言必所指？

前言

改革開(kāi)放30年以來(lái)，我國(guó)的圖書(shū)出版業(yè)發(fā)展迅速，日新月異。近10年，國(guó)內(nèi)一些出版社經(jīng)授權(quán)直接印行外版文學(xué)批評(píng)與理論的著作，并以國(guó)內(nèi)同類產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格標(biāo)價(jià)，受到大學(xué)師生和研究者由衷的歡迎。在這些圖書(shū)中，上海外語(yǔ)教育出版社從劍橋大學(xué)出版社引進(jìn)的“劍橋文學(xué)指南叢書(shū)”尤其成功，它們大大推進(jìn)了我國(guó)英語(yǔ)文學(xué)的教學(xué)與研究。20世紀(jì)下半葉是眾多文學(xué)理論各領(lǐng)風(fēng)騷的50年，文學(xué)研究的面貌大大改觀，理論家和批評(píng)家取得了與詩(shī)人、作家?guī)缀跗狡鹌阶牡匚弧Ｕ歉鞣N文論使我們意識(shí)到，我們不能一直處于一種天真的狀態(tài)，對(duì)主導(dǎo)批評(píng)活動(dòng)的或明或暗的方法、預(yù)設(shè)和前提不加追問(wèn)。上世紀(jì)70、80年代開(kāi)始，歐美大學(xué)文學(xué)系對(duì)理論課程的需求迅速增長(zhǎng)，一些文論選本和文論導(dǎo)讀、入門也應(yīng)運(yùn)而生，有的還被譯成了中文，在大學(xué)師生中很受歡迎。這些輔助性的指南固然有其用處，但是要了解文論的精髓，我們還是應(yīng)該暫時(shí)把二手譯作放在一邊，回到原著。

內(nèi)容概要

《言必所指？》是卡維爾（Stanley Cavell）的一部文集，共收錄了十篇文章，涉及的內(nèi)容包括了哲學(xué)、文學(xué)、戲劇、音樂(lè)等?？ňS爾在書(shū)中第一次提出了這樣的問(wèn)題：哲學(xué)與文學(xué)是否可以清晰地劃分開(kāi)來(lái)？他認(rèn)為，雖然我們無(wú)法完全否定哲學(xué)與文學(xué)之間的區(qū)別，但我們通常卻并沒(méi)有真正理解這兩者之間的區(qū)別，而這樣的區(qū)別其實(shí)如同哲學(xué)與科學(xué)、哲學(xué)與藝術(shù)以及哲學(xué)與神學(xué)之間的區(qū)別一樣容易發(fā)生混淆。可以看出，卡維爾的目的并不是要安全否認(rèn)哲學(xué)與文學(xué)的不同，相反，他是要從這兩種不同的科學(xué)的自身性質(zhì)上去理解它們的特征，由此更好地理解它們之間的區(qū)別。

作者簡(jiǎn)介

作者：(美國(guó))卡維爾(Stanley Cavell) 合著者：江怡

書(shū)籍目錄

PermissionsAcknowledgmentsPreface to Updated Edition of Must We Mean What We Say?Foreword: An Audience for Philosophy  Ⅰ Must We Mean What We Say?  Ⅱ The Availability of Wittgenstein's Later Philosophy  Ⅲ Aesthetic Problems of Modern Philosophy  Ⅳ Austin at Criticism  Ⅴ Ending the Waiting Game: A Reading of Beckett's Endgame  Ⅵ Kierkegaard's On Authority and Revelation  Ⅶ Music Discomposed  Ⅷ A Matter of Meaning It  Ⅸ Knowing and Acknowledging  Ⅹ The Avoidance of Love: A Reading of King LearThematic IndexIndex of Names

章節(jié)摘錄

I do assert a distinction throughout these essays which, becauseit may seem either controversial or trivial, I want to call attention tofrom the beginning－a distinction between the modern and the tra-ditional, in philosophy and out. My claim is not that all contempo-rary philosophy which is good is modern; but the various discussionsabout the modern I am led to in the course of these essays are thebest I can offer in explanation of the way I have written, or the wayI would wish to write. The essential fact of （what I refer to as） themodern lies in the relation between the present practice of an enter-prise and the history of that enterprise, in the fact that this re-lation has become problematic. Innovation in philosophy has char-acteristically gone together with a repudiation－a specifically castrepudiation——of most of the history of the subject. But in the laterWittgenstein （and, I would now add, in Heidegger's Being and Time）the repudiation of the past has a transformed significance, as thoughcontaining the consciousness that history will not go away, exceptthrough our perfect acknowledgment of it （in particular, ouracknowledgment that it is not past）, and that one's own practice andambition can be identified only against the continuous experienceof the past. （This new significance in philosophical repudiation itselfhas a history. Its most obvious precursor is Hegel, but it begins, Ibelieve, in Kant. For it is in Kant that one finds an explicit recogni-tion that the terms in which the past is criticized are specific to one'sown position, and require justification from within that position. Aclear instance of such a Kantian term of criticism is his characteri-zation of an opposed "Idealism" as making the world "empiricallyideal and transcendentally real"; another is his diagnosis of "dialec-tical illusion."） But "the past" does not in this context refer simplyto the historical past; it refers to one's own past, to what is past, orwhat has passed, within oneself. One could say that in a modernistsituation "past" loses its temporal accent and means anything "notpresent." Meaning what one says becomes a matter of making one'ssense present to oneself. This is the way I understand Wittgenstein'shaving described his later philosophy as an effort to "bring wordsback" to their everyday use （Philosophical Investigations, 6; myemphasis）, as though the words we use in philosophy, in any reflec-tion about our concerns, are away.

編輯推薦

《言必所指?》：外教社西方文論學(xué)叢書(shū)。

圖書(shū)封面

圖書(shū)標(biāo)簽Tags

無(wú)

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    言必所指？ PDF格式下載

---