查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- Nonsense Humor: A Battlefield for Ludwig Wittgenstein or a Playground for Lewis Carroll?
- Cinematic Folds underneath "East Asia": Humorous Traces of History in H Story and Secret Sunshine
- Chinese Appreciation of English Law Humor
- 維根斯坦後期哲學及其教育涵義
- 維根斯坦「哲學探索」語言分析觀對學校教育的啟示
- 「完全壯陽食譜」之「幽默」策略
- Carlyle's Sorrow and Conversion--Myth and Fact
- 維根斯坦之後期哲學思想及其對教育的啟示
- 虛擬與文學--德勒茲的文學論
- 「鏡花緣」之幽默--清中葉中國幽默文學之分析
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | Nonsense Humor: A Battlefield for Ludwig Wittgenstein or a Playground for Lewis Carroll?=荒誕幽默：維根斯坦的殺戮戰場或是路易斯卡萊爾的遊樂園？ |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 蔣裕祺; | 書刊名 | 修平人文社會學報 |
| 卷 期 | 20 2013.03[民102.03] |
| 頁 次 | 頁27-46 |
| 分類號 | 873.57 |
| 關鍵詞 | 荒誕; 幽默; 維根斯坦; 卡萊爾; 德勒茲; Nonsense; Humor; Wittgenstein; Carroll; Deleuze; |
| 語 文 | 英文(English) |
| 中文摘要 | 目前學界僅有少數學者針對路易斯卡萊爾和維根斯坦進行比較研究，而其中喬治皮趣在1965 年發表的著名論文〈維根斯坦、荒誕與路易斯卡萊爾〉異常卓越地展現了兩位偉大作家在荒誕主題上深度與廣度的相似性。皮趣所觀察到的有趣現象為「維根斯坦用以指控哲學家的混亂卻被卡萊爾好整以暇地拿來大開玩笑」（頁231）。據此，他以三個相似的論點來彰顯維根斯坦哲學荒誕與卡萊爾文學荒誕的相似性。然而，我認為皮趣狀似成理的三個論點仍需進行進一步檢驗。首先，維根斯坦晚期荒誕的思想促使皮趣將維根斯坦負面地描繪成一位浴血奮戰的哲學戰士，誓言「將荒誕逐出哲學」，並「將荒誕用作疫苗般來治癒我們荒誕的病疾」（頁230）。再者，維根斯坦從早期到晚期思想的發展中，皆未親口證實卡萊爾的奇幻文學中的文學荒誕是否對其對哲學荒誕的看法產生何種深遠的影響，但我仍將從皮趣對維根斯坦及卡萊爾荒誕對比分析的同與異中找尋後者對前者影響的證據。最後，皮趣以維根斯坦晚期對荒誕的看法為主線，佐以卡萊爾的文本證據，以求揭露維根斯坦哲學中負面荒誕的做法並無法給予卡萊爾的喜劇幽默應有的評價；因此，我將援用德勒茲《意義的邏輯》，尤其是第十九系列論幽默篇來比較負面諷刺與正向幽默。本論文旨在重新檢視皮趣所宣稱哲學家維根斯坦及文學家卡洛爾的相似性，及其未經進一步論證即遽下的主張與結論。論文前半段探討維根斯坦分別透過早期邏輯思想與晚期語言遊戲思想的透鏡是如何看待哲學荒誕；在論文的後半段中，維氏晚期思想如佐以間接證據雖可假設卡洛爾對該時期維根斯坦的影響，但皮趣暗示晚期維氏轉向卡洛爾的說法卻明顯與其將該期維氏描繪成浴血奮戰的哲學戰士的形象相左，造成晚期維氏的哲學荒誕仍是曖昧不明。但如不計皮趣的匆忙主張（晚期維氏的卡洛爾轉向）與結論（維氏與卡洛爾看似相似，其實天差地別），維根斯坦在殺戮戰場上仍視荒誕為敵。我希望透過德勒茲幽默理論的媒介，重新省思卡洛爾荒誕幽默的正向價值。 |
| 英文摘要 | It really surprises us to see that only a few researchers have undertaken a comparative study between Lewis Carroll and Wittgenstein, and among the scant researches George Pitcher’s much celebrated article “Wittgenstein, Nonsense, and Lewis Carroll” in 1965 has remarkably demonstrated the extent and depth of theaffinity between these two great writers with respect to nonsense. It is interesting, asPitcher suggests, that “the very same confusions with which Wittgenstein chargesphilosophers were deliberately employed by Carroll for comic effect” （231）. He begins with three similar aims to try to illustrate the affinity between Wittgenstein’sphilosophical nonsense and Carroll’s literary nonsense. However, three of Pitcher’s arguments seem plausible to me and need further examination. First of all, his idea oflater Wittgenstein’s opinion of nonsense negatively portrays Wittgenstein the philosopher as if he is fighting a bloody battle to “exorcize nonsense from philosophy” and “uses it like a vaccine that cures us of itself”（230）. Secondly, fromearly to later Wittgenstein, he never says that Carroll’s literary nonsense in fantasyliterature has ever exerted a profound influence on his philosophical works, but I willexplore the similarities and differences between Wittgenstein and Carroll in Pitcher’s essay to look for proof of such influence. Last, Carroll’s comic humor is not given enough recognition especially when Pitcher’s argument proceeds in the direction ofWittgenstein’s train of thought with Carroll’s textual support in order to disclose that“nonsense” is negative in Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Thus, I plan to apply Deleuze’s contrast between negative irony and affirmative humor in The Logic of Sense in general, and his Series 19 on Humor in particular to affirm Carroll’s nonsense humor.The aim of this article attempts to reexamine Pitcher’s alleged affinity between the philosopher Wittgenstein and the literary writer Carroll, and also his hasty argument and conclusion. The first half of this paper focuses on the transition from Wittgenstein’s early thought of logic and his later thought of language game, andhow the philosophical nonsense can be approached with these two thoughts. In the second half, although Carroll’s influence on the later Wittgenstein can be proved with indirect evidence, the discrepancy between Pitcher’s hypothesis of later Wittgenstein’s Carrollian turn and his portray of later Wittgenstein as a bloody warrior on a battlefield makes the later Wittgenstein’s philosophical nonsense all the more ambiguous. Without taking Pitcher’s hasty argument （later Wittgenstein’s Carrollian turn） and conclusion（they might stand very close to each other, but they are worlds apart） into consideration, I can argue that the later Wittgenstein is still fighting philosophical nonsense on his bloody battlefield. Instead of drawing uponthe later Wittgenstein’s philosophical nonsense, I turn to Deleuze’s argument abouthumor in The Logic of Sense to reassess the affirmative power of Carroll’s nonsense humor. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。