论文部分内容阅读
本文简要梳理后现代思潮的起源及其发展,并通过对结构主义与后结构主义的分析,提取其核心思想。后现代思潮主要兴起于20世纪60年代,而本文从以尼采(Friedrich Nietzsche)为代表的早期存在主义开始,分析了后现代哲学起源的复杂性、学说的多样性及其在时间和思想层面的相互关系。其中主要介绍了维特根斯坦(Ludwig Wittgenstein)、罗兰·巴特(Roland Barthes)、德里达(Jacques Derrida)、利奥塔(Jean-Francois Lyotard)、鲍德里亚(Jean Baudrillard)、托马斯·库恩(Thomas Samuel Kuhn)、理查德·罗尔蒂(Richard Rorty)、雅克·拉康(Jacques Lacan),以及福柯(Michel Foucault)等人的学说,及其受到的质疑和批判,尽可能还原这些学说的基本面貌,避免放大其修辞和文学层面的迷惑性。同时,本文通过对索绪尔和皮尔斯两人性质完全不同的符号学的比较,理清了后现代思潮的基本线索,呈现了结构主义与后结构主义的核心分歧,以及对后世哲学、文学及艺术批评的影响。本文以中立的方式写作,而任何“中立”性质的哲学写作都是必然设定了“客观”的分析对象,也就在基本层面上反对了后现代的叙事方式,并必然将后现代思潮放入了它们所反对的“元叙事”系统之中。然而,笔者本人虽然不是后现代思潮的追随者,却也并不认为有绝对“中立”的存在。这篇文章只是为了清晰认知,那么观看所在的所谓“中立”位置也并不在被外在预设的“元叙事”当中,而是在每个读者的内在经验当中。从这个角度来说,本文的“中立”是为了不干扰读者的内在感知而设定的。
This paper briefly reviews the origin and development of the postmodernist trend of thought and extracts its core ideas through the analysis of structuralism and post-structuralism. The trend of post-modernism emerged mainly in the 1960s. Beginning with the early existentialism represented by Friedrich Nietzsche, this essay analyzes the complexities of the origin of postmodern philosophy, the diversity of doctrines and their differences in time and thought Interrelationship. Among them, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard, Thomas Kuhn Thomas Samuel Kuhn, Richard Rorty, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault, with the questions and criticisms they have received, to restore as much as possible The basic outlook of the doctrine, to avoid amplification of its rhetoric and literary level of confusion. At the same time, the dissertation clarifies the basic clues of post-modernism through the comparison of completely different semiotics between Saussure and Pierce, presents the core disagreements between structuralism and post-structuralism, The impact of artistic criticism. This article is written in a neutral way, and any “neutral” philosophical writing is an analytic object that necessarily sets “objective”, and at the basic level opposes the postmodern narrative style, Postmodernism has been put in the “meta-narrative” system that they oppose. However, although I am not a follower of post-modernism, I do not think there is an absolute “neutral ” existence. This article is only for the sake of clear cognition, so the so-called “neutral” position of viewing is not in the presupposed “meta-narration”, but in the inner experience of each reader. From this perspective, the “neutrality” of this article is set in order not to interfere with the reader’s inner perception.