和谐与个体性

发布时间：2018-05-07 03:08

本文选题：主体性 + 个体性　；参考：《广西师范大学》2001年硕士论文

【摘要】： 社会发展的轨迹似乎是这样的：“前主体性的天人合一→主客二分或主体性原则→后主体性的天人合一”。或者说是：“不论是东方，还是西方，都经历着或者即将经历着从古代和谐美(古代和谐之前，还有一个前审美的原始阶段)经近代的崇高(包括丑、荒诞)向辩证和谐美的发展过程，这是人类美学史的共同规律，它是客观的，不可违背的，谁也逃脱不了的。”我们目前的时代正处于从丑的荒诞的世界向辩证和谐美的世界发展的转折点，或者说要从主客二分向后主体的天人合一方向发展的转折点。因此，无论社会学、美学、哲学都在探讨这一话题，即探讨如何转换的问题。当然，我们首先必须明白转换的目标“辩证和谐美”、“后主体性的天人合一”具有什么样的概念内涵，然后才能有的放矢，对症下药，从理论上，实践上找到实现的途径。理想总是由于现实的不足而产生，“辩证和谐美”、“后主体性的天人合一”也是针对现实的不足而完满的，作为第三个发展阶段，应该是吸取了前两个阶段的优处而克服它们的缺点，因此它要吸取古代和谐原则与近现代的个体性原则。古代和谐原则是古代社会的主要审美思潮，而近代以来的个体性原则是对古代和谐社会中对个体性埋没的一种反拨，形成以崇高(丑、荒诞)等的审美形式。丑、荒诞是对和谐原则的破坏，说明了古代和谐与近代以来对个体性的追求是相矛盾的。但这两种审美模式都是为现在的人们所追求，和谐是社会发展的健康保证，个体性是人们不能割舍的一种自恋情结，所以“辩证和谐美”或“后主体性的天人合一”就是要在这二者的基础上建立起来；既能保证人的个体性又不能使个体与个体之间产生压制、冲突、对立。我们如何建立二者的契合点?这简直是一种走钢丝的行径。走钢丝也不可能被认为是一种中庸之道，因为对于“天人合一的和谐”与“个体性”这类概念我们只有一种大体的看法：“和谐”就是没有矛盾，但和谐的基础是什么?古代和谐压制了人的现实存在，是一种内在压制的和谐，天人之间没有对等的地位，因此不能算是真正的和谐，否则怎会起而反抗呢?近代以来强调人的自我中心，高标个体化性，，但结果个体性总是面临被压制的危险，因此这种个体性的含义是最值得探究的。我们需要的是每个人都有个体性，那什么内涵的个体性才能表达这一意思呢?实际上，个体性的真正实现与和谐的真正实现应该是一回事，因此唯有在这个基础上，“辩证和谐美”才真正是辩证的，个体性才是真正的个体性。看似矛盾的两个问题其实是一个问题的两个方面，解答了一个问题，另一个也就迎刃而解。最后，问题归结为：要实现真正的天人合一，需要什么样的个体性内涵? 本文回答这个问题，是从古代和谐为什么要解体入手的，追问为什么解体后的天人关系又思和谐?从而带出主体性与个体性之间的关系，以此来奠定新型的天人关系及个体性依据，使个体性问题回到个体之间的平等性问题。即现在理论界提出的相互主体性问题，本文通过对相互主体性问题的剖析阐明相互主体性抛弃了主客关系，从而是虚幻的，不现实的，因为人必须进行生产劳动，生产劳动离不开主客关系。所以问题回到了人性的完整性，这有别于马克思人性的完善性，因为我所强调的人性完整性是主体与非主体性的统一，而不是马克思全盘肯定性的人性完整性。经过系列论证，我认为辩证和谐的实现与个体性的充分实现是统一的，途径是个体性内涵所包容的主体性与非主体性的统一使个人独立自主又相互尊重，从而世界既和谐又不具有强迫性。
[Abstract]:The path of social development seems to be like this: "the former subjectivity of heaven and man, two points of subject and guest or the principle of subjectivity to the unity of the nature and man after the latter". Or, "both in the East and in the west, they are experienced or are going through the ancient harmony beauty (before and before the ancient and the first aesthetic stage). The development process of modern sublimity (including ugly and absurdity) to the dialectical and harmonious beauty is the common law of the history of human aesthetics. It is objective and cannot be violated, and no one can escape. "Our present era is in the turning point of the development of the world from the absurd world to the dialectical and harmonious beauty of the world, or from the two points of the host and the guest to the backwards." Therefore, whether sociology, aesthetics, and philosophy are discussing this topic, that is, the question of how to change. Of course, we must first understand the goal of "dialectical and harmonious beauty", and what is the concept of "the unity of nature and man after the latter". In addition, we can find ways to achieve it theoretically.
The ideal is always due to the lack of reality. The "dialectical and harmonious beauty" and "the unity of the nature and man of the post subjectivity" are also perfect for the lack of reality. As the third development stage, it is necessary to absorb the advantages of the first two stages and overcome their shortcomings. Therefore, it should absorb the principles of ancient harmony and the individualized principle of modern and modern. The ancient harmony principle is the main aesthetic trend of thought in ancient society, and the individual principle since modern times is a kind of backwash to the individual in the ancient harmonious society and forms the aesthetic form of sublime (ugliness and absurdity). The ugly and absurdity are the destruction of the principle of harmony, which shows that the ancient harmony and the pursuit of individuality in modern times are in phase. But these two kinds of aesthetic modes are pursued by people now, harmony is the health guarantee of social development, and individuality is a kind of narcissistic complex that people can't cut out. Therefore, "dialectical harmony beauty" or "the unity of the nature and man of the post subjectivity" is to be established on the basis of these two parties, which can ensure the individuality of the human being. We can not create repression, conflict and opposition between individuals and individuals. How do we establish the conjunction of the two? This is a kind of tightrope walking behavior.
It is impossible for a steel wire to be considered as a doctrine of the mean, because we have only a general view of the concept of "harmony between heaven and man" and "individuality": "harmony" is not a contradiction, but what is the basis of harmony? Ancient harmony suppresses the existence of human beings, is an internal harmony, between the heaven and the man. There is no equal position, so it can not be a real harmony, otherwise how can we resist? In modern times, it emphasizes the self center of man, high individualization, but the result of individuality always faces the danger of being suppressed. Therefore, the meaning of this individual is the most worthy of inquiry. What we need is that everyone has the individuality, and what is the connotation. In fact, the true realization of the individual nature and the real realization of harmony should be one thing. On this basis, only on this basis, "dialectical and harmonious beauty" is really dialectical, and the individuality is the true individuality. The two seemingly contradictory questions are actually the two aspects of a problem. Finally, the question is summed up as follows: what kind of individual connotation is needed to achieve real unity of man and nature?
This article answers this question, starting with the disintegration of ancient harmony, asking why the relationship between heaven and man after disintegration and thinking of harmony, so as to bring out the relationship between subjectivity and individuality, so as to lay a new type of relationship between heaven and man and individual, and make the individual problem return to the equality between individuals. That is, the present theory. Through the analysis of mutual subjectivity, this paper analyzes the mutual subjectivity and clarifies that mutual subjectivity has abandoned the relationship between subject and guest, but it is illusory and unrealistic, because people must carry out productive labor and production labor can not be separated from the relationship between subject and guest. So the problem is back to the integrity of human nature, which is different from the perfection of Marx's human nature. Nature, because I emphasize the integrity of human nature is the unity of subject and non subjectivity, not the integrity of Marx's full affirmative nature. After a series of arguments, I think that the realization of dialectical harmony is unified with the full realization of the individual, and the way is the unity of the subjectivity and non subjectivity of the individual connotation, which makes the individual independent. Autonomy and mutual respect, so that the world is harmonious and not obsessive-compulsive.

【学位授予单位】：广西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2001
【分类号】：I01

【参考文献】