论文部分内容阅读
作为分析的哲学活动,其正式被承认的功能之一,据说是要揭露概念和语言上的混乱。并没有一般“艺术”这样的东西,并没有客观的审美事实和“审美对象”这样的东西,并没有普遍适用的审美标准和审美判断。而且,也没有“美学”这样的一个领域。美学上的种种概念,不应当在美学研究开始之前就原封不动。我赞成当代分析派著作主张各门艺术多元论的理论。我的一个想法是:新的分析方法也许并不完全对;相应地说,旧的方法可能并不完全错。分析主义者抨击和揭露过去美学思想中大量流行的许多概括,认为它们是虚伪的或浮夸的,这一批评是对的。但他们认为这些概括之所以是错的,就因为它们是概括,这是错误的。当一个优秀的哲学家进行美学研究的时候,他是不能不进行概括的。在我看来,主要的结论似乎是:分析哲学家们在他们自己的美学实践以及在他们对于传统美学的评判中,忽视了在概括与过分概括之间的一个简单然而十分重要的区别。
As one of the formally admitted functions of analytic philosophical activity, it is said to expose concepts and linguistic confusion. There is no such thing as “art” in general, and there is no objective aesthetic fact or something like “aesthetic object.” There is no universally applicable aesthetic standard and aesthetic judgment. And there is no such thing as “aesthetics.” Aesthetic concepts should not be left intact until the beginning of aesthetic studies. I am in favor of the theory of contemporary analysis that advocates various art pluralism. One of my thoughts is: the new method of analysis may not be entirely correct; the old method may not be completely wrong. Analysts have criticized and uncovered many of the generalizations that have prevailed in past aesthetics and considered them hypocritical or exaggerated. This criticism is correct. But they think the reason why these generalizations are wrong is that they are wrong because they are generalizations. When a good philosopher conducts aesthetics, he can not but summarize it. The main conclusion, in my opinion, seems to be that analytic philosophers overlooked a simple yet significant difference between generalization and over-generalization in their own aesthetic practice and in their judgment of traditional aesthetics.