本文選題：結構 + 野性的思維��； 參考：《廣西師范大學》2002年碩士論文

【摘要】： 列維-斯特勞斯是二十世紀最有影響的思想家和文化人類學家之一。他的思想中蘊含著美學的思考。 列維-斯特勞斯認為人類存在著一種普遍的心理結構，，這種結構不是形式，也不是某種社會關系，而是一種人們賴以認識自然、創(chuàng)造文化的可感、不可見又具有普遍概括性的抽象物。因而，他的這種看法被看作是康德式的先驗唯物主義，但他又強凋他并不否認物質基礎，而只是想對馬克思沒有充分闡明的上層建筑理論進行進一步的闡釋，尤其是在上層建筑的相對獨立性及主觀能動性方面。以此為理論出發(fā)點，他提出了一系列美學問題并作出了自己獨特的回答。 列維-斯特勞斯認為文化與自然的對立是不可避免的，因為文化是人類使自己與自然相區(qū)別的標志。他繼承了西方由笛卡爾開創(chuàng)的從語言探討心靈的傳統(tǒng)，把語言作為理性的人的唯一區(qū)分標志。他從人的語言能力去發(fā)現(xiàn)人的理性能力，而語言有一種符號象征性，因而依據語言的邏輯建構的文化也具有符號象征性。他用親屬結構的分析、神話結構的分析來證明這一點。由此，他提出文化與自然的對立是在象征符號的層面上形成的，所以也可以在象征符號的層面上來加以克服的觀點。他通過對“野性思維”的研究來尋找實現(xiàn)這一目標的方法。野性的思維有具體性和整體性的特點，它能夠實現(xiàn)對立調和在于其“轉換”的功能和“儀式”的功能。“轉換”在于類比思維的存在，因而能使具體形象之間的意義，具體形象與抽象意義相互聯(lián)系；“儀式”則是原始文化消除差異，產生同一幻覺的一種符號。在這里，他試圖把美學上的一些假設或寓言式的解釋變成條理分明、邏輯清晰的實證論述。列維-斯特勞斯思想中有著明顯的反主體的傾向。他崇尚體系和結構的至上地位，把人看作體系和結構中的一項，與其他項一樣決無任何固有的意義。他駁斥薩特，提出是無意識的結構賦予人及事物以意義，而不是有意識的人本身，并且通過證明歷史的主觀性來論證企圖用歷史的客觀性來證明人的意義也是徒勞的。他的思考打破了主體自律的神話，指出了主體與現(xiàn)實間互動性的構成及其復雜的關系，越出了人類中心主義的狹隘，同時又堅實地立足于人的獨特存在，這為美學思考踏入新的廣闊天地打開了一條充滿希望的通道，美感純粹主觀性或客觀性的學說因此受到強有力的駁斥，美學研究的視野也因此由局限于藝術的小天地擴大到了整個人類文化之中。這是其人學思想中所蘊含的美學問題及啟示。 在解釋藝術時，列維-斯特勞斯也提出了一些新穎的觀點。關于藝術的起源問題，他認為“游離的能指”是所有藝術的保證。因為在他看來，自從人作為人一出現(xiàn)就已擁有一種能指的完整性，這種能指的完整性在于能指總是難于與所指完全相匹配，因而這也就產生了能指相對于與其相匹配的所指來說的過剩，所以，在人們理解世界的努力中，他總要處理意指關系的過剩問題，這實際上就賦予了以象征能力為標志的人類文化尋求一種“幻覺的平衡”的必然性。藝術就是實現(xiàn)這種幻覺平衡的手段。這種看法對解釋藝術欣賞中的普遍性問題和藝術與瘋狂的關系問題有一定的啟示，但仍因其與“潛意識”不可割離的聯(lián)系而同樣具有局限性。關于藝術的界定，列維-斯特勞斯的觀點有兩點與眾不同：一是認為藝術是一種壓縮模型，二是認為藝術處于科學知識和神話或巫術思想二者之間。他認為在藝術品的“小模型”里，整體的知識先于部分的知識，人們可以獲得一種領會和占有了對象的感覺，因而產生美感。這與康德對崇高感的論述相似。另外，他強調了偶然性因素在藝術創(chuàng)造中的重要地位，盡管藝術的最終結果是發(fā)現(xiàn)或顯現(xiàn)一個結構，但它的出發(fā)點是偶然性的事件，這與岡布里奇的“制作先于匹配”的命題相似。由此，列維-斯特勞斯認為原始藝術比專業(yè)或學院藝術更接近于完美，所以他對現(xiàn)代藝術頗有微詞。這與其對藝術與社會的關系的觀點有關。他聯(lián)系原始社會的階級結構，通過對其藝術的折半表現(xiàn)的分析，提出了關于藝術與個性、與社會的關系的新的啟示：藝術不僅是個性分裂的表現(xiàn)，藝術事實上也促成著個性的分裂；藝術實際上也就是一種社會矛盾的幻覺式的解決方法。同時他對藝術以幻夢的方式解決矛盾持肯定的態(tài)度。由此可見，列維-斯特勞斯的美學觀中包含著一種審美烏托邦的思想，但又與阿多諾的審美烏托邦有著本質上的區(qū)別。 列紂卜聽特竹斯的美學思想涉及了二十世紀兩方美學思潮中許多關鍵性的問題：主體問題。意識形態(tài) 問題、藝術的啟蒙問題等。他對傳統(tǒng)的繼承與開拓在整個西方美學發(fā)展的過松中起著墾翌的爪上啟卜o作 川：他彬占構主義的奎要代表，又為解構主義留下了具有生長力的理論潛源。同時，他也提山了研究美學 的新的方法論的問題，即將一個藝術或美學問題用豐富的現(xiàn)實材料來分析，作形而下的證明，而避免形而 上的么思。這對美學研究更好地實現(xiàn)歷災與邏輯的統(tǒng)一有著重要的啟示意義。
[Abstract]:Levi Strauss is one of the most influential thinkers and cultural anthropologists in the twentieth Century. His thoughts contain aesthetic thinking.
Levi - Strauss believes that human beings have a general psychological structure, which is not a form or a social relationship, but a kind of abstract object that people rely on to understand nature, create a sense of culture, and be invisible and general generality. Therefore, his view is regarded as a transcendental materialism of Kantian, but He did not deny the material basis, but just wanted to further explain the superstructure theory that Marx did not fully elucidate, especially on the relative independence and subjective initiative of the superstructure. As a theoretical point of departure, he put forward a series of aesthetic questions and made his own unique answer.
Levi Strauss believes that the antagonism between culture and nature is inevitable, because culture is the symbol of human being and nature. He inherits the only distinction between the people in the West which is created by Descartes to explore the mind from the language, and the only distinction between the people of the language. And language has a symbolic symbol, so the culture constructed according to the logic of the language has symbolic symbolism. He uses the analysis of the structure of kinship and the analysis of the myth structure to prove it. Thus, he proposed that the antagonism between culture and nature is formed on the level of symbolic symbols, so it can also be added to the symbol level. Through the study of "wild thinking", he looked for the way to achieve this goal. The thinking of the wild has the characteristics of concreteness and wholeness. It can achieve the harmony of opposites in the function of "conversion" and "ritual". "Conversion" lies in the existence of class bill, so it can make the concrete image. Meaning, the concrete image and the abstract meaning relate to each other; "ritual" is a symbol of the original culture to eliminate the difference and produce the same illusion. Here, he tries to turn some of the aesthetic hypotheses or allegorical explanations into a clear and clear and clear demonstration. There is a clear anti subject in Levi Strauss thought. He admires the supremacy of the system and structure, as one in the system and structure, and has no inherent meaning as other items. He refutes Sutter, suggesting that the unconscious structure gives people and things the meaning, not the conscious person itself, and demonstrates the attempt to use historical guests by proving the subjectivity of history. It is in vain to prove the meaning of human being. His thinking breaks the myth of subject self-discipline, points out the composition and complex relationship of the interactivity between the subject and the reality, beyond the narrowness of the anthropocentrism, and is firmly based on the unique existence of the human being, which opens a full of beauty to the new broad space. The passage of hope, the doctrine of pure subjectivity or objectivity of aesthetic feeling has been strongly refuted, and the view of aesthetic research has been expanded from the small world of art to the whole of human culture. This is the aesthetic problem and inspiration contained in his humanistic thought.
In the interpretation of art, Levi Strauss also put forward some new ideas. On the origin of art, he believed that the "free energy" was the guarantee of all art. For in his view, since man appeared as a human being had an integrality of the signifier, and the integrity of the signifier is that the signifier is always difficult to end with. Therefore, in the effort to understand the world, he always deals with the excess of the meaning of the relationship, which, in fact, endows the human culture marked by symbolism as the necessity of "the balance of illusion". The means to realize the illusion of illusion has some inspiration to explain the universal problems in art appreciation and the relationship between art and madness. But it is still limited because of its uncut connection with the "subconscious". As for the definition of art, Levi Strauss's views are different: one is to recognize it. Art is a compression model, two is that art is between scientific knowledge and mythology or witchcraft thought two. He thinks that in the "small model" of art, the whole knowledge is preceded by part of the knowledge, and people can get a sense of understanding and possession of the object and produce aesthetic feeling. This is with Kant's discourse on the sense of sublime. In addition, he emphasized the importance of contingency in artistic creation, although the final result of art is to discover or reveal a structure, but its starting point is accidental, which is similar to the proposition of Bridge's "make a match". Thus, Levi Strauss thinks that primitive art is more than professional or college art. It is closer to perfection, so he has a rather small word for modern art. It is related to his view of the relationship between art and society. He relates the class structure of the primitive society, and through the analysis of the half performance of his art, he puts forward new revelations about art and personality and the relationship with society: art is not only a manifestation of split personality, but art. In fact, it also contributes to the split of personality; art is actually an illusion of social contradiction. At the same time, he holds an affirmative attitude towards the solution of contradictions in the way of illusions in art. Thus, Levi Strauss's aesthetic view contains an aesthetic utopian thought, but also with Adorno's aesthetic Utopias. There is an essential difference.
Lebty J's aesthetic thought involves many key issues in the two party aesthetic trend in twentieth Century: subject matter. Ideology.
Problems, the Enlightenment of art, and so on. His inheritance and development of tradition played a role in the development of western aesthetics. O
Sichuan: the representative of Kui Yao, a founder of his theory of architecture, left a theoretical source of growth for deconstruction. At the same time, he also promoted the aesthetics of research.
The problem of a new methodology is to analyze an artistic or aesthetical problem with abundant practical materials, and to make a proof of form and to avoid form.
This is an important inspiration for aesthetics research to better realize the unity of calamity and logic.
【學位授予單位】：廣西師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2002
【分類號】：I01

【引證文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 王龔雪;有意味的形式[D];中央民族大學;2011年

本文編號：2061852