论桑塔格《死亡之匣》的存在主义主题

发布时间：2018-03-14 15:39

本文选题：《死亡之匣》　切入点：法国存在主义　出处：《华侨大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：苏珊·桑塔格是位享誉美国文坛乃至全世界文坛的重要作家,被誉为“美国公众的良知”和“最后的知识分子”。评论界普遍认为她的文学创作深受法国文化、尤其是法国存在主义哲学的影响。笔者认为,在其文学创作中,桑塔格对法国存在主义哲学的接受是显而易见的。然而,作为西方当代最重要的女思想家之一,桑塔格对法国存在主义哲学有着独到的见解。其第二部小说《死亡之匣》就包含着她对萨特和加缪存在主义哲学的接受和思考。本论文运用萨特的“存在观”、“自由选择观”和加缪的“荒诞观”分析《死亡之匣》,探讨桑塔格对这两位大师的存在主义哲学的思考。萨特将“存在”分为“自在存在”和“自为存在”。他指出,人如果缺乏主体意识,那他将沦为与物一样毫无目的的自在存在,因此人要采取行动塑造自己的本质。萨特进一步探讨了自我的存在与他人的存在之间的关系,并用“他人就是地狱”来描述糟糕的人际关系。由此,他鼓励人们打破“地狱”。笔者通过分析《死亡之匣》中迪迪将自我或他人过度客体化的行为,认为桑塔格认同萨特不可将自我过度客体化的观点,同时她也强调将自我过度主体化亦不可取,主体与客体之间应保持一种平衡关系。萨特还提出,人必须做自由选择以塑造自己的本质,但这种自由选择应以不妨碍他人的自由为前提,并承担相应的责任。《死亡之匣》中,迪迪也一直在进行萨特式的自由选择:为了前妻,放弃自己心仪的学业;为海斯特辞去工作;最后还谋杀了工人。桑塔格对迪迪的谋杀行为持否定态度,可见她接受了萨特认为人在自由选择时应当尊重他人自由的观点。从文本中还可以看出,迪迪对前妻和海斯特看似“负责”的自由选择,因其对他人过度负责而不利于自身,故在某种意义上也可视为对自我的不负责任。对法国另一存在主义哲学家加缪的“荒诞观”,桑塔格也有独特的见解。她认同加缪的荒诞观,即认为世界是荒诞的,人应该直面荒诞。不过,通过《死亡之匣》中迪迪对待荒诞的态度可以看出,桑塔格主张对荒诞的反抗应是一种积极的反抗,而不应剥夺他人的基本权利。
[Abstract]:Susan Santagh is an important writer in the United States and around the world, known as "the conscience of the American public" and "the last intellectual." critics generally believe that her literary creation is deeply rooted in French culture. Especially the influence of French existentialism philosophy. The author thinks that in his literary creation, Sontag's acceptance of French existentialism philosophy is obvious. However, as one of the most important contemporary female thinkers in the West, Sontag has a unique view of French existential philosophy. Her second novel, the Box of death, contains her acceptance and reflection of Sartre and Camus existentialism. By analyzing the box of death from the view of choice and absurdity of Camus, this paper discusses Santagh's thinking on the existential philosophy of these two masters. Sartre divides "being" into "free being" and "self-existence". If a man lacks a subjective consciousness, he will become as aimless and free as an object, so he should take action to shape his essence. Sartre further explores the relationship between the existence of himself and the existence of others. He uses "others as hell" to describe bad relationships. So he encourages people to break "hell." the author analyzes Didi's excessive objectification of himself or others in the Box of death. Sontag agrees with Sartre that she should not over-objectify himself, and at the same time she emphasizes that it is not advisable to over-subject self, and that there should be a balance between subject and object, and Sartre also puts forward that there should be a balance between the subject and the object. One must choose freely to shape one's essence, but this free choice should be without prejudice to the freedom of others and be held responsible accordingly. In the Box of death, Didi has also been making the Sartre free choice: for his ex-wife, Give up his favorite studies; quit his job for Hester; and finally murder the workers.Santage is negative about Didi's murder. She accepts Sartre's view that people should respect the freedom of others when they choose freely. The text also shows that Didi's freedom of choice to his ex-wife and Hester appears to be "responsible" because it is excessively responsible for others and not to the detriment of himself. So in a sense it can be seen as irresponsibility for the self. Santage also has a unique view of the "absurdity" of Camus, another French existentialist philosopher. She agrees with Camus's absurdity, that is, that the world is absurd. One should face absurdity directly. However, according to Didi's attitude to absurdity in the Box of death, Sontag argues that revolt against absurdity should be a kind of active revolt, and should not deprive others of their basic rights.
【学位授予单位】：华侨大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：I712.074

【相似文献】