【作者】 贾福生；

【导师】 吕长发；

【作者基本信息】 河南大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2005， 博士

【摘要】 以尼采为代表的西方非理性哲学,在和理性哲学的斗争中,从没有停止过自己的脚步。理性哲学强调主体的绝对理性地位,排斥非理性因素带来的迷乱和怀疑,采用二元对立的思维模式,而非理性哲学则强调本能和情感的力量。二十世纪末期,非理性哲学有了迅猛发展。后现代时期,多种哲学话语呈现共鸣状态,始终进行着彻底解构与将解构与重构结合的辩论,理论现状为自由多元主义和折中主义。在众声喧哗的后现代话语和声中,吉尔·德勒兹的言说深沉、绵长和寂寞。作为尼采、斯多噶、柏格森等非理性哲学的信徒,德勒兹一直在寻找着在解构传统形而上学哲学之后哲学话语的重建工作。 米歇尔·福柯曾经预言:也许有一天当下的世纪会成为德勒兹的世纪。如今,与福柯和德理达相比,德勒兹还没有受到应有的重视。但是,二十一世纪以来,德勒兹的确受到人们越来越多的关注。过去十年中,在世界各个地方,对德勒兹哲学的兴趣日益高涨。德勒兹研究呈现多种形式和取向。有些学者关注德勒兹哲学的一般性介绍和研究,有些关注德勒兹哲学的某些特别课题,还有些学者则在探索德勒兹哲学在不同领域里的应用前景。目前,西方对德勒兹的研究主要还是停留在评介阶段,国内情况更是如此。 德勒兹对尼采等人的非理性哲学传统的“内在性”非常心仪,他试图推翻柏拉图的“理念”论,建立超验的经验主义。本文由此出发,探究德勒兹内在性哲学的隐含意义,并且挖掘德勒兹哲学作为一门文学理论的文学解释力,探索德勒兹学术实践中各个阶段其“内在性”的不同意义,深入理解德勒兹学术生活和现实生活背后的无意识,试图推断出德勒兹何以坚持“事件”、“单一体”、“幻像”、“欲望”、“生成”、“情感”、“知觉”和“感觉”等一系列的流动性的“内在性”概念。在德勒兹看来,这些概念都是先于个人和脱离个人的。德勒兹对未经个体化的意识以及彻底的精神自由有着与生俱来的向往,这可以从其现实生活和学术实践反映出来。 本文共有八个章节组成。引言评述德勒兹的生活经历、其作为一名悖论思想家的一般特征、基本学术贡献、与福柯和德理达的基本异同、以及本文的研究问viii题和研究方法,其中特别关注了德勒兹对哲学的建设性举措,即德勒兹在解构传统二元对立过程中,不断建立新的二元对立;在破坏旧的形而上学的过程中,也在建立新的超验经验主义的形而上学;而其所谓的“概念”大师,不过是对于传统概念失去信心,而以非概念的方式表征差异和生成而已。第一章介绍德勒兹以何种方式把不同哲学思想融入自己的哲学体系,认为,理解德勒兹生活的追求和其哲学取向的关键在于其对于“内在性”的迷恋,即对“流动”的迷恋。这些流动概念包括事件、单子、幻像、欲望、强度、情感、感知、感觉等。德勒兹在推翻表征思想、建立超验经验主义的过程中,以一种全新的方式,重新解读了尼采、柏格森、斯多噶等“孤儿思想家”的思想以及柏拉图拒斥的“幻像”,并把各种有关现象和流动的思想纳入自己的哲学体系,建立了内在平面,于是,现实和虚拟没有了界限,表面和深度共处同一平面。第二章至第五章讨论德勒兹和加塔里合作的结晶“精神分裂症分析”。二者的合作导致了他们彼此写作风格和学术研究的“生成”。德勒兹本身是一位哲学家,而加塔里则是精神分析学家。在研究方法和风格方面,二者都表现出了显著的改变。他们的研究以弗洛伊德和拉康为代表的精神分析学为攻击目标,展示了自己毫不妥协的斗争精神。德勒兹和加塔里对于精神分析学的懦弱很不满意,他们渴望着解放被制约的欲望和无意识,从而恢复本我和无意识的生产性。第二章以精神分析学为参照,讨论了精神分裂症分析的方法论及其详细指导纲领。二者相比,前者最大的弱点在于其思维和方法方面是线形、停滞和封闭的,而后者则是根茎式的,或曰游牧的,因而是多样、开放,流动的。第三章集中于精神分裂症分析的关键概念:欲望。文章讨论了“欲望”的两种解读方式,其一为先验的欲望“缺乏”论,以弗洛伊德和拉康为代表,其二为德勒兹和加塔里为代表的内在的欲望理论。弗洛伊德和拉康坚持认为,“欲望”是一种缺乏,人们之所以有欲望是因为他们需要某种东西。德勒兹和加塔里则持相反观点,他们认为欲望隐藏着生产性。第四章和第五章阐述了欲望生产过程中的欲望机器、无器官的身体和游牧的主体等三个组成部分,以及在这个过程中的三个生产阶段:生产的生产、记录的生产以及消费和圆满的生产。欲望生产的三个环节形成一个连续的生产循环。欲更多还原

【Abstract】 In the struggle against rational philosophy, irrational philosophy represented by Nietzsche has been in constant progress. Rational philosophy advocates duality. It stresses the supremacy of rational subject, and rejects the indeterminacy caused by irrational elements. Irrational philosophy emphasizes the role of instinct and passions. It has been developing at an enormous speed since the advent of the last quarter of the 20th century. In this post-modern period, discourses of diverse philosophical schools are in resonance. The debate between utter deconstruction and reconstruction on the basis of deconstruction has been evolving. The theoretical configuration of various schools in this period assumes liberal pluralism and eclecticism. In the roaring discourses of post-modern times, the voice of Gilles Deleuze sounds lonely, deep and lingering. As a follower of Nietzsche, the Stoics, Bergson, and other irrational philosophers, Deleuze was seeking the way to “reconstruct” philosophy after dethroning the traditional metaphysics. Michel Foucault went so far as to claim that “[…] perhaps one day, this century will be known as Deleuzian.” Foucault’s announcement might be a little exaggerative. However and indeed, Deleuze has not received due attention as have Foucault and Derrida. But the 21st century does witness people’s increasing interest in Deleuzian philosophy. In the past decade, there has been growing enthusiasm for Deleuzian philosophy the world over. Deleuze studies take on diverse forms and orientations. Some researchers focus on the general understanding of Deleuze’s philosophy; some are concerned with certain Deleuze’s philosophical projects; still others focus on the exploration of its practicability in various fields. Generally speaking, the study of Deleuze’s works is still in the introductory stage, and this is even more so in China. Deleuze is a philosopher fascinated with immanence in the irrational tradition. The main thrust of his work is to dethrone the Platonic Idea of representation and establish transcendental empiricism. With this as its starting point, the dissertation is to clarify the implications of Deleuze’s philosophy of immanence and explore its possibilities in terms of literature interpretation as a literary school. The dissertation explores the significances of “immanence” in different phases of Deleuze’s academic practice and attempts to gain insight into Deleuze’s personal unconscious lying behind his life and research. It tries to deduce why he insists upon the concept of “immanence,” or events, singularities, simulacra, desire, intensities, becoming, affect, percept and sensations, all of which are flowing, pre-individual and depersonalized. It shows that Deleuze had a natural aptitude for a consciousness that is not yet individuated, and for full spiritual freedom, which was clearly reflected in his real life and academic research. The dissertation is composed of eight chapters. The introduction serves as the preliminary part which provides the basic information about Deleuze’s life experience, his general features as a paradoxical thinker, his basic academic contributions, his relationship with Foucault and Derrida, and the research questions and methods of this dissertation. It points out that Deleuze is in a constant process of erecting a new duality after he deconstructs the old duality, and he is always considering erecting the new metaphysics of transcendental empiricism after he deconstructs the classical metaphysics. He is claimed to be a master of “concepts,” a skill he mastered because he had lost confidence in the traditional concepts and wanted to use new concepts to express difference and becoming. Thus, his concepts are, in fact, “a-conceptual,” rather than representational. Chapter 1 introduces how Deleuze integrates diverse theoretical sources into his own philosophical framework. The key to understanding his life pursuit and philosophical orientation is his fascination with “immanence.” In the process of dethroning the Platonic idea of rep更多还原