(166)
|
| 環境倫理學與環境美學的東西差異 — 與Holmes Rolston, III商榷 |
| East-West Difference and Diversity of Environmental Ethics and Environmental Aesthetics — Response for Holmes Rolston III and Other Matters |
 |
| 作者 |
〔中〕劉悅笛 |
| Author |
Yue-Di Liu |
| 關鍵詞 |
環境倫理學、
環境美學、
荷姆斯‧羅斯頓III、
荒野模式
|
| Keywords |
environmental ethics,
environmental aesthetics,
Holmes Rolston III,
the paradigm of wild
|
| 摘要 |
所謂「荒野模式」，主張環境倫理學和環境美學皆要「荒野化」，本文就與荷姆斯‧羅斯頓III提出的「哲學走向荒野」之基本觀點進行商榷。中國環境主義傳統走出的就是另一條「天人學」之路，而且，這條道路在東西差異之間更具有全球適用性。這是由於，傳統的「自然—文化」二分法已經過時，如今人類面臨的境遇是如何更好地融入業已人化的自然當中，而不是逃離到荒野之外。無論是關於「自然全美」的積極美學的爭論，還是關於「自然之醜」是否存在的爭論，皆關係到如何應對人與自然基本關係的難題。由此，就可以從中國儒家的「審美倫理學」或「倫理美學」的視角，來重新探尋環境倫理學與環境美學之新型關聯。 |
| Abstract |
The socalled "The Paradigm of Wild", means whether environmental ethics or environmental aesthetics be gone wild, and I would discuss by Holmes Rolston III about "philosophy gone wild". Chinese traditional environmentalism extended another kind of anthropocosmic way, and it has a global applicability in the contexts of the east- west diversity. The dichotomy of "nature-culture" was already out of time, and human have to face to the new relation of the humanized-nature today. The debates between "positive aesthetics" and "ugly in nature" are related to the new human-nature relationship. From the perspective of Confucian aesthetic-ethics or ethic-aesthetics, we are shaping a passageway between environmental ethics and environmental aesthetics in the end. |
|
|
|
