“静”与“动”:汤因比两种文明对话形态的理论探索
|
摘要
汤因比历史哲学中的文明整体观念与比较研究方法本质上走的是对话理论路径。在汤因比所列举21个现有文明与5个夭折停滞的文明中,存在着两种对话类型:已夭折文明间非交往性的静态对话、现存文明间交往过程中的动态对话。夭折文明间无交往的静态对话以间性和关系为基础,以差异为表征;动态对话包括同一文明历时性对话和不同文明共时性对话,世界的多元化决定了文明的多元化共存,因而文明的动态对话经常表现为相遇、碰撞甚至冲突,其结果是走向文明间的互相吸收、同化和融合。
The holistic view of civilizations and the comparative research method in Toynbee's historical philosophy follow essentially the path of dialogism. Two forms of dialogues exist in the 21 living and 5 dead civilizations: the non-communicative static dialogue amongst the dead civilizations; the dynamic dialogue among the communicative living civilizations. The former is based on interality and relation, with difference as its manifestation; the latter includes the diachronic dialogue with in a single civilization and the synchronic dialogue among different civilizations, which usually displays encounter, collision and conflict, leading to the consequences of integration, assimilation and fusion.
The holistic view of civilizations and the comparative research method in Toynbee's historical philosophy follow essentially the path of dialogism. Two forms of dialogues exist in the 21 living and 5 dead civilizations: the non-communicative static dialogue amongst the dead civilizations; the dynamic dialogue among the communicative living civilizations. The former is based on interality and relation, with difference as its manifestation; the latter includes the diachronic dialogue with in a single civilization and the synchronic dialogue among different civilizations, which usually displays encounter, collision and conflict, leading to the consequences of integration, assimilation and fusion.
引文
[1]郑德聘.间性理论与文化间性[J].广东广播电视大学学报,2008,(4).
[2]商戈令.间性论撮要[J].哲学分析,2015,(6).
[3]扎哈维,著.胡塞尔先验哲学的交互主体性转折[J].臧佩洪,译.哲学译丛,2001,(4).
[4]巴赫金.陀思妥耶夫斯基诗学问题[M].上海:三联出版社,1992.
[5]周宪.二十世纪西方美学[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1997.
[6]马丁·布伯.我与你[M].上海:三联出版社,1986.
[7]商戈令.道通与间性[J].哲学分析,2012,(5).
[8] Karl A. Wittfogel,“Reply to Arnold Toynbee”[J].The American Political Science Review, Volume 52, Issue 2, June 1958.
[9] E.H.Carr, What is History[M].Hampshire:Houndmills. 2001.
[10]彭树智.文明交往和文明对话[J].西北大学学报,2006,(4).
[11] Toynbee. Civilization on Trial. London[M].:Oxford University Press, 1949.
[12] Toynbee. A Study of History[M].. Abridgement of Volumes I-IV by D.C. Somervell. New York:Oxford University Press, 1985.
[13]南怀瑾.论语别裁[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
[14](美)弗朗西斯·鲁宾逊.剑桥插图伊斯兰世界史[M].安维华,钱雪梅,译.北京:世界知识出版社,2005.
(1)笔者在另文《“同时代性”与“可比较性”:汤因比文明观念的对话主义内涵与“星丛”归宿》中对此有详细阐述。
(1)可参见笔者另文《“同时代性”与“可比较性”:汤因比文明观念的对话主义内涵与“星丛”归宿》。
[2]商戈令.间性论撮要[J].哲学分析,2015,(6).
[3]扎哈维,著.胡塞尔先验哲学的交互主体性转折[J].臧佩洪,译.哲学译丛,2001,(4).
[4]巴赫金.陀思妥耶夫斯基诗学问题[M].上海:三联出版社,1992.
[5]周宪.二十世纪西方美学[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1997.
[6]马丁·布伯.我与你[M].上海:三联出版社,1986.
[7]商戈令.道通与间性[J].哲学分析,2012,(5).
[8] Karl A. Wittfogel,“Reply to Arnold Toynbee”[J].The American Political Science Review, Volume 52, Issue 2, June 1958.
[9] E.H.Carr, What is History[M].Hampshire:Houndmills. 2001.
[10]彭树智.文明交往和文明对话[J].西北大学学报,2006,(4).
[11] Toynbee. Civilization on Trial. London[M].:Oxford University Press, 1949.
[12] Toynbee. A Study of History[M].. Abridgement of Volumes I-IV by D.C. Somervell. New York:Oxford University Press, 1985.
[13]南怀瑾.论语别裁[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
[14](美)弗朗西斯·鲁宾逊.剑桥插图伊斯兰世界史[M].安维华,钱雪梅,译.北京:世界知识出版社,2005.
(1)笔者在另文《“同时代性”与“可比较性”:汤因比文明观念的对话主义内涵与“星丛”归宿》中对此有详细阐述。
(1)可参见笔者另文《“同时代性”与“可比较性”:汤因比文明观念的对话主义内涵与“星丛”归宿》。