回向身体的观念——对语文教育理论的一种探索

杨澄宇

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2017.06.007

回向身体的观念——对语文教育理论的一种探索

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2017.06.007

杨澄宇

华东师范大学教师教育学院, 上海 200062

基金项目:

全国教育科学"十二五"规划国家青年课题"语文传统观念的现代性阐释与创造" CAA140116

计量
- 文章访问数: 226
- HTML全文浏览量: 206
- PDF下载量: 0
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 刊出日期: 2017-11-20

Back to the Body:Toward the Theory of Chinese Language & Literature Education

YANG Chengyu

College of Teacher Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China

摘要

摘要: 语文"即"语言，"身体"是人经由语文通向世界的基石。在世界形态由传统走向现代的过程中，我们可以把身体可以分为自然的身体、社会的身体和超越的身体。三个维度的身体互为表里、互相冲突，构成了一个微妙的混沌整体。语文教育在走向现代化之时，应厘清三者的关系和分野，需要将身体外的因素打上"括弧"，"明哲保身"。基于此三种身体观的语文当是整体的、在世的与自足的。语文的本体论探究也由此"别开生面"，着力于身体之间、身体与世界之间的差别与裂缝。语文的本质是裂缝，诗学是到达语文本体的可能途径。
- 身体 /
- 语文教育 /
- 语文本体论 /
- 现代性
Abstract: Chinese Language and Literature (CLL)is a language and the body is the cornerstone of CLL leading to the world. The world is moving from the traditional to the modern. In this context, the body can be divided into natural body, social body and transcendental body. The three dimensions of the body are mutually conditional, establishing a delicate causal relationship. In the process of modernization of Chinese language education, it is necessary to redefine the relationship and division of these three dimensions, rather than adopt one-dimensioned approach. As the three-dimensioned CLL is holistic, present and self-contained, the ontology of CLLcan focus on the difference and fissure of the three kinds of bodies, body and world from a new perspective. The essence of CLL is fissure and poetics is the way to get the essence of CLL.
- the body /
- Chinese Language & Literature Education /
- ontology /
- modernity

HTML全文

参考文献(39)

[1]	陈景黼.(2012).当代欧美学界中国古代身体观研究综述.台湾东亚文明研究学刊(台湾), (6), 183-212.
[2]	海德格尔(2010). 在通向语言的途中(孙周兴译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[3]	胡塞尔. (2001). 欧洲科学的危机与超越论的现象学(王炳文译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[4]	黄金鳞.(2006).历史、身体、国家:近代中国的身体形成(1895-1937).北京:新星出版社.
[5]	黄宗羲. (1985). 黄宗羲全集(沈善洪编). 杭州: 浙江古籍出版社.
[6]	嵇璜, 曹仁虎. (1986). 钦定续文献通考. 文渊阁四库全书: 史部政书类(卷一百七十四). 台北: 台湾商务印书馆, 630-335.
[7]	李少君等(2017).五人诗选:雷平阳·陈先发·李少君·潘维·古马.上海:华东师范大学出版社.
[8]	林久络(2006). 王门心学的密契主义向度——自我探索与道德实践的二重奏. 台北: 国立台湾大学哲学研究所博士论文.
[9]	刘小枫. (1998).现代性社会理论诸论——现代性与现代中国.上海:上海三联书店.
[10]	刘又铭. (2009).明清儒家自然气本体的哲学典范.国立政治大学哲学学报(台湾), (7), 1-36.
[11]	刘宗周(1997).刘宗周全集.台北:中央研究院中国文哲研究所.
[12]	牟宗三. (1984).从陆象山到刘蕺山.台北:学生书局.
[13]	庞朴. (1980).帛书五行篇研究.山东:齐鲁书社.
[14]	萨特. (2007). 存在与虚无(陈宣良等译). 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
[15]	舍勒. (1995). 资本主义的未来(刘小枫编, 罗悌伦等译). 香港: 香港牛津大学出版社.
[16]	施舟人(Schipper, K. M. ). (2002). 中国文化基因库. 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[17]	泰勒. (2001). 自我的根源: 现代认同的形成(韩震等译). 南京: 译林出版社.
[18]	王健文. (1993). 国君一体——古代中国国家概念的一个面相. 杨儒宾编. 中国古代思想中的气论和身体观. 台北: 巨流图书公司.
[19]	杨儒宾. (1996).儒家身体观.台北:中研院文哲所.
[20]	杨儒宾. (2012).异议的意义——近世东亚的反理学思潮.台北:国立台湾大学出版中心.
[21]	Ames, R. T. (1993). The meaning of body in classical Chinese philosophy. In Thomas P. Kasulis, T.P., Ames, R.T. and Dissanayake, W.(ed.). Self as body in Asian theory and practice. Albany:State University of New York Press.
[22]	Aoki, T. T.(2004). Curriculum in a new key:The collected work of Ted T. Aoki. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
[23]	Cheng, C.(2002). On the metaphysical significance of Ti (body-embodiment) in Chinese philosophy:Benti (origin-substance) and Ti-yong (substance and function). Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 29(2), 145-161. doi: 10.1111/jocp.2002.29.issue-2
[24]	Berman, L. M. (1991). Toward curriculum for being:Voices of education. Albany:State University of New York Press.
[25]	Biemel, W.(1972). Poetry and language in Heidegger. In Joseph J. Lockelmans (ed.). On Heidegger and languag. Evanston:Northwestern University Press, 81-85.
[26]	Dillon, M. C. (1997).Ecart & differance:Merleau-Ponty and Derrida on seeing and writing. New Jersey:Humanities Press International, Inc.
[27]	Dupre, L. (1993). Passage to modernity:An essay in the hermeneutics of nature and culture.New Haven and London:Yale University Press.
[28]	Gaukroger, S.(2006). The emergence of a scientific culture. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[29]	Gaut, B. & Lopes, D. M.(2013). The Routledge companion to aesthetic. Oxon:Routledge.
[30]	Geaney, J. (2002). On the epistemology of the senses in early Chinese thought.Honolulu:University of Hawai'i Press.
[31]	Heidegger, M. (2012). Contributions to philosophy (of the event). Translated by Richard Rojcewica and Daniela Vallega-Neu. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
[32]	Heidegger, M. (2013).The event. Translated by Richard Rojcewicz. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
[33]	Merleau-Ponty, M.(1992). Text and dialogues. Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press.
[34]	Jung, H. Y.(1990). Heidegger's way with Sinitic thinking. In Graham Parkes(eds). Heidegger and Asian Thought. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press.
[35]	Pippin, R. B. (1999). Modernism as a philosophical problem:On the dissatisfactions of European high culture. Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.1999.
[36]	Noce, A. D. (2014).The crisis of modernity. Translated by Carlo Lancellotti. Quebec:McGill-Queen's University Press.
[37]	Schipper, K.M.(1994). The Taoist body. Berkeley:University of California Press.
[38]	Schutz, A.& Luckmann, T.(1973). The Structure of the life-world(Translated by Richard Zaner, M. & Tristram, H. & Engelhardt, J.). Evanston:Northwestern University Press.
[39]	Taylor, C.(2016).The language animal:The full shape of the human linguistic capacity. Cambridge:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.