| In this thesis, the author introduces and interpretates a contemporary thinker, Raimon Panikkar's thoughts with our human being's contemporary existential predicament as the academic background.Some people name our times as "the global age" or "the globalization age" , or even as "the second axial age" or "the new axial age" , which means that this times has some fundamentally new features differing from all the past ages, and constituting a new challenge.Panikkar is one of the few men that responds to our times' challenge from a wholistic perspective in nowadays when the specialization of knowledge is so developed. Panikkar make his response to the times' challenge not merely on the therotical level, but on the existential level. He made such a response firstly through and in his own life, as shown in the first chapter in this thesis.In the main part of this thesis (from chapter 2 to 4), the author reconstructs Panikkar's response to this times' challenge in a trinitarian frame as follows:Firstly, pluralism as the interpretation for the contemporary human being's predicament. Panikkar interpretes our current existential predicament as a kind of pluralist predicament, in which separation and isolation is no longer possible, nor any kind of unity. In other words, the tension between one and many is to the extent that there is no room for the reconciliation or compromise. Due to the developed modern technology (especially in communication and traffic), people from different traditions encounter more and more often in their daily life, which introduces an existential problem which need be solved exigently: how should we, followers of different tradition, get along with each other and do with mutual philosophical and way of life? One pointed is clear: no tradition will be admitted as a unifying one over all the others, nor will any kind of artificial unitive "project" .Panikkar reveals the substance of this predicament in an immediate and urgent way and by the same time he pointed that in fact the predicament's nature precisely denies the resolution both of monism and dualism and calls for a nondualist or pluralist response. In this sense, pluralism is not only posed as an interpretation for the contemporary predicament, but also as an alternative to respond to it. The author elucidates the practical implications of a pluralist attitude that Panikkar advocates, which conclude the cosmic trust, a shift from conflict to tension and approach to the other. Finally, the author also introduces Panikkar's point of view on the problem of identity which is connected with pluralism.Secondly, dialogue as a practical way to respond to the times' challenge. According his understanding of the nature of the times' challenge (pluralism), Panikkar suggest we should be engaged in dialogue, incarnating a pluralist attitude. The close connection between dialogue and pluralism is so emphasized that the necessity and possibility of dialogue is derived from a pluralist understanding of our predicament. Panikkar's reflection of the dialogic method makes him bring forward a new method of "dialogical dialogue" , which is distinguished from "dialectic dialogue" . Dialectic dialogue is a kind of dialogue departing from a dialectic understanding of the real, with the participant as a rational being, aiming at a unique rational understanding of the real. Panikkar affirms that dialectic dialogue is necessary but not adequate, nor is it sufficient for a crosscultural encounter, since it usually insists on a purely dialectic understanding from a single culture or tradition. As a more wholistic method, dialogical dialogue is adduced to limit, complement and transcend dialectic dialogue. Indialogical dialogue, one participates not merely as a rational being but a whole being, not merely as a historical being but a being both with a historical dimension and a transhistorical dimension. Panikkar recommends dialogical dialogue as an adequate method for crosscultural encounter.Thirdly, intercultural philosophy as a methodolog...
|
PDF Full Text Request