Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54694
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor黃厚銘<br>蘇碩斌zh_TW
dc.contributor.author范國豪zh_TW
dc.creator范國豪zh_TW
dc.date2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-30T03:31:45Z-
dc.date.available2012-10-30T03:31:45Z-
dc.date.issued2012-10-30T03:31:45Z-
dc.identifierG0972540081en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54694-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description社會學研究所zh_TW
dc.description97254008zh_TW
dc.description100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract本論文嘗試引介義大利哲學家Gianni Vattimo的後現代理論,以提供另一種觀點來理解當代的大眾傳播狀況。本文始於以下提問:當代電子媒介的普及使用,強化了人們的言論自由權利,但是這樣的自由是否犧牲了人們之間的相互信賴?另一方面,在資訊爆炸增生的情況下,是否還能找到一個超然客觀的基點,將所有的言論給統合起來、毫無扭曲地再現這些紛雜繁多的意見?\n\n 本文認為,之所以需要Vattimo的理論來理解當代的大眾傳播現象,乃是因為他的理論具有以下特點:反對形上學、貼近存有歷史、注重傳播媒介與社會的關聯,並且提供了行動的倫理。Vattimo的理論指出了另一種思考言論自由的觀點,且在這樣的自由觀中,人們的行動不再導向於犧牲他人、壓迫他人,而反倒會以一種特別的方式反省自己、關愛他人。本論文主張,Vattimo的理論可以回應一般對於後現代理論的質疑,讓人們知道後現代理論在顧及多元差異的同時,不見得就會忽視歷史連續性、也不見得不具批判性。\n\n 本論文第二章,首先將回顧西方形上學式的思維,並勾勒出在形上學框架底下所設想的傳播活動樣貌,以便和Vattimo構想的傳播觀做比較。接著,本論文的第三章則將指出,Vattimo眼中的後現代場景乃是日常生活普遍審美化的狀態;而本論文也會透過回顧Vattimo的藝術理論,闡述Vattimo是如何將藝術品賦予存有學意義,並且藉由此種藝術存有學的觀點,回過頭來說明Vattimo是如何評價後現代生活經驗的普遍審美化之現象。\n\n 在第四章中,本論文會提及後現代生活蘊含著不可共量、怎樣都行的危險,並說明Vattimo如何因應這樣一個問題。在Vattimo的思想中,後現代情境是延續著世俗化的歷史發展而來,且帶有一種虛無主義式的歷史特性。順著這樣一種虛無主義特性,Vattimo在其中看到了行動的準則,那便是:對於形上學客觀性的削弱。本論文也會在這樣的基礎上,構思後現代情境中傳播媒介的使用倫理,並以Vattimo的思想為背景,描繪後現代式的言論自由觀。\n\n 最後,本文也將點出Vattimo理論中的曖昧含混特性。本文認為,Vattimo的理論不同於形上學式的形式邏輯,而是呈現出一種自相矛盾的態勢;且這種自相矛盾不會讓其理論成了無用之物,而反倒會讓它具有特殊力量,能夠挑戰形上學式的暴力壓迫。zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents緒論 為何需要Vattimo …………………..…………………… 1 \n\n 第一節 研究問題 ..........………………………………………… 1 \n 一. 前言 ..........………………………………………………… 1\n 二. 文獻回顧:透明傳播觀 ..........…………………………… 3\n 三. 後現代的看法 ...........…………………………………… 5\n 第二節 引介Vattimo的理由 …………………………… 7\n 1. 反對形上學 ………………………………………………… 9\n 2. 貼近存有歷史 ……………………………………………… 10\n 3. 注重傳播與社會的關連 …………………………………… 10\n 4. 提供行動倫理 …………………………………………… 11\n 第三節 章節安排 …………………………………………… 12\n\n第二章 傳播與存有 ………………………………………… 14\n\n 第一節 形上學思維 ………………………………………… 14 \n 一. 形上學與現代性 ……………………………………………… 14\n 二. 形上學式的傳播觀 …………………………………………… 15\n 三. 形上學的問題 ………………………………………………… 17 \n 第二節 Vattimo的詮釋學存有觀 ………………………… 18 \n 一. 詮釋與存有 …………………………………………………… 18\n 二. 存有事件與歷史天命 ………………………………………… 20\n 三. 此在的歷史深淵 ……………………………………………… 22\n 第三節 傳播與差異 ………………………………………… 24\n 一. 憶起存有學差異 ……………………………………………… 25\n 二. 回憶與轉化 …………………………………………………… 26\n\n第三章 傳播與審美 ……………………..……………………… 29\n\n 第一節 後現代社會的來臨 ………………………………… 29\n 一. 現代性的終結 ………………………………………………… 29 \n 二. 日常生活的普遍審美化 ……………………………………… 32 \n 三. 藝術之死 ……………………………………………………… 34\n 第二節 藝術與存有 ………………………………………… 35\n 一. 存有的審美意涵 ……………………………………………… 35\n 二. 藝術與真理 …………………………………………………… 37\n 第三節 世界圖像時代的藝術作品 ………………………… 41\n 一. 日常生活普遍審美化的意義 ………………………………… 41\n 二. 審美異質邦的解放意涵 ……………………………………… 43\n\n第四章 後現代傳播倫理 ……………………………..………… 47\n\n 第一節 後現代的虛無主義意涵 …………………………… 47\n 一. 世俗化的發展 ………………………………………………… 48\n 二. 歷史的虛無主義特性 ………………………………………… 49\n 第二節 Vattimo的弱倫理 ………………………………… 52\n 一. 暴力化減 ……………………………………………………… 53\n 二. 自我反省 ……………………………………………………… 54\n 三. 關愛他人 ……………………………………………………… 56\n 第三節 批判的後現代傳播倫理 …………………………… 58\n 一. 從大它者到眾多他人 ………………………………………… 58\n 二. 傳播與批判 …………………………………………………… 61\n 三. 另類的言論自由 ……………………………………………… 64\n\n第五章 結論 …………………………………………..………… 69\n\n 一. 反對形上學式的傳播觀 ……………………………………… 69\n 二. 言論自由的新風貌 …………………………………………… 70\n 三. 審美異質邦的倫理 …………………………………………… 73\n 四. 曖昧含混的思考方式 ………………………………………… 75\n\n參考書目 …………………………………………...………………… 79zh_TW
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0972540081en_US
dc.subject後現代zh_TW
dc.subject傳播zh_TW
dc.subject形上學zh_TW
dc.subject藝術zh_TW
dc.subject倫理zh_TW
dc.titleGianni Vattimo 的後現代傳播理論zh_TW
dc.titleGianni Vattimo`s postmodern communication theoryen_US
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.reference王晴佳、古偉瀛,2000,《後現代與歷史學 : 中西比較》。台北:巨流。\n\n林子儀,1993,《言論自由與新聞自由》。台北:月旦。\n\n高宣揚,1999,《後現代論》。台北:五南。\n\n翁秀琪,2009,《大眾傳播理論與實證》。台北:三民。\n\n孫秋雲,2004,《文化人類學教程》。北京:民族出版社。\n\n孫振青,2001,《形而上學》。台北:洪葉。\n\n陳榮華,2011,《高達美詮釋學:「真理與方法」導讀》。台北:三民。\n\n葉啟政,2005,《現代人的天命》。台北:群學。\n\n——,2008,《邁向修養社會學》。台北:三民。\n\n——,2009,〈液化的共同體解救得了「大眾」雲團的氤氳霧靄嗎?〉第二\n 屆海峽兩岸社會學理論學術研討會。北京:北京大學社會系。\n\n曾國祥,2002,〈現代歷史理論的自然主義假設:一個批判性的回顧〉《歐美\n 研究》32(3): 567-620。\n\n曾慶豹,1998,《哈伯瑪斯》。台北:生智。\n\n黃瑞祺,2000,《現代與後現代》。台北:巨流。\n\n黃瑞祺,2001,《批判社會學》。台北:三民。\n\n管中祥,2002,〈從Habermas 的溝通觀再思考媒體傳播過程的權力意義〉\n 《中華傳播學刊》(2):185 -220。\n\n蔡美麗,2003,《黑格爾》。台北:左岸。\n\nAdorno, Theodor W. and Max Horkheimer, 1997, Dialectic of \n Enlightenment (John Cumming, Trans.). New York : Verso.\n\nBaudrillard, Jean, 1983, In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities: Or, the \n End of the Social and Other Essays (Paul Foss, John Johnston, and \n Paul Patton, Trans.). New York: Semiotext(e).\n\nBenjamin, Walter, 1968, Illuminations (Harry Zohn, Trans.). New York : \n Schocken Books.\n\nBest, Steven and Douglas Kellner,1994,《後現代理論 : 批判的質疑》\n (朱元鴻等譯)。台北:巨流。\n\nCaputo, John D. and Gianni Vattimo, 2007, After the Death of God, \n edited by Jeffrey W. Robbins. New York : Columbia University \n Press.\n\nCastells, Manuel,2001,《網絡社會的崛起》(夏鑄九、王志弘等譯)。北 \n 京:社會科學文獻。\n\nDanto, Arthur C.,2008,《美的濫用》(鄧伯宸譯)。台北:立緒。\n\n——,2010,《在藝術終結之後:當代藝術與歷史藩籬》(林雅琪、鄭慧雯\n 譯)。台北:麥田。\n\nEagleton, Terry, 1996, The Illusions Of Postmodemism. Malden, Mass. : \n Blackwell Pub.\n\n——,2009,《理論之後》(商正譯)。北京:商務印書館。\n\nFeatherstone, Mike,2000,《消費文化與後現代主義》(劉精明譯)。南\n 京:譯林。\n\nFiske, John,1989, Reading the Popular. London: Routledge.\n\n——, 1991, “Postmodernism and Television.” Pp. 55–67 in Mass Media \n and Society, edited by J. Curran and M. Gurevitch. London: Edward \n Arnold.\n\nGellner, Ernest, 1995, “Anything Goes: The Carnival of Cheap Relativism \n Which Threatens to Swamp the Coming Fin De Millenaire.” Times \n Literary Supplement (4811): 6–8.\n\nGrossberg, Lawrence, 1996, “On Postmodernism and Articulation: An \n Interview with Stuart Hall.” Pp.131-150 in Stuart Hall: Critical \n Dialogues in Cultural Studies, \n edited by D. Morley and K. Chen. London: Routledge.\n\nHabermas, Jürgen, 1979, Communication and the Evolution of Society \n (Thomas McCarthy, Trans.). Boston : Beacon Press\n\n——, 1981, “Modernity versus Postmodernity.” New German Critique \n 22:3-14.\n\nHall, Staurt, 1980, “Encoding/Decoding.” Pp.128-138 in Culture, Media, \n Language, edited by S. Hall et al. London: Hutchinson. \n\n——, 1997, Representation. London: Sage.\n\nHeidegger, Martin, 1977, The Question Concerning Technology and \n Other Essays (William Lovit, Trans.). New York : Harper & Row.\n\n——,1996,《海德格爾的技術問題及其他文章》(宋祖良譯)。台北:七\n 略。\n\n——,2008,《林中路》(孫周興譯)。上海:世紀。\n\nJameson, Fredric, 1991, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late \n Capitalism. Durham : Duke University Press.\n\nKoch, Howard, 1970, The Panic Broadcast, Portrait of an Event. Boston : \n Little, Brown.\n\nKuhn, Thomas,1994,《科學革命的結構》(程樹德等譯)。台北:遠流。\n\nLyotard, Jean François. (1984). The Postmodern Condition : A Report on \n Knowledge (Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Trans.). \n Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.\n\nMarcuse, Herbert,1988,《愛欲與文明》(羅麗英譯)。台北:南方。\n\nMcCarthy, Thomas A., “A Theory of Communicative Competence.” \n Philosophy of the Social Sciences 3(2): 135-156.\n\nMcGuigan, Jim, 1992, Cultural Populism. New York, N.Y. : Routledge. \n\nMcQuail, Denis,2011,《特新大眾傳播理論》(陳芸芸、劉慧雯譯)。台\n 北:韋伯。\n\nMill, John Stuart,2004,《論自由》(郭志嵩譯)。台北:臉譜。\n\nMills, C. Wright,1996,《社會學的想像》(張君玫,劉鈐佑譯)。台北:巨\n 流。\n\nPostman, Neil, 1993, Technopoly. New York: Vintage Books.\n\n——,2007,《娛樂至死》(蔡承志譯)。台北:貓頭鷹。\n\nPoster, Mark, 1996, The Second Media Age. Cambridge, U.K. : Polity \n Press.\n\nRorty, Richard, 2007, “Heideggerianism and leftist politics.” Pp. 149-\n 158 in Weakening Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Gianni Vattimo, \n edited by Santiago Zabala. Ithaca [N.Y.] : McGill-Queen`s University \n Press.\n\nRorty, Richard and Gianni Vattimo, 2005, The Future of Religion, edited \n by Santiago Zabala. New York: Columbia University Press.\n\nSeverin, Werner J. & James W. Tankard,1995,《傳播理論:起源、方法與\n 應用》(孟淑華譯)。台北:五南。\n\nShannon, Claude E. & Warren Weaver, 1964, The Mathematical Theory \n of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.\n\nVattimo, 1986, “The End of (Hi)story.” Chicago Review 35(4): 20-30.\n\n——, 1988, The End of Modernity: Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Post-\n modern Culture (Jon R. Snyder, Trans.). Cambridge, UK : Polity \n Press.\n\n——, 1992, The Transparent Society (David Webb, Trans.). Cambridge, \n Mass. : Polity Press.\n\n——, 1993, The Adventure of Difference : Philosophy after Nietzsche \n and Heidegger (Cyprian Blamires, Trans.). Cambridge, Mass. : \n Polity Press.\n\n——, 1997, Beyond Interpretation: The Meaning of Hermeneutics for \n Philosophy (David Webb, Trans.). Cambridge, U.K. : Polity Press.\n\n——, 1998, “The Trace of the Trance” ( David Webb, Trans.). Pp.79-94 \n in Religion, edited by Jacques Derrida and Gianni Vattimo. \n Cambridge, U.K. : Polity Press.\n\n——, 2001, “The Christian Message and the Dissolution of \n Metaphysics.” (A. J. Wickens, Trans.). Pp.458-466 in The Blackwell \n Companion to Postmodern Theology, edited by Graham Ward. \n Oxford : Blackwell Publishers.\n\n——, 2002, After Christianity (Luca D’Isanto, Trans.). New York: \n Columbia University Press.\n\n——, 2003a, “Ethics without Transcendence?” (Santiago Zabala, Trans.). \n Common Sense 9(3): 399-405. \n\n——, 2003b, “Knowledge Society or Leisure Society?” Diogenes 50(1): 9–14.\n\n——, 2004a, “After Onto-theology: Philosophy between Science and \n Religion.” Pp.29-36 in Religion after Metaphysics, edited by Mark \n A. Wrathall. Cambridge \n [England]: Cambridge University Press.\n\n——, 2004b, Nihilism & Emancipation: Ethics, Politics, & Law (William \n McCuaig, Trans.), edited by Santiago Zabala. New York : Columbia \n University Press.\n\n——, 2005, “The Truth of Hermeneutics.” Pp.168-180 in Truth: \n Engagements Across Philosophical Traditions, edited by José \n Medina and David Wood. Malden, Mass. : Blackwell Pub.\n\n——, 2007, “Nihilism as Postmodern Christianity.” Pp.44-48 in \n Transcendence and Beyond: A Postmodern Inquiry, edited by John \n D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana \n University Press.\n\n——, 2008, Art`s Claim to Truth (Luca D`Isanto, Trans.), edited by \n Santiago Zabala. New York : Columbia University Press. \n\n——, 2009, “Nihilism as Emancipation.” (Lorenzo Chiesa, Trans.). \n Pp.31-35 in The Italian Difference: Between Nihilism and \n Biopolitics, edited by Lorenzo Chiesa and Alberto Toscano. \n Melbourne, Aust. : re.press.\n\n——, 2010, The Responsibility of the Philosopher (William McCuaig, \n Trans.), edited by Franca D`Agostini. New York : Columbia \n University Press. \n\n——, 2011, “Nihilism, Sexuality, Postmodern Christianity.” Pp.124-129 \n in Feminism, Sexuality, and the Return of Religion, edited by Linda \n Martín Alcoff and John D. Caputo. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana \n University Press.\n\nVattimo, Gianni and René Girard, 2010, Christianity, Truth, and \n Weakening Faith : A Dialogue (William McCuaig, Trans.), edited by \n Pierpaolo Antonello. New York : Columbia University Press.\n\nVattimo, Gianni and Santiago Zabala, 2002, “Weak Thought and the \n Reduction of Violence: Dialogue with Gianni Vattimo.” (Yaakov \n Mascetti, Trans.). Common Knowledge 8(3): 452-463. \n\nVattimo, Gianni and Piergiorgio Paterlini, 2009, Not Being God: A \n Collaborative Autobiography (William McCuaig, Trans.). New York: \n Columbia Universit Press.\n\nWeber, Max,1991《學術與政治:韋伯選集(I)》(錢永祥編譯)。台北:\n 遠流。\n\nWebster, Frank,1999,《資訊社會理論》(馮建三譯)。台北:遠流。\n\nZabala, Santiago, 2009, “Weakening Ontology through Actuality: \n Foucault and Vattimo.” Pp. 109-123 in Foucault’s Legacy, edited \n by C. G. Prado. London : Continuum International Publishing \n Group.zh_TW
item.openairetypethesis-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextrestricted-
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
008101.pdf1.87 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.