德里达诗学研究

发布时间：2018-05-23 16:31

本文选题：逻格斯 + 解构　；参考：《东北师范大学》2006年博士论文

【摘要】： 把德里达的思想作为一个诗学体系建构是一个既艰难又有积极意义的课题。德里达在深切的伦理关注中,批判作为西方文化核心的逻格斯中心主义,揭露逻格斯思维模式影响下诗学局限性,在语言的自由延异和诗性的自由想象之间找到了连接点,把西方文化、语言和诗学统一起来考察。第一章总结德里达分析的传统西方文化中的核心价值观及其基本原则——逻格斯中心主义的若干二元对立预设:言说优于文字、在场代替“不在场”、先验的主体、本体的先天性、镜式表达过程,及其汇集自己的“文字学”的过程。解构展示了基于二元对立的文本如何既违反了排他性原则又违反了优先性原则。德里达把书面文本扩大到各种二元对立的制度化社会文化规则系统,就是要划清符号的运用同实际存在的事物、真理价值体系之间的界限,并指出它们之间的永远不可克服的差异,而为人类文化新的创造提供更多契机。只有使思想运动不断填入“异质”因素,才能使人类思想不断地“延异”与更新。“延异”不同于“扬弃”,维持了一个行为与这一行为的状态之间的矛盾,揭示了建立在二元对立基础上的语言思维模式及其概念体系的局限。文字学就是要研究在时间和空间上作为人类文化发展中存在的可能差异结构,重现被传统思想家所掩盖的人类文化再生产过程中的运动本质。第二章研究逻格斯思维模式在文学创作和文学研究领域的体现:在理论领域,文学定义不断被形而上学化,以不同形式的表达主义重复逻格斯思维模式。在创作领域,文学家在二元对立思维模式的规约下不断追求自由。索绪尔语言学从根本上破坏了表达主义文学观念和批评观念的根基。德里达在语言无限延异和诗的想象、自由的人类必然性之间找到了连接点。解构既赋予“诗性”以某种力量,反过来又赋予自身诗性气质。第三章探讨解构主义对现代主义文学运动的回顾和总结。现代主义文学的语言危机不在于创作者个人的无能,而在于传统语言“不再赋予力量”的特征。现代主义的艺术写作实践总是倾向于通过质疑作为中心的逻格斯以实现对传统意义观的解构的,并将重点从所指之链转移到能指之链。第四章,考察德里达对文学本质的看法。德里达发现把“文学”理解为一种建制是因为传统往往把“什么是文学”的问题归结为文学之外的某种逻格斯外化表达。德里达揭示了文学既召唤复活文学传统制度又颠覆逻格斯强加给它的游戏规则,是一种具有双重特性的活动:既是一种行为,又是一种建制;既是一个事件,又是一种法则。笔者认为,文学只能是个体在特定关系中的临时的审美建制。第五章从本质论探讨转入认识论探讨。伽达默尔完成“阐释学的哲学本体论转折”。深层阐释学证明阐释不仅一般地受语言的支配,而且也受种种抑制力量的支配。德里达的阐释活动批判接受了伽达默尔的生存本体论与自由创作本体论观念,成为后现代社会文化条件下具有高度自律性的个人自由创作的思想动力,也为文学艺术批评和美学理论
[Abstract]:The construction of Derrida's thought as a poetic system is a difficult and positive topic. In the deep ethical concern, Derrida criticizes the logic and Gus centrism as the core of the western culture, exposes the limitation of the poetics under the influence of the logic of the logic of Gus, and the free imagination of the language and the free imagination of the poetic nature. At the junction, we should combine western culture, language and poetics.
The first chapter summarizes the core values and basic principles in the traditional western culture of Derrida's analysis - the two antinomy presuppositions of the logic Gus centrism: the words are superior to the words, the presence instead of the "Absence", the transcendental subject, the innate nature of the noumenon, the mirror expression process, and the process of collecting its own "Philology". It shows how the text based on the two opposites violates the exclusiveness and the principle of priority. Derrida extends the written text to a system of institutionalized social and cultural rules of various two yuan opposites, which is to draw a clear distinction between the use of symbols and the actual existence and the value system of truth. The ever insurmountable difference provides more opportunities for the new creation of human culture. Only by making the movement of the thought of the "heterogeneous" factor, can the human mind be constantly "extended" and renewing. "Extension" is different from "sublation", and maintains the contradiction between a behavior and the state of this line, which reveals the establishment of the two The linguistic mode of thinking and the limitation of its conceptual system on the basis of the opposition of the yuan. Philology is to study the possible differences in the time and space as a possible difference in the development of human culture, and to reproduce the movement essence of the human culture reproduction which is concealed by the traditional thinkers.
The second chapter studies the embodiment of logic Gus's mode of thinking in literary creation and literature research: in the field of theory, literary definitions are constantly metaphysics and repeated in different forms of Expressionism. In the field of creation, the writers pursue freedom under the statute of the two opposing thinking mode. Saussure linguistics is from the perspective of Saussure linguistics. It fundamentally destroys the foundation of the concept of expressionist literature and the concept of criticism. Derrida found a connection between the infinite differentiation of language and the imagination of poetry and the necessity of freedom of human beings. The third chapter discusses the movement of deconstruction to the movement of modernism. The language crisis of modernist literature lies not in the incompetence of the creator, but in the characteristics of the traditional language "no longer endowed with power". The art writing practice of modernism always tends to realize the deconstruction of the traditional sense by questioning the logic of Gus as the center and transfer the emphasis from the chain to the point of reference. The chain that can be referred to.
The fourth chapter examines Derrida's views on the essence of literature. Derrida found that the understanding of "Literature" as a kind of construction is because the tradition often attributed the question of "what is literature" to the externalization of some logic Gus outside literature. Derrida revealed that literature called the revival of the traditional system of literature and subverted the logic of Gus imposed on it. The rule of the game is a kind of activity with dual characteristics: it is both an act and a kind of construction; it is both an event and a law. I think that literature can only be the temporary aesthetic establishment of an individual in a particular relationship.
The fifth chapter goes to the discussion of epistemology from the essentialism. Gadamer completes the philosophical ontological turning point of "hermeneutics". Deep hermeneutics proves that the interpretation is not only dominated by language but also controlled by various restraining forces. Derrida's interpretation activities criticize the existence ontology of gamma and the noumenon of free creation. On the concept, it has become the ideological power of highly self disciplined individual free creation under the cultural conditions of post-modern society, as well as literary and artistic criticism and aesthetic theory.
【学位授予单位】：东北师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2006
【分类号】：I0

【引证文献】