頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 環境倫理學與環境美學的東西差異--與Holmes Rolston, III商榷=East-West Difference and Diversity of Environmental Ethics and Environmental Aesthetics--Response for Holmes Rolston III and Other Matters |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 劉悅笛; | 書刊名 | 應用倫理評論 |
卷期 | 60 2016.04[民105.04] |
頁次 | 頁47-73 |
專輯 | 「環境倫理與環境美學」專題 |
分類號 | 198.3615 |
關鍵詞 | 環境倫理學; 環境美學; 荷姆斯‧羅斯頓III; 荒野模式; Environmental ethics; Environmental aesthetics; Holmes Rolston III; The paradigm of wild; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 所謂「荒野模式」,主張環境倫理學和環境美學皆要「荒野化」,本文就與荷姆斯‧羅斯頓 III提出的「哲學走向荒野」之基本觀點進行商榷。中國環境主義傳統走出的就是另一條「天人學」之路,而且,這條道路在東西差異之間更具有全球適用性。這是由於,傳統的「自然 ——文化」二分法已經過時,如今人類面臨的境遇是如何更好地融入業已人化的自然當中,而不是逃離到荒野之外。無論是關於「自然全美」的積極美學的爭論,還是關於「自然之醜」是否存在的爭論,皆關係到如何應對人與自然基本關係的難題。由此,就可以從中國儒家的「審美倫理學」或「倫理美學」的視角,來重新探尋環境倫理學與環境美學之新型關聯。 |
英文摘要 | The socalled “The Paradigm of Wild”, means whether environmental ethics or environmental aesthetics be gone wild, and I would discuss by Holmes Rolston III about “philosophy gone wild”. Chinese traditional environmentalism extended another kind of anthropocosmic way, and it has a global applicability in the contexts of the east-west diversity. The dichotomy of “nature-culture” was already out of time, and human have to face to the new relation of the humanized-nature today. The debates between “positive aesthetics” and “ugly in nature” are related to the new human-nature relationship. From the perspective of Confucian aesthetic-ethics or ethic-aesthetics, we are shaping a passageway between environmental ethics and environmental aesthetics in the end. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。