查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 論船山對儒家傳統詩學「興觀群怨」概念之再詮釋
- 王船山先生思想述要
- 詮釋中的道說[評陳來:《詮釋與重建--王船山的哲學精神》]
- 試論船山轉化性詮釋之思維模式:以船山思想與佛學思想轉化為例
- 王船山《周易內傳》的詮釋向度
- 李義山無題詩詮釋新論
- Scriptures and Their Popularization: The Case of the Lun-yu and Hsiao-ching in the Han Dynasty
- 人能弘道.道通為一:心理學本土化的方法論挑戰及其回應
- 郭店竹簡《老子》的道論與宇宙論--相關文本的解讀與比較
- 文化傳承與社會批判--回顧Apel, Habermas, Gadamer, Ricoeur間的詮釋學論爭
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 論船山對儒家傳統詩學「興觀群怨」概念之再詮釋=On Wang Fu-chih's Reinterpretation of the Confucian Concept for the Function of Poetry: “Stimulating, Observing, Expressing Fellowship, Showing Resentment” |
---|---|
作者 | 蕭馳; | 書刊名 | 中國文哲研究集刊 |
卷期 | 19 民90.09 |
頁次 | 頁109-145 |
分類號 | 093 |
關鍵詞 | 王船山; 興觀群怨; 詮釋學; 船山思想; 生命存在智慧; 抒情傳統之本體意識; Stimulating, observing, expressing fellowship, showing resentment; Hermeneutics; Wang Fu-chih's thought; Wisdom about human existence; Ontological consciousness of Chinese lyricism; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 船山對孔子提出的「興觀群怨」概念的討論在其詩學中 提綱挈領的意味。今人對此或解釋為強調作者創作狀態中審美非功利性、非目的性與詩的社會功利性的統一,或解釋為讀者鑒賞對作品意義的創造。而西方文論中,主張審美意識與社會性參與則是互相對立的。面對上述困惑,本文對船山詩學這一重要論題進行全面再探討。文中提出﹕在孔子原義以及漢儒、宋儒的注疏中,「興觀群怨」本指對已然成為文本的《詩經》研習中生發的四種社會功用。但在船山的再詮釋�堙A此概念卻同時涵攝了詩的創作和閱讀兩個方面,即︰船山是從讀者的接受需要而討論作者在創作時如何「能俾人隨觸而皆可」的問題,從而建立了一個從作者之「意」到作品(在閱讀中呈現)之「義」的圓融的,和相對開放的詩歌美學生命存在的結構。由此,船山首先企圖解決詩人創作狀態的直覺性、超功利性與藝術作品社會性的關係問題。然而,與西方詮釋學的思路不同,在船山,詩人的「不自覺」卻並不導致詮釋學的自覺性質。相反地,船山強調只有以胸次悠然的「餘情」和「廣心」,讀者才得以從文本中獲得「遊于四情之中」的生命體驗。在此,船山徹底否定了由漢代詩經學者所設定的由重建詩人創作之「意」而建立作品之「義」的詮釋觀。也確如伽德瑪以亞歷士多德「淨化」概念討論悲劇一樣,船山以抒情詩之呈現來界定其美學生命。然而,船山的詮釋觀念卻不應被等同為伽德瑪的詮釋持續性。本文最後比較了中西詮釋觀念發展的思想背景,即從施萊爾瑪赫到伽德瑪、與從儒家傳統批評家到船山關於生命存在的智慧。此一比較揭示出﹕因船山未能離開以天、人連續的邏輯以論人性生成,其有關生命存在的智慧也最終未能悖離由共時穿入歷時以認定人類共同之情的立場,而其所認定的「人情之遊也無涯」也就未必與歷史發展的持續性相關。然而,船山卻由其性命之學出發,強調性命授受過程中天之「摶造無心」和個體之「人日受命於天」,故而在詩學中彰顯了在每一片刻興感之中,詩人或讀者「所持之己」可能的差異。這樣,船山在從本文化立場去總結中國抒情傳統之時,也同時修正了此一傳統的本體意識觀念。 |
英文摘要 | Wang Fu-chih's reinterpretation of Confucius' concept for poetry, “hsing (stimulating), kuan (observing), ch'un (expressing fellowship), yuan (showing resentment),” is one of the essential notions underpinning his poetics. Modern scholars have explained Wang's meaning of this notion as either an emphasis on unity between non-utilitarian and non-goal-directed status of the poet's aesthetic creation and the poetic work's social function, or a highlight on the reader's participation in the creation of meanings of a poetic work. However, these two meanings, i.e., “aesthetic consciousness” and “social participation,” respectively represented in the West by Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher and Georg Gadamer, are opposite to each other in Western hermeneutics. In the face of the above puzzles, this essay is intended to make an overall re-examination of the meanings of this concept crucially related to Wang's poetics. It argues that--deviating from the Confucian original stipulation that the textualized poetry (The Classic of Poetry) has four social functions working through reading process--the concept in Wang's reinterpretation covers meanings about both composing and reading, the author and the reader. That is to say, in terms of the reader's receptive need, Wang discusses how, in the course of creation, the poet “enables production of any of the four functions depending on what the reader encounters” and thereby establishes a structure for poetry's aesthetic life which connects in mutual release the authorial “intention” with the “meaning” of a work produced in its presentation and reading. In so doing, Wang, first of all, tries to resolve the contradiction between the non-goal-directedness and intuitiveness of aesthetic creation and the social utilitarian function of a poetic work. Yet, different from the way Western hermeneutics justifies its own undertaking, for Wang, the confirmation of the poet's unconsciousness in composition does not entail a recognition of the need for a conscious hermeneutics. On the contrary, Wang highlights that only when a reader releases himself from any personal concern can he enjoy the experience of “wandering within the four feelings” through the reading of poetry. At this point, Wang radically denies the Han Confucian scholars' hermeneutic concept that the meaning of a poetic work can be derived only from the reconstruction of its author's “intention.” Furthermore, as Gadamer uses Aristotle's notion "catharsis” to discuss tragedy for defining the genre, Wang also defines the aesthetic life of lyric poetry in terms of its presentation to readers. But, Wang's hermeneutic concept should not be exaggerated as confirming Gadamerian “hermeneutic continuity.” The final part of this essay compares the intellectual backgrounds, the philosophical shifts concerning human existence, behind the development of hermeneutic concepts in the West and ancient China. The comparison reveals that, since Wang Fu-chih could not finally depart from the tradition of exploring human nature in terms of a continuum between man and heaven, his philosophy about human existence accordingly is still totalistic and the so-called “wandering within the four feelings” is not equivalent to Gadamer's “hermeneutic continuity” that is based upon human historical existence, “the Dasein.” Nevertheless, by his philosophy of the heavenly ordained and human nature, in spite of his confirmation that all individuals' natures in the last analysis are generally the same, Wang emphases that feelings between the poet and reader, or between readers, at every particular moment are not necessarily the same. His poetics therefore stands as a great theoretical summary of Chinese lyricism from the stance of the tradition itself and meanwhile a revision of its “ontological consciousness.” |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。