中国美学史著写作:评估与讨论

发布时间：2018-09-05 18:27

【摘要】：三十多年来的中国美学史著写作,无论有关中国美学的断代史、通史、艺术门类史、范畴史还是佛教史等,均初获丰硕成果,在坚持马克思主义唯物史观、艺术哲学与文化哲学等治史理念与方法上,做出了有益的尝试。而近年来对中国美学及其历史研究的所谓"破产"、"走进死胡同"与"困境"等说法,多陷于偏颇。事实上,研究者预设诸如"审美意识"、"美学理论"、"美学范畴"或"文脉"之类作为个别美学史著的主要研究对象,并非其研究理念和方法陷入了"困境"与"偏至",而是学术研究的自由。关键在于方法与对象的相互适应、逻辑与历史的如何统一。从文化、哲学角度研究中国美学史,也不是糟糕的"文化决定论",批评者所谓"面向事实本身"实为一伪命题。其所言"文化"、"哲学",不是其相应美学史的"外在"与"异在",而是涵泳、高蹈与沉潜之美学理性的"本在"。所谓"美学是美学,哲学是哲学"之说欠妥。
[Abstract]:Over the past 30 years or so, the writings on the history of Chinese aesthetics, whether about the history of Chinese aesthetics, the general history, the history of the art category, the history of category or the history of Buddhism, have achieved fruitful results in the early years, and they are adhering to Marxist historical materialism. Art philosophy and cultural philosophy and other ideas and methods of historical management, made a useful attempt. In recent years, the so-called "bankruptcy", "going into a dead end" and "predicament" in the study of Chinese aesthetics and its history are often biased. In fact, researchers presuppose such as "aesthetic consciousness", "aesthetic theory", "aesthetic category" or "context" as the main research objects of individual aesthetic history works. It is the freedom of academic research that its research ideas and methods fall into dilemma and deviation. The key lies in the mutual adaptation of methods and objects and the unification of logic and history. It is not a bad "cultural determinism" to study the history of Chinese aesthetics from the angle of culture and philosophy. "Culture" and "philosophy" are not "external" and "different" in its corresponding aesthetic history, but "original" of aesthetic rationality of Han Yong, Gao Xue and Shen Qian. The theory of "aesthetics is aesthetics, philosophy is philosophy" is wrong.
【作者单位】：复旦大学中文系;
【分类号】：B83-09

【共引文献】