查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 關於東亞的思考「方法」:以竹內好、溝口雄三與子安宣邦為中心=How to Think from East Asia? Reflections on the Scholarship of Takeuchi Yoshimi, Mizoguchi Yūzō, and Koyasu Nobukuni |
---|---|
作 者 | 張崑將; | 書刊名 | 臺灣東亞文明研究學刊 |
卷 期 | 1:2 2004.12[民93.12] |
頁 次 | 頁259-288 |
分類號 | 131.3 |
關鍵詞 | 東亞; 中國學; 竹內好; 溝口雄三; 子安宣邦; East Asia; Sinology; Takeuchi Yoshimi; Mizoguchi Yuzo; Koyasu Nobukuni; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文旨在探討三位日本學者竹內好(1910-1977)、溝口雄三(1932-)、子安宣邦(1933-),對於「東亞」、「中國學」思考方法的學術論爭。竹內好的主張,在於追求「東亞之同」的亞細亞自身模式,以之抵抗歐洲文明,敢於否定自己的傳統,並企圖在論述中形成一個重生的主體,從而建構一個具有獨立自主、內在主體的「亞細亞」。由於他對中國的心情帶有愧疚與嚮往,因而其所提倡的「方法」,可說是一種「有中國的中國學」之研究。溝口雄三則從承認「東亞之異」為始,主張中國是中國、日本是日本,並在對戰前與戰後日本中國學的研究深刻反省後,提出「以中國為方法,就是以世界為目的」的論點,其提倡的「方法」是要求「超越中國的中國學」,以達成客觀性的研究。子安宣邦立場雖傾向竹內好,但他拒絕把中國看作東亞的主要場域,而強調以歷史性的批判觀點來看待「東亞」,反對一切企圖把東亞「實體化」的目的原理或主義。 |
英文摘要 | This paper attempts at a discussion of the methodological debates over “East Asia” and “Sinology” studies among Takeuchi Yoshimi (1910-1977), Mizoguchi Yūzō (1932-), and Koyasu Nobukuni (1933-). To offset Occidental influence, Takeuchi Yoshimi sought after an Asia Pattern built on the “East Asian homogeneity.”Denying his own tradition, with this homogeneity he constructed a new, independent “Asian subjectivity.” With a complex feeling of love and guilt toward China, Takeuchi Yoshimi developed a methodology which might be called “Chinese Sinology.” On the contrary, Mizoguchi Yūzō took a different route recognizing “East Asian homogeneity.” namely, China as China; Japan as Japan. He reflected upon both pre-war and post-war Japanese Sinology and proposed a new theory of “China as method; the worlds as the end.” His methodology pursued to transcend “China-centered Sinology.” Koyasu Nobukuni, in spite of his agreement with Takeuchi Yoshimi, refused to locate China on the center of East Asia. Rather, Koyasu employed a historical critical approach toward “East Asia” rejecting any principle or doctrine that tries to “embody” East Asia. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。