生存，更能落實於具體的政治實踐面向，也因此可以在存有論中看見具體地人的活動，而此點，便是本文所希望對《誰》文的另一個側寫。 本文將從阿岡本的生命形式、巴迪悟的無主體以及洪席耶的他者因等觀點，展開並重探「我們」及其問題。

Ting-kuo Chang’s paper “‘Who Are we?’/ ‘Who are We?’” (henceforth “Who”) examines some periods and turns of Heidegger’s political philosophy from four perspectives such as people, community, technology and history. Thus, the present paper attempts to further discuss the two notions—people and community—from the second part of Chang’s paper, titled “People and Community.” Chang’s “Who” serves as the point of departure for us, in a more radical manner, to ask, “Can we say ‘we’?” In other words, can we still say we if we always exceed or become indistinct? Or can we proceed to ask, “How can we become us?” if we can say we? Contrary to Chang’s “Who”—a paper that aims to explain how Heidegger ponders over the contemporary situation via political ontology—the present paper aims to consider how the humans does not only think the contemporary existence through political ontology, but also see humans’ concrete activity in ontology. As the above point indicates, the paper wishes to offer a profile about “Who.” The paper attempts to exhibit and rethink the problem of we and its relevant problems from the threads such Agamben’s notion of life-of-form, Badiou’s notion of non-subject and Rancière’s notion of the cause of the other.