Greek term meaning, variously, “word,”"reason,”speech,”"discourse,” and “principle”; a central concept in ancient Greek philosophy and later religious thought. While it has been used in variety of contexts, logos usually refers in some way to a power that brings the world into order. Thus, the words according to which the world was gathered from chaos into cosmos (order) constitute the logos.
希腊术语，有多重意义，如“词”、“理性”、“言语”、“交谈”以及“本源”。逻各斯是希腊哲学的中心概念，后来被用于宗教思想中。虽然逻各斯可以在不同的语境中使用，但是在某种程度上通常指一种可以使世界守序的力量。因此，逻各斯即等同于那些意指将世界由混沌而收拾出秩序的词语。
Heraclitus,one of the first to use the term, associated logos, the active, creative principle, ever-moving and changing, with the element fire. Later, in the philosophies of Anaxagoras, Aristotle, and others, nous, the world mind or universe intelligence, replaced logos as the motivating principle. The Stoics recieved Heraclitus’ concept and added the idea of the logos spermatikos, the seed of creation and development that spread spontaneously throughout the universe. Here logos becomes reason, the mind of god that not only orders the world but imparts rational intelligence to humankind.
赫拉克利特是最初使用这个术语的人之一，他将逻各斯这个活动的、创生的、永动不居的本源与火元素相联系起来。后来，在阿那克萨哥拉、亚里士多德的哲学中，等同于世界心智或者普遍心智的“理智”一词替代了逻各斯做为使动的起源。斯多噶学派再度使用赫拉克利特的概念并增加了“逻各斯的种子”这一观念，其意为可以自发地遍布于宇宙的创生与发展之种。因此逻各斯变为了理性，创世神的思考不仅可以使世界有序而且将理性智慧传播至人类。
With the Hellenic Jewish philosophier Philo, logos assumed the meaning of a governing plan, God’s blueprint for the world. The opening verse of St.John’s Gospel—”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”—reflects the conception of logos as something divine in and of itself, and leads to the identification of Jesus Christ as the Word incarnate. However, Christian theologians continue to disagree as to whether god and the Word (logos) are synonymous, analogous, or distinct.
希腊的犹太哲学家斐罗，将逻各斯的意义确定为一种治理的企划，是为上帝创世之蓝图。在《约翰福音》的首节中有“太初有道，道与神同在，道就是神。”——反应了关于逻各斯的概念即是属于上帝并与上帝同在的神圣之物，并且使人认为耶稣基督使逻各斯的肉身化。但是在关于上帝与“道”（逻各斯）是否同义、类似以及可区分的问题上，新教神学家们始终有不同的意见。
——————————绝望的分割线————————————————
我觉得这个辞条起码有四种意思存在：思想史上的原意、辞书作者理解的意思、我理解的意思、我翻译出来的意思。以这个趋势发展下去，我觉得我基本不能正确理解西方哲学了。但是实在有没有什么别的办法，读译本与读原本的体会已经不一样，难道还能拿着译本当作原典去揣摩吗？其实这个难题同样存在于经学中，关于十三经的解释也始终争议不断，那么一个经学概念也会有四种意思同时存在：十三经著者的原意，为十三经作注解的人所理解的意思，经学继承者所理解到的意思，我理解的意思。即使这四种理解有交集的话，那这个交集也只能随着代际的更替越来越小。那为什么思想史到现在还在一本正经的写下去？为什么没有一本思想史著作提出过这种担忧？这种自信是在哪里找的呢？难道已经解决了吗？
Post a Comment