崇高的面相——审美形态研究

【作者】 成联合；

【导师】 畅广元；

【作者基本信息】 陕西师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 审美学以人类审美活动为对象,以现象学和解释学的方法显现和解释审美活动。这一点尚未得到广泛的认可。审美活动未能如其所是地被显现和解释。审美学未能成为审美活动解释学,而仍然处于自我迷失之中。其表现就是:追求“美的本质”的知识学的“美学”依然很有市场,而把审美理解为“感性”活动的“感性学”则走向了“唯感性主义”,它固守审美“感性”论,甚至无视人类审美活动的超感性追求以及全球审美化自我否定的历史教训,坚持审美是感性活动,审美学是感性学。针对审美感性论、审美学是感性学的偏颇,本文尝试以崇高为中心重新解释审美活动,试图通过对诸审美形态的考察,全方位地显现审美活动的本体论性,以校正对审美活动及审美学的片面理解。本文极力证明:审美活动是以感性形式把握终极本体的理性活动。审美活动的本体论性在崇高这种审美形态中表现得最为充分。因此,崇高可以看做人类审美活动的典型代表,而其他审美活动都可以看做是崇高的表现形式和不同面相。相对于其他审美形态,崇高不仅在逻辑上而且在历史上都具有优先性。以崇高为中心解释其他审美形态符合人类审美活动的实际情况。崇高的本源性在于:以想象力把握无限,形成世界观。这种活动贯穿所有人类物质和精神活动,构成人类一切活动的基础和前提。它的对象化形成神话、宗教、哲学本体论等等,成为人类安身立命的根基。因此,崇高既是原感性、原审美活动,也是原理性活动,是一切感性和理性活动的源头。崇高的本体论性具有非对象性,因此,崇高需要对象化、形式化以显现自身。美、悲剧、喜剧等等都是崇高的形式。进入审美学之前,崇高在社会审美领域显现为悲剧和喜剧。在总体性的审美活动中显现为柏拉图的“美本身”,基督教的“上帝”笛等。进入审美学后,崇高与美并列显现为自然审美和社会审美中对人的理性本体的把握。崇高是审美活动的本质和灵魂,一切审美活动都包含崇高,显现崇高,同归崇高。没有崇高的审美活动不成其为审美活动。西方审美主义追求审美的独立,从审美活动中剥离认识和道德,纯粹的、不含“真”与“善”的“美”终于失落了崇高,沦为美化与装饰,成为新的异化。全球审美化,当代电视媒体的娱乐化以及中国日常审美的喜剧化倾向,都是崇高失落的个案。它们从反面证明了崇高是审美活动的意义源泉。中国审美活动是圆融的“体道”活动。在审美的源头处,体道接近于崇高。境域化的体道同时容易遮蔽和遗忘崇高。随着专制体制的建立,中国审美遗忘了崇高。中国缺少悲剧,审美主义发达,审美代宗教成为文化的中心,但不含崇高的生活审美化并不能带来人的提升,也不能成为终极关怀。李泽厚的“情本体”公开拒绝崇高,其“故园之情”不具有超越的、终极的信仰维度。对中国人来说,强调崇高,更加具有文化重建的切身性和紧迫性。但是,强调崇高的本源性,并不是企图以崇高取代其他审美活动,取消人类审美活动在形态方面的多样性,而只是把崇高作为理解审美活动的钥匙,以突出审美活动的本体论性,矫正对于审美作为“感性”活动的片面理解。以崇高为中心的审美活动所显现出来的本体论性,揭示了审美活动超感性的理性本质。至此,审美活动“感性论”与审美学“感性学”的片面性得以澄清:审美活动是以感性方式表现出来的理性活动,它起于感性,立足感性,不离感性,但并不固守感性,限于感性,而是在感性中追求超越感性的理性本体。审美活动在本质上是理性活动。只有这样,它才能成为原初的理性,也才能在宗教之外提供终极关怀。没有理性的超越性,“唯感性主义”的审美必然成为感性的泛滥和感性的异化,走上“美学之梦”破灭的不归路。全球审美化的教训证明了这一点。因此,必须明确:审美是感性的理性活动,审美学是感性的理性学。更多还原

【Abstract】 It is found that aesthetic activities has not been understood and interpreted with the method of Phenomenology and Hermeneutics as what it is by some scholars. Aesthetics is taken for granted as the science of sensibility with aesthetic activities as only perspective and feeling, and the science of beauty, to which the essence of beauty is pursued as knowledge is still popular. That means aesthetics is still in lost as the science of sensibility despite of the disillusion of Global Aestheticization. In view of this, an attempt has been made to re-explain aesthetic categories with the sublime as the central form of aesthetic activities in order to fully display and totally understand the ontological nature of aesthetic activities and to correct the partial understanding of aesthetics as the science of sensibility.It is argued in this dissertation that aesthetic activities is a kind of reason to pursue Being with imagination and intuition and the sublime is the most typical aesthetic activities to form a world view in imagination. The objectification of the sublime varies as myth, religion and ontology so as to lay a foundation of human being, thus the sublime is both the primitive sensibility and the primitive reason, and it is priori to other aesthetic activities such as the beautiful, the tragic and the comic both logically and historically.The sublime varies in the form of the beautiful, the tragic and the comic because it is non-objectified. It takes the forms of the tragic, the comic, the beauty-itself of Plato and God of Christianity before it is discussed as aesthetic category, after that, it is one of the aesthetic categories. Each aesthetic activity is a form of the sublime and surely return the sublime. Any aesthetic activity will not be aesthetic if it does not contain the sublime. The disillusion of the dream of beauty, the entertainment of television and the flooding of the comic show that what aesthetic activities wound be without the sublime.It is also argued that Chinese aesthetic activities is close to the sublime as the action to pursue Dao, but it tends to ignore and forget the sublime, which turns out to phenomena such as the lack of the tragic, the ideas of aestheticism and the tradition of aesthetics replacing religion. Aestheticization without the sublime, such as Li Zehou’s emotional being, has no ultimate concern. So emphasize the sublime is very much urgent to the Chinese.It is not argued to replace other aesthetic activities with the sublime. The only purpose to stress the primitive and original of the sublime is to show the ontological nature of aesthetic activities and to criticize the partial understanding of aesthetic activities as just sensibility. Since aesthetic activities is ontological, it is actually reason rather than sensibility. The misunderstanding of aesthetics as mere sensibility should be ended with the accepting of the ontological nature of aesthetics. It leads to a conclusion that aesthetic activities is the activities of reason whit sensibility as its’ appearance and aesthetics is the Hermeneutics of the activities of reason in the form of sensibility.更多还原