论文学中历史和道德的纠葛

发布时间：2018-01-17 23:36

本文关键词：论文学中历史和道德的纠葛　出处：《厦门大学》2001年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：文学中历史和道德的关系问题，是文学理论的重要论题。以往的探讨主要集中于如下两个问题上：一、文学中何以会出现历史和道德；二、在文学中历史和道德会形成何种关系。对于前者，学者们多是从文学所对应的外部世界的复杂性来加以解释。对于后者，以往的看法比较繁杂，没有明确地做出辨析。上述的看法对我们今天重新思考此论题提供了可资借鉴的资源和启示。然而，由于其视角的单一性和片面性，因而无法从逻辑上自洽地解答这一重大的理论问题。这主要体现在，以往的探讨未能就历史和道德在文学中的地位问题达成共识，有人认为历史评价优先，有人认为道德评价优先；还体现在，在上述第二个问题上，，它们各家都各执一端，无法认同其他的观点。本文认为，文学中历史和道德呈现一种“纠葛”关系。这种“纠葛”，意指：历史和道德在文学中是一种平等的关系，同时又呈现出一种相互缠绕的态势。要理解这一点，就必须将此问题置于历史、道德、文学、知识分子所交织成的复杂关系中来加以考察。这种复杂的关系构成了一个动态的平衡系统，在此系统中，历史和道德在文学形成了四种关系：一、历史评价遮蔽道德评价；二、道德评价遮蔽历史评价；三、历史评价和道德评价之间的困惑关系；四、历史和道德之间形成错位关系。本文共分四部分：第一部分为引言，主要是述评前人的观点，对它们的贡献和不足加以辨证的分析，同时提出本文的论点。第二部分为“历史、道德、文学与知识分子”，主要解决文学中何以会有历史和道德，又何以会形成纠葛关系的原因。这一部分又分为三小部分：(一)文学中的历史；(二)文学中的道德；(三)文学审美形式中的历史与道德。第三部分为“文学中历史和道德纠葛的分析”，主要是结合具体文本，对历史和道德在文学中形成的四种关系加以详细的分析。这部分共分为四部分：(一)历史评价遮蔽道德评价；(二)道德评价掩抑历史评价；(三)历史评价和道德评价之间的困惑；(四)历史评价和道德评价之间的错位。第四部分为结语，主要是总结本文的观点，并将其置于马克思主义关于历史观点和美学观点相统一的文学批评的原则中，来考察本文的探讨的理论意义所在。
[Abstract]:The relationship between history and morality in literature is an important topic in literary theory. Previous discussions have focused on the following two issues: first, why history and morality appear in literature; Second, what kind of relationship will history and morality form in literature. For the former, scholars explain the former from the complexity of the external world corresponding to literature. For the latter, the former views are complicated. There is no clear discrimination. The above views provide us with the resources and inspiration to rethink this thesis today. However, due to the singularity and one-sidedness of its perspective. Therefore, it is impossible to answer this important theoretical question logically and consistently. This is mainly reflected in the fact that previous discussions have failed to reach a consensus on the status of history and morality in literature, and some people think that historical evaluation takes precedence. Some people think that moral evaluation takes precedence; On the second issue, each of them has its own side and cannot agree with other views. This paper holds that history and morality in literature present a kind of "entanglement", which means that history and morality are equal relations in literature. At the same time, it presents a situation of intertwining. To understand this, we must place the problem in history, morality and literature. This complex relationship constitutes a dynamic equilibrium system in which history and morality form four relationships in literature: one. Historical evaluation obscures moral evaluation; Second, the moral evaluation obscures the historical evaluation; Third, the confused relationship between historical evaluation and moral evaluation; Fourth, the relationship between history and morality is misplaced. This paper is divided into four parts: The first part is an introduction, mainly reviews the predecessors' views, analyzes their contributions and deficiencies dialectically, and puts forward the arguments of this paper. The second part is "History, morality, Literature and intellectuals", which mainly solves why there is history and morality in literature. This part is divided into three small parts: (1) History in literature; (2) morality in literature; (3) History and morality in literary aesthetic form. The third part is "the analysis of historical and moral disputes in literature", mainly combined with the specific text. The paper makes a detailed analysis of the four relationships between history and morality in literature. This part is divided into four parts: (1) Historical evaluation obscures moral evaluation; (2) moral evaluation suppresses historical evaluation; (3) confusion between historical evaluation and moral evaluation; (4) the dislocation between historical evaluation and moral evaluation. Part 4th is the conclusion, which summarizes the views of this paper and puts it in the Marxist literary criticism principles of the unity of historical and aesthetic views. To examine the theoretical significance of this discussion.
【学位授予单位】：厦门大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2001
【分类号】：I02

【引证文献】