李雪涛 北京外国语大学
Li, Xuetao, Beijing Foreign Studies University
原文Original
《论不可言说》——论熊伟先生的博士论文
熊伟先生1939年在波恩写完了他的博士论文《论不可言说》（Über das Unaussprechliches），并得以印刷出版，不过知道今日此篇论文很少有人提及，更没有相应的研究。几年前我在波恩大学的档案馆里找到了这部论文以及“博士论文登记簿C”，本文仅是对这篇博士论文的初步整理和研究，拟分四个方面来展开：一、“博士考试登记薄”上的熊伟；二、E. Rothacker: 熊伟在波恩的博士导师；三、博士论文；四、结论。本文的目的在于展示熊伟先生早年的这篇论文在德国汉学和哲学方面可能有的意义。
熊伟博士论文的前一部分以Plotin为代表的欧洲哲学传统中否定表达方式的梳理，在当时的德国哲学界也是很值得关注的内容。第二部分论及不可言说的语言问题，实际上已经触及到了海德格尔后来所谓“语言自己在言说着”的命题，这也是熊伟的洞见所在。值得注意的是，由于熊伟将他的视域延伸到了中国和西方两个传统之中去，又将海德格尔的思想与东方传统融汇于一体，将海德格尔1929年出版的《形而上学是什么？》中的“有”、“无”思想与“言说”与“不可言说”巧妙地结合在了一起。正是基于海德格尔对于存在论中的“无”（Nichts）的强调，才使得“有”（存在）的意义得到纠正：“无并非首先以存在物的对立概念而出现的，从本质上来讲它属于存在的本质自身。”熊伟指出，海德格尔从来没有正面的说明过存在是什么，他同样也不会回答“语言是什么”的问题，他曾指出：“此乃我们何故思考‘什么是语言自身？’此乃我们何故提问‘语言以何种方式作为语言产生？’我们回答：语言自身在言说着。（Die Srache spricht.）严肃地说，这是回答吗？也许——此正是言说成为澄明的时候。”熊伟在这篇论文中提出了后来海德格尔语言转向（die linguistische Wende）的重要问题，这实际上与“语言自身在言说着”的论题是一脉相承的。
可惜回国之后，由于种种原因，熊伟自己很少提及他的博士论文，除了将他的博士论文的雏形《说，可说；不可说，不说》发表了之外，在这方面基本上没有能够继续深入探究，因此在国内基本上没有产生影响。1939年他的博士论文出版的时候，正好是二战如火如荼进行之时，自然不能引起德国学术界的关注。
译文Translation
On The Unspeakable: A Study of Xiong Wei’s Doctoral Dissertation
Prof. Xiong Wei finished and published his doctoral dissertation Über das Unaussprechliches (On the Unspeakable) in Bonn in 1939. So far few people have either mentioned this work, or done any research on it. Several years ago I found this dissertation and the record of his dissertation in the Archive of the University of Bonn. This essay offers some primary research work I have done on Xiong Wei’s dissertation, trying to explore the possible significance of this dissertation in studies of German Sinology and Philosophy.
In the first part of Xiong Wei’s dissertation, he summarized the tradition of using negative expressions in the European philosophy, which can be traced back to Plotinus. This was the concern of German philosophical scholars at that time. In the second part, Xiong Wei dealt with the linguistic problem of the “unspeakable”, in which he dealt with the thesis referred to by Heidegger as “language is speaking.” Xiong Wei’s understanding was similar to that of Heidegger. What is worth pointing out is that Xiong Wei extended his perspectives to Chinese and Western traditions, integrating Heidegger’s ideas with the eastern philosophical tradition. For instance, he compared and combined Heidegger’s “Being” and “Nothing (Nichts)” in “What is metaphysics?” (1929) with Taoist concepts of “the Speakable” and “the Unspeakable”. It is Heidegger’s emphasis on the “Nothing (Nichts)” in human existence that corrects the meaning of “Being”: “Nothing is shown as concomitant rather than the opposite of being, and it essentially belongs to the existential Being itself.” Xiong Wei pointed out that Heidegger has never explained positively what Being is, nor would he answer a question such as “what is language?” Xiong Wei said, “This is why we ask ourselves, ‘What is language itself?’ or ‘How can language be produced as language?’ We answer, ‘Language is speaking (Die Sprache Spricht)’. But, strictly speaking, is this an answer? It might be, and this might be the right time for Speech to be Clearness (Lichtung).” In this dissertation, Xiong Wei also discussed another important issue, Heidegger’s “linguistic turn” (die linguistische Wende). This actually follows the same lines as the thesis of “language is speaking.”
It is a pity that after Xiong Wei returned to China in 1941, for a variety of reasons he seldom mentioned his doctoral dissertation. He only published a brief summary of his dissertation in an essay titled as “To Speak, the Speakable; Not to Speak, the Unspeakable”. He did not further explore in this area and thus had no influence on Chinese scholars. When he published his dissertation in 1939, Europe was involved in the Second World War, so German scholars did not pay attention to this dissertation either.