Nara University of Education Academic Repository >
100. 学内刊行物 (紀要、研究報告) >
101-3. 奈良教育大学紀要 (人文・社会科学, 自然科学) >
第65巻 第1号 人文・社会科学 (2016) >

このアイテムの引用には次の識別子を使用してください: http://hdl.handle.net/10105/11029

タイトル: 上原專祿「死者・生者」論における「主体性」発動の基盤と契機─「他者」としての「死者」からの「切迫」と「有責性」─
その他のタイトル: The Base and Moment for Generating “Subjectivity”in UEHARA Senroku’s “The Dead Person and the Living Person” Theroy : Focussing the “Imminency” and “Responsibility” for “The Dead Person”
著者: 片岡, 弘勝 
キーワード: 主体性
“The Dead Person”
UEHARA Senroku
発行日: 2016年11月30日
出版者: 奈良教育大学
収録雑誌名: 奈良教育大学紀要. 人文・社会科学
巻: 65
号: 1
開始ページ: 1
終了ページ: 19
ISSN: 05472393
収録種別: 紀要論文
抄録: The purpose of this article is to clarify the base and moment for generating “subjectivity” in UEHARA Senroku’s “The Dead Person and the living person” theroy, by focussing the “imminency” and “responsibility” for “The Dead Person”. This study analyzed UEHARA’s works texts and clarified the following five points.1. UEHARA proposed the idea of “subjectivity of the living person as media of The Dead Person”. This idea rinks to criticism to religion, that implies to find out the human abilities which have been preserved in the form of religion in histroy.2. In the case of being imminet by message of “The Dead Person” who was killed unjustly, “the living person” is stimulated and roaded to must to check and direct own’s living styles and standpoints of valuing. According to this UEHARA’s theory context, “subjectivity of the living person” is founded by listening the wording of “The Dead Person” intently and correctly.3. This study examined to compare UEHARA’s “subjectivity” theory with Emmanuel Lévinas’s “subjectivity” theory(discussed by UCHIDA Tatsuru). Then this study indicated the following two common factors and two different factors in both theories. One factor of the common factors is the idea that wording of “The Dead Person” directs “the living person”. The other factor is the strong intention for recognizing something”(“etwas”) that is cannot be described by present academic methods, namely “extremly complex realties” and “the dynamics and chaos of human mind”.4. One factor of the different factors is following point. Lévinas used wordings of “withdrawing one’s previous statesments”. However UEHARA used wordings of “checking and bounding one’s previous statesments relatively”. The other factor is following point. Lévinas supposed the “subjectivity” to responsibility for “The Dead Person” in relation to absolute “God”. However UEHARA supposed the “subjectivity” to responsibility for “The Dead Person” in relation to historical recognition to the oath of Shakyamuni and Nichiren in Buddhism thoughts.5. On this discussion context, the momnet of UEHARA’s “subjectivity” is “responsibility” for “The Dead Person” as absolute “The Other Being”. Further, the base of UEHARA’s “subjectivity” is the one’s recognition and standpoints for attaching importance to “reverence to human life” in severe situation that all persons are fronted the risk of being killed and becoming assistants of killers.
言語: jpn
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10105/11029
出現コレクション:第65巻 第1号 人文・社会科学 (2016)


ファイル 記述 サイズフォーマット
NUE65_1_1-19.pdf691.97 kBAdobe PDF見る/開く



Valid XHTML 1.0! Powered by DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2007 MIT and Hewlett-Packard - 問合せ