【作者】 庞红蕊；

【导师】 汪民安；

【作者基本信息】 北京外国语大学 ， 比较文学与跨文化研究， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 动物问题研究是西方哲学领域中的新兴学科,目前还未引起学术界的足够重视。人们认为,哲学探讨的是形而上学和认识论的问题,动物问题研究显然偏离了这样一种哲学诉求。其实,自西方哲学诞生之日起,动物问题就成为了它不可或缺的组成部分。哲学家们在探讨人的时候必然谈及动物。它们与人最为切近,却也是最为神秘的存在者。它们是人的对立面,却也是人的根基所在。它们是人所要否定的东西,同时也是不断复现的东西。西方主流哲学家们在探讨动物问题时的出发点不同,得出的结论也不尽相同。然而他们都认为人与动物之间存在一条天然的界限。人们对这一界限的强调是为了从虚构的差异中来捕获“人之本质”的概念,从人为的划分中来确立人类在世界中的位置,从暴力的切割中来去除混沌状态所带来的恐慌。人从动物这一镜像中来审视自己、认识自己。可以说,如果去掉动物他者,“人性”就成了一片虚无的暗夜,成了一个空洞的能指。“人性”这一概念是由动物他者来填充的。尼采开始反思“人性”、“动物性”以及“人与动物之界限”等传统哲学命题。在“人与动物之区分”问题上,尼采反对传统形而上学对人与动物之界限的划分方式。在“动物存在或动物性问题”上,尼采反对传统形而上学对动物性的贬低乃至压制。尼采对动物问题的探讨启发了后世哲学家对动物问题的关注。在《形而上学的基本概念》一书中,海德格尔用了近一百页的篇幅来探讨动物的存在方式问题,可见他对动物问题的重视。海德格尔在尼采的基础上有意识地反对传统形而上学对动物之本质的规定,有目的地批判传统形而上学对人与动物之区别的思考。德里达继承了尼采对形而上学人类中心主义的批判,他试图“超越人和人道主义”来探讨人与动物之关系。德里达说道,从撰写《论文字学》开始,他便致力于突破人类中心主义。他所提出的一系列概念(如延异、增补、好客、未来之民主等)都超越了“人类”的范畴,将所有的生物涵盖其中。意大利思想家阿甘本欣赏尼采“不合时宜”之沉思的勇气,欣赏他将现代所引以为傲的基督教道德理解为一种疾病和贫瘠,欣赏他对动物性生存的颂赞。在《敞开：人与动物》一书中,阿甘本继承了尼采对基督教文化和西方传统形而上学的批判。如果说尼采在其著作中反对传统形而上学对人与动物的二元划分,那么阿甘本则在尼采思想的基础上寻找这种划分方式背后的运作机制。为此,他借用了意大利神话学家F·泽西的“人类学机器”概念来形容这一机制。如果说尼采对动物问题的探讨主要集中在哲学层面,那么阿甘本则广泛涉及政治学、哲学、神学、生物学等领域来探讨动物问题。可以说,较之尼采,阿甘本对动物问题的探讨更加复杂,也更加全面了。依据这种思路,本文共分为两大部分共六章。第一部分用三章的篇幅来探讨尼采哲学中的动物问题。在这部分中,笔者从动物视角对尼采的三个重要文本(《悲剧的诞生》、《查拉图斯特拉如是说》以及《论道德的谱系》)进行了解读。第二部分用三章的篇幅来探讨后尼采哲学中的动物问题。在这部分中,笔者选取了三位当代欧陆哲学家,即：海德格尔、阿甘本和德里达。在第四章“海德格尔的动物问题”中,笔者致力于探讨两个问题：第一,海德格尔与人类中心主义的复杂关系。第二,海德格尔对尼采动物问题的批判。在第五章“阿甘本的动物问题”中,笔者力图从动物角度入手来探索阿甘本思想的轨迹。在第六章“德里达的动物问题”中,笔者主要探讨两大问题。第一,德里达是如何批判西方形而上学之人类中心主义的?第二,他是如何从伦理学层面来阐述“动物他者”的?更多还原

【Abstract】 Animal Studies is a recently recognized subject in western philosophical field, which has not been attached much attention yet. It is widely accepted that Philosophy mainly focuses on metaphysics and epistemology, from which Animal Studies apparently deviates. However, as a matter of fact, ever since the birth of western philosophy, the Animal Studies has been an indispensable part of it. Philosophers never fail to talk about animals when probing into the mystery of man. Closest to man but of most mysterious existence, animals are both the counterpart and the foundation of man. They are what man wants to deny yet what constantly reappear. While mainstream western philosophers put forward various ideas about animals from different perspectives, they all hold that there is a natural boundary between human and animals. The emphasis of this boundary is to capture the conception of "the essence of man" from the imaginary differences, to spot man’s position in the world through artificial categories, and to get rid of the panic out of chaos with violence. Man judges and knows himself with the image of animal. If the animal other, so to speak, were deleted,"the nature of man" would become the dark night of nihility and an empty signifier. The concept of "the nature of man" is fulfilled by the animal other. Friedrich Nietzsche pioneered in the reflection of some traditional propositions like "humanity","animality","the boundary between man and animal" and so on. In the matter of "the boundary between man and animal", he rejected the traditionally metaphysical way of division. With the proposition of "animal existence or animality", he argued against the depreciation and suppression to animality by traditional metaphysics. Friedrich Nietzsche’s reflections have inspired following philosophers’ concerns about Animal Studies. In The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics: World, Finitude, Solitude, Martin Heidegger’s discussion about the issue of animal’s way of existence covers over100pages, which shows his deep concern about it. On the basis of Nietzsche’s research, He consciously opposed the the nature of animals defined by traditional metaphysics, and criticized the meditation concerning the differences between man and animals in traditional metaphysics. Following Nietzsche’s critique to metaphysical anthropocentrism, Jacques Derrida discussed the relationship between man and animals in an attempt to transcend "human and humanitarianism". From the writing Of Grammatology, said Derrida, he had devoted himself to breaking anthropocentrism. A series of concepts put forward by Derrida, such as "differance","supplement","hospitality" and "democracy to come", all transcend the category of "Human", covering all creatures in it. Italian thinker, Giorgio Agamben, thinks highly of Nietzsche’s courage to meditate "inappropriately", which regarded Christian morality, the pride of modern time, as a kind of disease and poverty, while sang its eulogy to the way of living like animals. In The Open:Man and Animal, Agamben accepted Nietzsche’s critique of Christian culture and traditional western metaphysics. If it could be said that in his works, Nietzsche rejected the binary relationship between man and animals divided by traditional metaphysics, then Agamben detected the operating mechanism behind such division on the basis of Nietzsche’s thoughts. To do this, he borrowed the concept of "anthropological machine" from Italian mythologist Furio Jesi to describe this mechanism. If Nietzsche’s discussion on animals mainly centered on philosophical level, then Agamben’s study on animals widely involved politics, philosophy, theology, biology and many other fields. Compared with Nietzsche, Agamben’s discussion on animals are more complicated and more comprehensive. Following the logic mentioned above, this dissertation includes two parts, six chapters. Part one discusses Nietzsche’s animal studies with three chapters, which is centered on three of Nietzsche’s important works:The Birth of Tragedy, Thus Spoke Zarathustra and On the Genealogy of Morals. Part two probes into Animal Studies in post-Nietzsche philosophy, which also covers three chapters. In this part, three contemporary European philosophers, Martin Heidegger, Giorgio Agamben and Jacques Derrida are under study. Chapter Four, with the title of "Heidegger’s discussion about animals", is devoted to exploring two topics:1. the complicated relationship between Heidegger and anthropocentrism;2. Heidegger’s critique of Nietzsche’s discussion about animals. Chapter Five,"Agamben’s Animal Studies", shows the trajectory of Agamben’s philosophy from the perspective of animal. And Chapter Six,"Derrida’s Animal Studies", attempts to find the answers to two questions:1. How did Derrida critique western metaphysical anthropocentrism?2. How did he explain "the animal other" in the perspective of ethics?更多还原