All Data

To minimize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Japanese government regulated the mobility of international visitors including students. Before March 2020, international students could enter Japan without restriction. During October and November 2020, a limited number of international students entered Japan with expensive air fares and a 14-day quarantine. However, except these months, many students, especially newly enrolled ones, could not enter Japan.

『葉隠』の武士道において、有事の「武篇」と平時の「奉公」とは、いかにして統一されるか。「武篇」における死の覚悟と実践を一つに貫く「無分別」なありようを、「奉公」にもあてはめることは、果たして可能か。両者の間にある矛盾は、まずもって実践の側にある。「武篇」と「奉公」の実践は、「死」と「生」という基調の色合いにおいて、また時間的な長さと質において、大きく異なるからである。この矛盾は「奉公」の内部において、主君のために死する覚悟が、逆に長きにわたる生の実践を疵なきものにする、という齟齬をもたらすかに見える。しかし「奉公」における死の覚悟は、主君から浪人切腹を命ぜられるのが今日でも将来でもあり得る、という意味で、実はこれも、時間的に大きな振幅をもつものであった。また「奉公」における実践は、現実的にどれだけ長く継続されようとも、理念的には、戦闘の果てに死するという道のりを意味した。「奉公」における覚悟と実践の間に齟齬はなく、さらにその全体は、「武篇」における理想的な戦闘のあり方と通底している。「武篇」と「奉公」の違いは、"戦闘"がもつ時間的な射程とその質のみにあった。しかし、まさにその時間的な射程の長さゆえ、平時の「奉公」における武勇の実践は、有事の「武篇」にあっては認めにくい矛盾をなお、内に抱えている。武士としてその場にふさわしい言葉を出す、という例において顕著なように、「奉公」の実践は、入念な事前の準備と事後の反省とを、不可欠な前提とする。当座の働きは、両者に挟まれてはじめて継続され、磨かれもしたのである。すぐれて反省的で持続的な吟味と、それを「無分別」に棄て去り、超越した地点ではじめて立ち現れる当座の実践は、いかにしてつながるのか。この点をさらに追究することが、今後の課題である。

In another paper I pointed out that Henri Bergson (1859-1941), a French philosopher, in his early years argues on <sensibility> from a similar viewpoint to his contemporaries’. In this paper I aim to examine his notion of <sensibility> in his later years, focusing on The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932). Although rarely pointed out, in The Two Sources Bergson argues on <sensibility> from his particular point of view. He proposes “a psychology which accords so extensive and so handsome a place to sensibility,” where emotion gains an advantage over intellect and volition. When we compare The Two Sources with Technical and Critical Vocabulary of the Philosophy, a French encyclopedia published in 1926, we see that Bergson has his conception in common with his contemporaries to some extent, but that on the other hand he is outstanding among his contemporaries especially for his paying attention to the <superior component> of <sensibility>, which is characterized by activity and unity, in contrast to the <inferior component>, which is characterized by passivity and multiplicity.

In recent years, discussions about anti-natalism have been activated in various areas. This movement has been started with David Benatar’s controversial book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harms of Coming into Existence, published in 2006. The purpose of this article is to examine what the type of questions has been raised in the movement, especially into pedagogy. Firstly, we survey historical genealogy of anti-natalism, as well as Benatar’s discussion. History of anti-natalism has been long both in the East and the West, and Benatar adds new insights to the genealogy using the method of analytic philosophy. Secondly, we clarify social conditions under which anti-natalism has been widely accepted today. Particularly we focus on contemporary topic such as reproductive ethics, various gaps in society, environmental problems. Then, we suggest there are three issues within recent anti-natalism, and consider the questions brought by each issue.