审美自由与伦理义务：重审利奥塔的崇高理论建构

文艺理论研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (5): 69-76.

审美自由与伦理义务：重审利奥塔的崇高理论建构

马骁远

华东师范大学思勉人文高等研究院

出版日期:2018-09-25 发布日期:2018-11-28
作者简介:马骁远，华东师范大学思勉人文高等研究院文艺学在读博士，主要从事西方当代文艺理论、古希腊悲剧与民主政治的研究。
基金资助:
本文为国家社会科学基金项目“事件性思维与文学研究”[项目编号：17BZW051]阶段性成果

Aesthetic Freedom and Ethical Obligation: A Review of the Construction of Lyotard's Theory of the Sublime

Ma Xiaoyuan

Si-Mian Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities, East China Normal University

Online:2018-09-25 Published:2018-11-28
About author:Ma Xiaoyuan is a Ph.D. candidate at the Si-Mian Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities, East China Normal University. His research interests cover contemporary western literary theory, Greek tragedy and democracy.
Supported by:
the National Social Sciences Foundation "Thoughts of Event and Literary Studies" (17BZW051)

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 利奥塔将康德的审美理论放在当代文化语境中进行检验，发现在意识形态、技术科学等宏大叙事的作用之下，美感已经不再是知性和想象力之间的自由游戏状态，对美的审美也变成了“被准许的”和“现实主义的”。利奥塔因而致力于对宏大叙事的批判，要求艺术只有超越可辨认的表象，表现“不可表现之物”，才能突破宏大叙事的结构。于是，他与先锋派艺术联合，并求助于多种理论资源，阐发出一套后现代崇高美学。利奥塔相信，当代文化中的审美活动只能在后现代的崇高美学中恢复。而以审美为代表的反思也是人类所特有的不同于技术的思维方式，它既是美学也是伦理学的基础，只有它才能使人类保持思想的自由。因此，利奥塔将崇高感视为一种伦理情感，并在美学的基础上建立了关于义务的伦理学理论。

关键词: 利奥塔, 崇高, 审美, 宏大叙事, 伦理

Abstract: Applying the aesthetic theory of Immanuel Kant into contemporary cultural context, Jean-François Lyotard finds that due to grand narratives such as ideology and technological sciences, aesthetic feeling is no longer a free game between intellectuality and imagination, and aesthetics has become something "permitted" and "realistic". Lyotard criticizes grand narratives, claiming that art could break up the framework of grand narratives only if it jettisons the limits of recognizable representations and presents "the unpresentable". Lyotard therefore integrates avant-garde art as well as other theories into his postmodern aesthetics of the sublime. He believes that free aesthetic activities of contemporary culture could only be realized with the postmodern sublime. Moreover, introspection represented by aesthetic activities, according to Lyotard, is a unique human mentality different from techno-science, which, as he holds, is the basis for aesthetics and ethics, and could keep human thoughts free. Hence Lyotard regards the sense of the sublime as an ethic feeling, and forms his ethic theory about obligation based on aesthetics.

Key words: Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard, the sublime, aesthetics, grand narrative, ethics

中图分类号:

马骁远. 审美自由与伦理义务：重审利奥塔的崇高理论建构[J]. 文艺理论研究, 2018, 38(5): 69-76.

Ma Xiaoyuan. Aesthetic Freedom and Ethical Obligation: A Review of the Construction of Lyotard's Theory of the Sublime[J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2018, 38(5): 69-76.

埃德蒙·伯克：《关于我们崇高与美观念之根源的哲学探讨》，郭飞译。郑州：大象出版社，2010年。

[Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Trans. Guo Fei. Zhengzhou: Elephant Press, 2010.]

伊曼纽尔·康德：《判断力批判》，邓晓芒译。北京：人民出版社，2002年。

[Kant, Immanuel. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Trans. Deng Xiaomang. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002.]

——：《纯粹理性批判》，邓晓芒译。北京：人民出版社，2004年。

[---. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Deng Xiaomang. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2004.]

Laplanche, J., and J.-B. Pontalis. The Language of Psychoanalysis. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. London: Karnac Books, 1988.

斯科特·拉什：“自反性及其化身：结构、美学、社群”，《自反性现代化：现代社会秩序中的政治、传统与美学》，乌尔里希·贝克、安东尼·吉登斯、斯科特·拉什著，赵文书译。北京：商务印书馆，2014年。139-220页。

[Lash, Scott. “Reflexivity and Its Doubles: Structure, Aesthetics, Community.” Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash. Trans. Zhao Wenshu. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2014. 139-220.]

Lyotard, Jean-François. Just Gaming. Trans. Wlad Godzich. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985.

---. Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime. Trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994.

---. The Differend: Phrases in Dispute. Trans. Georges van den Abbeele. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.

---. The Inhuman: Reflections on Time. Trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby. Oxford: Polity Press, 1991.

---. The Postmodern Explained: Correspondence 1982-1985. Eds. Julian Pefanis and Morgan Thomas. Trans. Don Barry, et al. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.

Newman, Barnett. “The Sublime Is Now.” Barnett Newman: Selected Writings and Interviews. Ed. John P. O’Neill. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990. 170-73.

Sim, Stuart. Jean-François Lyotard. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall/Harvest Wheatsheaf, 1996.

Slade, Andrew. Lyotard, Beckett, Duras, and the Postmodern Sublime. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.

Vries, Hent De. “On Obligation: Lyotard and Levinas.” Critical Evaluations in Cultural Theory: Jean-François Lyotard. Eds. Victor E. Taylor and Gregg Lambert. Vol. Ⅲ. Oxon: Routledge, 2006. 73-100.

[1]	漆飞. 当代批判理论的审美共同体思想及其限度 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2023, 43(3): 50-58.
[2]	乐进进. 审美与比德：宋代砚铭演进的两种路径 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2023, 43(3): 194-204.
[3]	徐亮, 高丽燕. 有趣何以成为审美范畴——兼析倪迢雁的新美学 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2023, 43(3): 23-32.
[4]	赵轩. 电影的叙述距离：从形式到价值的考察 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2023, 43(2): 118-128.
[5]	赖大仁, 郭楠. 文学审美论观念嬗变：从现代性延展到当代性建构 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2023, 43(1): 115-125.
[6]	张振. 情感、艺术与礼乐——梁漱溟的审美论述及其思想意涵再思考 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2023, 43(1): 137-147.
[7]	胡继华, 单羽. 现代的悖论与神话的启蒙——布鲁门伯格的神话理论及其政治蕴涵 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2022, 42(5): 1-12.
[8]	范昀. 文学伦理的两张面孔：玛莎·努斯鲍姆的文学观及其内在紧张 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2022, 42(5): 69-81.
[9]	曾繁仁, 任群. 试论谢林的存在论美学思想 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2022, 42(3): 21-30.
[10]	马骁远. 后现代状态下的胡塞尔与康德——利奥塔论审美反思 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2022, 42(2): 109-116.
[11]	蒋浩伟. 审美主义的政治伦理：王国维早期诗学和思想中的“美”与“德” [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2022, 42(2): 166-174.
[12]	涂慧. 《花间集》的现代审美症候与福瑟克的对等译介诗学 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2022, 42(1): 32-42.
[13]	陈佳. 从“崇高”的翻译说起——兼论中西山峦意象的差异 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2022, 42(1): 43-51.
[14]	尹林. 审美想象的媒介转折与文学独立性复归 ——从地方“文艺”期刊改名说起 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2022, 42(1): 52-69.
[15]	孙尧天. 诗歌、政治与伦理——晚清群学思潮与早期鲁迅诗学观之关联探析 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2021, 41(6): 31-42.