审美与正义

发布时间：2018-09-14 13:47

【摘要】： 作为启蒙运动的代表人物,卢梭在继承启蒙精神的同时,也质疑了启蒙,开启了审美现代性的先河。一方面,他向那个时代的唯理主义宣战,试图挽救人类业已窒息的天性与激情;他也反抗文明的束缚,为个体的自由辩护;另一方面,他又对腐坏的激情怀以警惕,对自私自利的个体诉诸批判,呼唤公共精神与德性人格。因此,作为卢梭审美乌托邦的组成要素,激情与德性,构成了其审美现代性批判的两个维度。本文以卢梭审美现代性批判为个案,借助他对激情与德性二维的思考与实践,来回答审美与正义这一命题。卢梭的审美现代性批判是怎样的,这种激烈的批判意义何在?它依托的价值信念是什么?为了正义而诉诸的批判,是否有可能走向它的反面?合理的审美现代性批判应当是怎样的? 因此,本文对卢梭的关注并非单纯文学意义上的,而是更关注现代性批判意义上的卢梭美学,这样的解读也更符合历史中卢梭思想的原貌。本文首先提出激情与德性是卢梭审美现代性批判中的两个重要价值,卢梭之所以极力呼唤激情,是因为他看到唯有天然的激情才使德性得以可能。在这点上,他区别于十九世纪的浪漫主义者,他们视一切规则都是激情的障碍,而卢梭对激情的赞美,恰恰是因为它能帮助人自觉地服从德性的规则。他赞颂自然,却从不宣称返回自然;他歌颂激情,但也绝不否认理性;他看到了历史的特殊性,但也绝不忽视人性的普遍性。他对启蒙的批判,并不希望逾越启蒙的边界。为了做到这样一种良性批判,做到对德性与激情有效地调适,卢梭以理想的政治、爱欲作为手段,实现了使人从善走向美德的教育目的。在此,德性与激情和谐相处;不过,这两个维度间的紧张也在所难免,时而德性会压倒激情,这在卢梭的艺术观中尤为突出;时而激情则会偏离德性,甚至无视德性的存在,这在卢梭个人晚年的生活中显露无遗。这就需要人们进一步追问,是什么导致了这种思想上的困境? 于是,作者进一步引出“真诚”的问题。卢梭不能认同启蒙时代哲学上的唯理主义,他试图在个体生活经验的基础上建立自己的哲学,这就使他的哲学带有了浓厚的存在主义意味。卢梭指出,思想的价值与主体的真诚相关,唯有真诚地面对自我,有效的批判才得以可能。为此,文章重点考察卢梭为真诚所付出的努力,并发现一个人要做到彻底的真诚是很难的,为了真诚必须付出艰苦卓绝的努力。这点即便卢梭也不例外,在很多情况下,他并不真诚,而只是在扮演一个真诚的人。唯有认识到真诚限度的人才可能是真诚的人,同样,审美现代性批判也有它的限度,一旦超越了合理的限度,它将导致消极的后果。有两种审美现代性批判:一种是积极的,它基于正义的信念之上,包含了对现实的尊重,以及对自我的反思;另一种是消极的,它没有任何信念,只是一己情绪和欲望的发泄,它会将一切外在的事物当作主体的机缘。这种主体性只关心自我,而不关注世界。当审美批判由这种病态主体发动时,将会导致一种情感政治。而这种不负责任的政治言说,终会带来巨大的灾难。因此,为了修缮与重建良性的审美批判,我们必须警惕我们的反叛。从外部的角度看,审美批判需要以作为其前提的公共领域为限度,丧失了公共领域,批判何以可能?从内在的角度看,审美批判的主体需要克服私人性,构建公共性。在尊重个人主体性的基础上,发展出一种更有建设性的主体间性。人们才能在批判启蒙的同时,进一步推进启蒙。在此,无论是积极还是消极意义,卢梭的美学思想都为人们思考当今时代的问题提供了有益的启示。
[Abstract]:As a representative of the Enlightenment, Rousseau, while inheriting the spirit of Enlightenment, also questioned the enlightenment and opened up the forerunner of aesthetic modernity. On the one hand, he declared war on the rationalism of that time, trying to save the human nature and passion that had been suffocated; he also rebelled against the shackles of civilization and defended individual freedom; on the other hand, he was right. Corrupt passion, with vigilance, appeals to criticism of selfish individuals and calls for public spirit and moral personality. Therefore, as a component of Rousseau's aesthetic utopia, passion and virtue constitute two dimensions of his criticism of aesthetic modernity. What is Rousseau's critique of aesthetic modernity, what is the significance of this fierce critique, what is its value belief, whether the critique appealed for justice is likely to go to its opposite, and what is the rational critique of aesthetic modernity?
Therefore, this paper pays more attention to Rousseau's aesthetics in the critical sense of modernity than in the literary sense. This interpretation is more in line with the original appearance of Rousseau's thought in history. It is because he sees only natural passions that make virtue possible. In this respect, unlike the romantics of the nineteenth century, he sees all rules as obstacles to passion, and Rousseau's praise of passion is precisely because it helps people to voluntarily obey the rules of virtue. He praises passion, but never denies reason; he sees the particularity of history, but never neglects the universality of human nature. His criticism of enlightenment does not want to cross the boundary of enlightenment.
In order to achieve such a benign criticism and to effectively adjust virtue and passion, Rousseau used ideal politics and love as a means to achieve the educational purpose of making people from good to virtue. Here virtue and passion live in harmony; however, the tension between the two dimensions is inevitable, and sometimes virtue overwhelms passion, which is in Rousseau's. It is particularly prominent in the view of art, and sometimes passion will deviate from virtue, or even ignore the existence of virtue, which is evident in Rousseau's personal life in his later years.
Rousseau could not identify with the philosophical rationalism of the Enlightenment. He tried to establish his own philosophy on the basis of individual life experience, which made his philosophy have a strong existentialist meaning. Rousseau pointed out that the value of thought is related to the sincerity of the subject, and only the sincere face is needed. Effective criticism of the self is possible. For this reason, the article focuses on Rousseau's efforts to be sincere, and finds that it is very difficult for a person to be thoroughly sincere, in order to be sincere, he must make arduous efforts. Even Rousseau is no exception, in many cases, he is not sincere, but just acting as a sincere. Only those who realize the limitation of sincerity may be sincere. Similarly, the criticism of aesthetic modernity has its limitation. Once beyond the reasonable limitation, it will lead to negative consequences.
There are two kinds of criticism of aesthetic modernity: one is positive, which is based on the belief of justice, including respect for reality and self-reflection; the other is negative, which has no belief, but the vent of one's own emotions and desires, and it will regard all external things as the opportunity of the subject. When aesthetic criticism is initiated by this pathological subject, it will lead to an emotional politics, and this irresponsible political discourse will eventually bring about great disaster.
Therefore, in order to repair and rebuild the benign aesthetic criticism, we must be vigilant against our rebellion. From the external point of view, aesthetic criticism needs to be limited by the public sphere as its premise, and it loses the public sphere. How can criticism be possible? From the internal point of view, the subject of aesthetic criticism needs to overcome the private nature and construct the public nature. On the basis of individual subjectivity, a more constructive intersubjectivity has been developed. Only when people criticize enlightenment, can they further promote enlightenment. In this regard, Rousseau's aesthetic thoughts, whether positive or negative, provide useful enlightenment for people to think about the problems of the present age.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2008
【分类号】：B83

【相似文献】