Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: 從當代的文化哲學看赫德的文化思想
Other Titles: On Herder’s Understanding of Culture in Light of Contemporary Discourse of Culture
Authors: 游淙祺
Yu, Chung-Chi
Keywords: 赫德;文化哲學;文化多元性;文化間際性;文化跨越性
Herder;Philosophy of Culture;Multiculturality;Interculturality;Transculturality
Date: 2007-01
Issue Date: 2016-08-11 15:44:29 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本文探討當代哲學的文化論述有關赫德文化思想的詮釋,檢討這種理解的恰當性並評估赫德文化思想的價值。所謂當代哲學的文化論述我以當代德國學者W. Welsch所提出的三個概念,「文化多元性」(multiculturality)、「文化間際性」(interculturality)與「文化跨越性」(transculturality) 來作說明。在對這三個概念的闡述中我們瞭解赫德在Taylor的文化多元性論述主要是提供了真誠性的理念(the ideal of authenticity),也就是現代文化相當重視的人人要作他真正的自己此一道德理念。赫德在Holenstein的文化間際性論述中被視為浪漫主義的代表,主張同質性高而封閉的文化個體,它不利於文化之間的相互溝通。在Welsch有關文化跨越性的論述中,赫德是提出單一文化概念的主要代表。單一文化概念由社會同質、族群聚合、文化標界三個要素所構成。文化總是屬於同一民族之文化,代表著該民族生存的成果。每個民族文化都具有與外界相隔的文化界線,因此和其他文化產生隔離,不同的文化就其核心而言彼此是互相區隔的。本文認為,赫德所談的文化民族或是民族文化思想在上述三種文化論述中被過度誇大。回到赫德的文本,我們發現赫德重視啟蒙時代的歐洲人過度誇大理性對文化發展的重要性,以理性為標準去評價其他文化,而忽略了每個時代及每個地區的文化都是具有內在的完美性與獨特性。\r 赫德一方面肯定所有人的共同面──人性,另一方面也肯定人性因應著不同區域的自然環境,氣候地形等因素而展現出不同的風貌,亦即形成不同的語言系統、宗教信仰與風俗習慣等。換言之,赫德注重文化的獨特性與彼此之間的差異性;既然每個文化都有其獨到之處,赫德主張每一個文化都應該自我肯定,也應該被其他文化所認可。本文指出,即使在全球化盛行的當代,該思想仍極有價值,因為赫德對肯定所有人類的共同特質,肯定文化間的相互理解與溝通的可能性。就此而言,本研究認為當代哲學中對赫德的若干詮釋是值得商榷的。
This paper aims at investigating how Herder’s thought of culture is conceived of in the contemporary discourse of culture. The contemporary discourse of culture can be characterized with three terms: multiculturality, interculturality and transculturality, based on the idea of contemporary German philosopher, Wolfgang Welsch. In Taylor’s discourse of multiculturality Herder is seen to the first philosopher who put forward the idea of authenticity, which is crucial for the modern culture. Holenstein treats Herder as representative of romanticism, which understands culture as an organic, but also isolated unit. In the eyes of Holenstein such conception of culture may lead to difficulties in the mutual understanding between cultures. Welsch uses transculturality to explicate the real situation of cultural development today. He thus rejects the idea of single culture in Herder. According to my understanding of Herder thus far, I find all these three authors overemphasize the meaning of culture that is closely related to people (Volk) for Herder. I contend that if we follow Herder’s own context to understand what he means by culture, than we see that he aims at criticizing the idea of enlightenment of his day, according to which the reason counts as the culmination of cultural development. The enlightenment uses reason as universal standard to compare the 18century Europe with the Europe in the middle age and other corners of the world and unavoidably with huge bias. This is what Herder is opposed to. For him every culture in every possible age and region of the world possesses its own standard of perfection and therefore the comparison of cultures can be eventually only in vain. But Herder should not be viewed as representative of the later developed nationalism, which is chauvinistic and disastrous. Instead, what Herder stresses is the devotion of human being to his time and place rather than the abstract idea of universal love. Herder’s theory of culture could be characterized as follows: On the one hand he confirms what is common to all human beings – the Humanität, on the other hand he holds that people in different regions on the earth, due to divergent natural conditions, generate their own system of language, religion and custom, which are incommensurable from culture to culture. So long as every culture possesses its own particularity, Herder finds no reason why people should look down at their own culture, or should they despise the cultures of others. I hold that this idea of culture is appreciable even at the age of globalization, in which many cultures emerge into each other. By the way, my point that Herder also provides the basis for the mutual understanding between cultures because he confirms the commonness among all cultures, the Humanität. In this case some of the images of Herder in the contemporary cultural discourse should be more or less corrected.
Relation: 政治大學哲學學報, 17, 21-50
The national Chengchi university philosophical
Data Type: article
Appears in Collections:[政治大學哲學學報 THCI Core] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
17-21-50.pdf427KbAdobe PDF200View/Open

All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing