【摘要】 徐复观、叶维廉、高友工、方东美等中国学者在研究中不约而同地将西学作了有意无意的误读式援引、转换或整合,并指向发明中国问题,这种不免有所取舍的操作,或许可理解为这些学人为了创设发明中国问题之语境而采取的一种比较和解释的策略。有意思的是,庞德和海德格尔等西方学者也是以本民族文化为本位来取用东方资源的,在资源的选择和取用目的上都受到他们自己理论目标的牵引而未必做到忠实。东西方学者在比较视野中对对方资源的取用和援引策略,形成了某种互文的效果,可以让中国人更深刻地体认到中国传统的某些特出的好处。以体为尊,在比较中互相发明,是比较语境的本质所在。更多还原

【Abstract】 Hsu Fukuan, Wailim Yip,Yukung Kao and Fang Dongmei are famous scholars who had attained great achievements in sinological research in the background of Western learning. By reviewing their attitude for choosing Western learning, we could discover that they misapprehended and transformed Western learning consciously or unconsciously, and invented Chinese issues as a result. In fact, it was not difficult for them to explain Western learning nearly exactly. But they still choose to misapprehend and transform it more or less. What is the purpose of this kind of manipulation? Is it a comparative and interpretative strategy to invent Chinese issues?Zhang Jiemo’s paper, which enters into how Martin Heidegger and Ezra Pound adopted Oriental resources, wishes to offer a mirror to the four subjects in question and show that it was not occasional for the four sinologists to quote and misapprehend Western learning. Heidegger and other Western scholars also adopted Oriental resources from their own cultural point of view. And their choosing and utilization were not necessarily faithful because of their own academic purposes. However, the invoking of Oriental resources let Chinese people discover some good of Chinese tradition. Inventing each other by comparing and regarding one’s own issues are the essence of the comparative context.Liu Yiqing’s paper focuses on Hsu Fukuan’s book The Spirit of Chinese Art, arguing that Hsu incorporated Western aesthetics in terms of Chuang Tzu’s theory of humanity. Hsu’s rediscovery of Chuang Tzu was related to his modern annotation. He introduced Western aesthetics from the perspective of Chinese aesthetics, and integrated and employed the thoughts of Western aestheticians in line with Chinese aesthetic thoughts, thereby transforming Western aesthetics in a deep way. The purpose of this theoretical transformation was directed at the core of modern aesthetics-artistic autonomy, namely, with a view to solving modernistic issues.Yan Yuezhen has devoted a long-term research to Wailim Yip’s works. She argues that Yip committed himself to gaining a thorough understanding of both Chinese and Western poetics. Yip’s overseas experience and the seeking-roots consciousness made him identify Taoist aesthetic individuality with which Taoists view the object as it is and regard the object as a real one. Yip took out ideas of anti-knowledge and anti-concept from phenomenology to interpret Taoism and Zen Buddhism, and took out some significance of experience, intuition and being from Kant’s aesthetics and pragmatism to communicate with the Taoist School. His academic end-result is neither phenomenology nor Kant’s pursuit for ego and rationalism, but the natural being of Taoism’s aesthetics.Xu Cheng conducts case studies of Yukung Kao’s lyric theory. He thinks that Kao’s Chinese lyric aesthetics are both synchronic and diachronic. Although Kao utilized Jakobson’s structuralistic poetics, for example, he didn’t stop at the consummation of formal structure. Instead, he broke through Jakobson’s self-sufficiency and opaque poetics, based on traditional Chinese empiricism and theory of artistic conception and by adopting the theory of introspection and symbolism.Li Chunjuan is thinking about how Fang Dongmei rebuilt the aesthetics of Chinese life spirit. She points out that Fang utilized Whitehead’s philosophy for his organism to Abstract Chinese life spirit. His utilization only rested on the level of common concepts and characters, but cast away the material content. The superiority complex of Chinese culture standard made him extract the Western learning with an unequal attitude. Instead, he did more to criticize and remedy Western culture by means of Chinese culture. Despite his intention to bridge these two cultures, however, it was not possible yet to construct the cultures together in a deep way, which is what Fang was worried about during the age of ideological crisis.更多还原