(163)
|
| 以美攻美 — 《莊子》肯定「自然全美」嗎？ |
| "Beauty-Back" — can Zhuangzi support "All Virgin Nature is Aesthetically Good" ? |
 |
| 作者 |
廖育正 |
| Author |
Yu-Zheng Liao |
| 關鍵詞 |
莊子、
肯定美學、
自然全美、
環境美學
|
| Keywords |
Zhuangzi,
positive aesthetics,
all virgin nature is aesthetically good,
environmental aesthetics
|
| 摘要 |
環境美學中「肯定美學──自然全美」的主張，由Allen Carlson 「以對象為導向」(objected-orientated)的科學認知主義(scientific cognitivism) 進路得到了詳盡的建構。Carlson 強調要「將自然如同自然般來考慮」，主張要對自然環境「如其所是，和如其所具有的屬性去欣賞」；他並以「『藝術史的知識』之於『藝術』」作為類比，來說明：那些關於自然界的知識，才是人們能否恰如其分地欣賞╱鑑賞 (appreciate) 自然環境的關鍵因素。
在廣義的跨文化哲學詮釋上，有一種看法連結了《莊子》與肯定美學──認為《莊子》不僅是「自然全美」的先聲，更超越了Carlson 式的「肯定美學──自然全美」。對此，本文試圖提出另一種看法，認為《莊子》思想不僅不能支持「自然全美」之說，反而在根本上擾亂了Carlson 式的肯定美學。《莊子》這種表面屬「談美」的話語策略，其實是一種思想上的干擾，一種對「過度人文化」之「儒家美」的游擊。放在思想史的脈絡來看，「莊周談美」談的其實不是肯定美學，而是「以美攻美」。《莊子》確有可能詮釋出一套獨特的環境美學，但那將與Carlson 式的肯定美學具有截然不同的風貌。 |
| Abstract |
The proposition of "positive aesthetics" ─ "all virgin nature is aesthetically good" ─ is justified by Allen Carlson, who takes the object- oriented approach of scientific cognitivism in environmental aesthetics. Carlson insists that we should consider nature as nature, and aesthetically appreciate nature for what it is and for the qualities it has. He explains, just like we need knowledge of history of art to appreciate any artwork, we also need scientific knowledge to appreciate nature appropriately.
There is an opinion which links up Zhuangzi with positive aesthetics in interpretation of intercultural philosophy. This opinion indicates that Zhuangzi is not only a pioneer but also goes beyond the idea about "all virgin nature is aesthetically good". By which, this paper tries to give another opinion, claiming that Zhuangzi disturbs the idea "all virgin nature is aesthetically good" rather than supports it. Seemingly, Zhuangzi talks about beauty; actually, the talking is a kind of linguistic tactic and a philosophical guerrilla, by which Zhuangzi disturbs the too-civilized Confucianism aesthetics. On the view of history of Chinese thoughts, "Zhuangzi's talking about beauty" is not positive aesthetics but "beauty-back". Maybe we could interpret Zhuangzi as a kind of environmental aesthetics, but which is distinct from Carlson's positive aesthetics undoubtedly. |
|
|
|
