English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 49200/83641 (59%)
Visitors : 7098323      Online Users : 37
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/31400

    Title: 論未來學預測的實踐意涵
    Other Titles: On the practice implications of prediction in future studies
    Authors: 陳弘智;Chen, Hung-tzu
    Contributors: 淡江大學未來學研究所碩士班
    林遠澤;Lin, Yuan-tse
    Keywords: 預測;時間觀點;存有;卡爾‧巴柏;海德格;漢斯‧約納斯;prediction;time aspect;being;Karl Popper;Heidegger;Hans Jonas
    Date: 2007
    Issue Date: 2010-01-11 00:38:50 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 探究未來學預測的實踐意涵前,必須先回歸預測本身。本研究將預測的三項性質解析,此三項性質分別是:其定義意涵的界定標準、其研究方法技術以及其準確度、其形成基本條件之時間觀點。並且逐步的將預測拆解,由最表層的範圍、定義進入,然後論述深一點的方法論層次,再進入預測的構成之基本立基——時間觀點。前兩項性質藉由卡爾‧巴柏對於預測的批判觀點出發,拆解預測不準確性的原因,在這番論證之後,吾人可以認識到預測長期以來,都跟行使其的人類分開討論。將兩者分別討論,是一種拆卸行為;而將兩者相互論證,是一種整體瞭解。筆者認為在這一點上可以說明,為何學術上遲遲無法將預測無法準確而人類卻又一直使用的原因講解清楚。因為兩者分開時,問題變成兩個:一是預測無法準確,一是人類卻一直使用預測。但若兩者一併討論時,問題則變成:人類持續使用無法準確的預測之原因探討。由此導引至海德格的存有理論,理解人類預測行為與時間觀點的緊密關係,預測無法準確的問題在此終於不復存在,因為人類向預測所求的,是確認自身存在的儀式完成。最後進入未來學中預測的實踐意涵層次之中,以漢斯‧約納斯的責任原則之論述,來探求預測在今日人類運作的科技完全無法預料結果之行使意義,建立起人類對於無所感知的未來亦有「責任」之說。未來學預測的實踐意涵,不但包含確認自身存有,更包含了人類對於未來負有「責任」之意義,在層次上更進入更高等級,將自身存有的個人向度擴展到整體生活世界的存亡責任之上,並且將未來完全的無所感知狀況擺脫,賦予人類建立創造未來的任務。
    Before addressing the main topic, we have to turn to prediction itself. Three primary characteristics of prediction are analyzed in due sequence, from top to bottom: its standards of definition, its research method or technique and precision, and its time aspect as forming condition. Karl Popper''s critical stance toward prediction is adduced to probe the causes behind predictive inaccuracies. Two different dimensions present themselves in order: the predictive action and the human agent. Considered together, these two factors give rise to a fundamental problem: why does human race, throughout its long history, continue to engage in predicative activities, which never yield absolute calculations? Heidegger''s theory of being is introduced at this juncture to explicate the intimate relationship between human predicative behavior and its time aspect. The inaccuracy issue dissolved of its own accord because it is found that what humans really desire in prediction is to perform the ritual: the ultimate affirmation of their own existence. The final part takes on the practice implications of prediction. Hans Jonas''s discourse on responsibility is employed to explore the ramifications of prediction in the context of modern science and technology, with their precarious achievement in human hands. The conclusion is as follows: human are and should be responsible for the future despite its overwhelming obscurity. The highest synthesis is attained when the personal realm of one''s own being is extended into the realm of the Lebenwelt. Ridded of an unknowable and precarious future, the human race are instead proffered a brand new destiny to create and shape an entirely different future which is properly its own this time.
    Appears in Collections:[未來學研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback