美是不可分析的——评道禅哲学关于美问题的一个观点

发布时间：2018-11-02 18:28

【摘要】：张法认为,中国美学史研究有三种模式——教材型、范畴型、跨学科型,有两个方向——由王国维以来的重从古代材料本身的性质而进行总结,由朱光潜以来的把西方美学原理的延伸到中国古代;因而,如何把多元一体中的多元包括进来,如何思考古代概念的虚实合一性质对理论表述的影响,是它在演进中一直被忽视的问题。朱良志认为,道禅哲学关于美是不可分析的观念,反映了中国美学重体验、重生命超越的鲜明特色,体现出中国美学在长期发展过程中与西方美学的不同旨趣,也从一个侧面展现出中国人在很早的时候就对美的核心问题有深邃的思考。陈望衡认为,在全球化的今天实际上只有一种美学,那就是全球美学;就当代中国美学的建设来说,需要建立的不是独立的与世界隔绝的中国美学,而是具有中国特色的全球美学;如果不是只看重美学学科框架比较,而是更看重美学学科精神的相通,中国古典美学与世界美学的接轨则会容易得多。
[Abstract]:Zhang Fa believes that there are three models in the study of the history of Chinese aesthetics-textbook, category, interdisciplinary, and two directions-from the perspective of the nature of the ancient material itself. Since Zhu Guangqian's extension of western aesthetic principles to ancient China; Therefore, how to include the pluralism in the pluralistic unity and how to think about the influence of the nature of the unity of the ancient concept on the theoretical expression is a problem that has been neglected in the evolution of the concept. Zhu Liangzhi believes that the philosophy of Taoism and Zen is an unanalytical concept of beauty, which reflects the distinct characteristics of Chinese aesthetics in its emphasis on experience, rebirth and transcendence, and reflects the different purport of Chinese aesthetics in its long-term development process from that of western aesthetics. Also from a side show that the Chinese at an early stage in the core of the United States has a profound thinking. Chen Wangheng believes that in the globalization of today there is actually only one kind of aesthetics, that is, global aesthetics; As far as the construction of contemporary Chinese aesthetics is concerned, what needs to be established is not the independent Chinese aesthetics isolated from the world, but the global aesthetics with Chinese characteristics. It would be easier for Chinese classical aesthetics to connect with the world aesthetics if the comparison of aesthetic discipline framework is not only emphasized, but the spirit of aesthetic discipline is more important.
【作者单位】：北京大学哲学系;
【分类号】：B83-09

【相似文献】