創新與創業一定得把老建物拆除嗎？拆掉的不只物件、還有鑲嵌於其中的人文脈絡。物件不僅有「物質」還蘊含著「精神」，一昧地拆除老建物也可能拆掉人與人的關係、情感、生活的文化底蘊。開創不必然是對既有物件的拆除與換新，而是開創者透過與物件的互動，而將自己投身於這個學習歷程之中。本文透過「院子劇場」與「元啡驢派」兩個創業者與老屋開創故事之敘說，透過「哲學思維」與「開創實踐」進行兩個案例分析與比較後有四個發現：第一、主體介入物件有「聆聽」與「詮釋」兩種主體介入之開創途徑；第二、透過詮釋與聆聽兩者交錯運用，呈現了主體介入物件之開創學習歷程。第三、開創行為：不只是拆除物件、而是積極開採物件的意義。第四、孕育「創見、創異、創易」的開創精神。即開創者有智慧地交錯運用「聆聽」與「詮釋」兩種主體介入，可以開展出創業者與物件之新生命與新意義。最後，據此研究發現提出理論意涵與管理意涵。

Must innovation and entrepreneurship results in the demolition of old buildings? When demolition occurs, what is destroyed is not just an object, but also the cultural context embedded within it. Objects do not merely possess substance, but also spirit. Blindly demolishing buildings may also destroy a cultural fabric consisting of people's relationships, feelings, and lives. Entrepreneurship should not necessarily involve the removal and replacement of existing objects, and should consist of the way in which the entrepreneur interacts with an object, and is involved in a learning process. This paper recounts the stories of how the two startup businesses "Yuan" and "Piefee coffee shop" made innovative use of old buildings, and relies on philosophical and entrepreneurial perspectives to engage in a dialogue between theory and the case studies. The study discovered that listening and interpretation constitute two methods of subjective intervention that can be used to bring about innovation. If entrepreneurs have the wisdom to make alternating use of these two types of subjective intervention, they can develop new life and new meaning for the entrepreneurs and objects. Philosophical thinking and entrepreneurial practice are used in analysis and comparison of these two cases, yielding four discoveries: First, subjective intervention in objects has the two pathways of listening and interpretation. Second, this expresses the innovative process by which interpretation and listening intervene in spaces in alternating fashion. Third, entrepreneurship does not consist of destroying an object, but rather actively extracting the object's meeting. Fourth, the entrepreneurial spirit consists of creativity, creation of differences, and creation of convenience. Finally, this study's findings have significant implication for theoretical stream and management practice.

都市更新一定得把老建物拆除嗎？這個問題一直備受社會的爭議。更新、創新、創業並不一定從無到有，也不是一味地拆除舊物件；還有其他運用舊物件創新途徑的可能嗎？仔細深思拆掉的不只是老物件，也拆除鑲嵌於物件裡的人文脈絡、關係、情感與文化底蘊。本文從「院子劇場」與「元啡驢派」兩個老屋的案例敘說開創的歷程，借助「哲學思維」與「開創實踐」觀點詮釋開創者的主體介入，敘說著人與物件的互動及對話，開創出人與物件的新生命與新意義。 本研究有四個研究發現：第一、主體介入物件有「聆聽」與「詮釋」兩種主體介入之開創途徑。第二、透過詮釋與聆聽兩者交錯運用，呈現了主體介入物件之開創學習歷程。第三、開創行為：不只是拆除物件、而是積極開採物件的意義。第四、孕育「創見、創意、創異」的開創精神。這四個研究發現，可供政府與實務界進一步反思及應用。 第一、本文反思都市更新不再只有拆除舊物件一途，而是如何透過「聆聽」與「詮釋」交錯的主體介入，賦予老物件與開創者的新意義與新生命。 第二、本文反思開創者的開創歷程與行為，並不是一味地丟棄舊物件，而是積極開採物件的意義。不僅如此，也應積極開採周邊「人、事、物」之內涵，挖掘出與眾不同的獨特處，揭露其內蘊的意義與價值，才是真正的創新與開創以流變為他者。 第三、本文也提醒創新與創業不是停留在新與舊的對立，也不是以靜態二元觀點看待新舊；而是以舊創新、用舊物件產生新意義。即運用與物件的互動孕育「創見、創意、創異」，創見，讓不可見成為可見；創意，創造新意義；創異，創造差異性；進而「創益」，除了創造新意義、新差異之外，也創新經濟價值以外的社會價值與人文價值。 總結來說，本文提供「聆聽」與「詮釋」物件意義之開創學習歷程，具體提供創新之途徑與敘說開創學習的歷程。倘若，實務界若能巧用人與物件、人與人、物與物之互動關係，必能置身於開創歷程且流變為他者。

孫周興譯，Martin Heidegger著，1996，海德格爾選集(下)，初版，上海：三聯書局。(Sun, Z. X.(trans.), Martin Heidegger, 1996, Heidegger Anthology (Part 2), 1st, Shanghai: Joint Publishing.)
郭建玲、張建華、張堯均、陳永國、夏可君譯，Jean-Luc Nancy著，2007，解構的共通體，初版，上海：人民出版社。(Guo, J. L., Zhang J. H., Zhang Y. J., Chen, Y. G., and Xia, K. J.(trans), Nancy, Jean-Luc, 2007, La Communaute Desoeuvree, 1st, Shanghai: People's Publishing House.)
陳嘉映譯，Martin Heidegger著，1993，存在與時間，初版，台北：桂冠出版社。(Chen, J. Y.(trans.), Martin Heidegger, 1993, Being and Time, 1st, Taipei: Laurel Crown Press.)
Baker, T. and Nelson, R. E., 2005, “Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 3, 329-366.
Carsrud, A. and Brännback, M., 2014, Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1st, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
De Certeau, M., 1990, L'invention du quotidien, 1st, Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M., 1969, L'Archéologie du savoir, 1st, Paris: Gallimard.
Hjorth, D. and Johannisson, B., 2009, “Learning as an Entrepreneurial Process,” Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, Vol. 8, No. 2, 57-78.
Hjorth, D. and Steyaert, C., 2004, Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship, 1st, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Johannisson, B., 2011, “Towards a Practice Theory of Entrepreneuring,” Small Business Economics, Vol. 36, No. 2, 135-150.
Johannisson, B., 2016, “Limits to and Prospects of Entrepreneurship Education in the Academic Context,” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 28, No. 5-6, 403-423.
Moroz, P. W. and Hindle, K., 2012, “Entrepreneurship as a Process: Toward Harmonizing Multiple Perspectives,” Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 36, No. 4, 781-818.
Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R., 2011, “Creating Shared Value,” Harvard Business Review, Vol.89, No.1-2, 62-77.
Rindova, V., Barry, D., and Ketchen, J. D. J., 2009, “Entrepreneuring as Emancipation,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, 477-491.
Steyaert, C., 2007, “'Entrepreneuring' as a Conceptual Attractor? A Review of Process Theories in 20 Years of Entrepreneurship Studies,” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 19, No. 6, 453-477.
Steyaert, C. and Hjorth, D., 2003, New Movements in Entrepreneurship, 1st, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wang, C. L. and Chugh, H., 2014, “Entrepreneurial Learning: Past Research and Future Challenges,” International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 16, No. 1, 24-61.