“递弱代偿原理”是王东岳先生在其《物演通论》一书中提出的，是其贯穿自然哲学、精神哲学、社会哲学的整套理论体系的理论基础，为一切存在者的“本质存在”以及“存在”的衍化均给出了较为详细的解释。这个原理自成一格，与传统学院哲学相比有相当的颠覆性。然而，王东岳先生在其书中对其原理的“本体论”基础并所做的逻辑推演存在着一定的武断性，而且其“递弱”结论的推出过程也值得讨论。同时更重要的一点，作为当代非学院派哲学理论的典型，其颠覆性本身是基于一种话语体系的转变，而这种尝试对于哲学整体的推动与延续作用甚微。本文以“递弱代偿原理”为典型，首先介绍“递弱代偿原理”提出的逻辑过程，之后对其中的逻辑基础进行质疑和探讨，最后对当代民间哲学的文化效应以及脱离哲学学术传统的现实进行反思。

关键词：“递弱代偿原理”; 本质存在; 属性; 代偿; 非学院派哲学

The “Principle of Decadence and Compensation” (递弱代偿原理, translated by the author of the
current paper, hereafter as “Principle”) first coined by Dongyue Wang in his General Principle of the
Derivation of Being (《物演通论》, also translated by the author of the current paper), is the theoretical
foundation for Wang’s entire philosophical argumentation on nature, mind, and society, and provides
detailed explanation for “basic being” and “derivation”. However, the logic argumentation on the
“ontological” basis of the “Principle” seems arbitrary, and the logic within his idea of “decadence” still
needs further discussion. More importantly, as the epitome of contemporary nonacademic
philosophical ideas, its subversiveness itself is based on a transformation of verbal system, but this
kind of subversion could hardly make any difference to the development and continuation of
Philosophy as a whole. Based on the discussion of the “Principle”, the current study firstly
demonstrates the logic process of the “Principle”, secondly questions and discusses the logic basis of
the “Principle”, and lastly reflects on the cultural effect of contemporary nonacademic philosophy, as
well as the status quo that nonacademic philosophy are deviating from academic philosophical
tradition.

[1] 王东岳（子非鱼）.物演通论[M].太原:书海出版社.

[2] 乔治?贝克莱.人类知识原理[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆.

[3] 王一鸣.从贝克莱对抽象观念的批判重新审视“存在就是被感知”[J].湖南社会科学,2016, 1:31-35.

[4] 王天成.感知、想象力与本质直观[J].长白学刊,2003:46-48.

[5] 约翰?洛克.人类理解论[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆.

[6] 马克思.1844年经济学哲学手稿[M].中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局.北京:人民出版社.

[7] 倪梁康.哲学的定位：玄思的文学？随意的史学？[J].南京大学学报哲学人文社会科学版,2006,3:102-110.

[8] 杨楹.哲学：在神圣与世俗之间[J].东南学术,2005,1:145-157.

[9] Jones, W. E. (2006). Philosophers, their context, and their responsibilities. Metaphilosophy, 37(5), 623-645.

[10] Du Toit, A. (1982). Philosophy in a changing plural society. South African Journal of Philosophy, 1(4), 154-161.

[11] Eze, E. C. (2001). African philosophy and the analytic tradition. Philosophical Papers, 30(3), 205-213.

[12] Jones, W. E. (2001). Belonging to the ultra-faithful: a response to Eze. Philosophical Papers, 30(3), 215-222.

[13] Duvenage, P. (2002). Is There a South African Philosophical Tradition?. Thought and Practice in African Philosophy, 1, 107-119.

[14] 张伟尉.库恩“不可通约性”思想探析[D].山东:山东师范大学,2015:1-53.

[15] 王瑞军.民间信仰哲学内涵及其社会功能多维性[J].求索,2013,2:106-111.