利奥塔的“崇高美学”思想研究
摘要
让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔是当代西方最具代表性的后现代主义哲学家之一。今天,许多人几乎把他视为后现代主义的同义词。上个世纪七十年代以来,利奥塔的后现代主义思想在人文社会科学的各个领域都受到了极大关注,也引发了不少讨论,在西方学术界产生了巨大的影响。他的后现代主义哲学勾勒出一幅当今科学知识、伦理、美学、政治学等领域内出现的后现代性的图画,其核心思想是摒弃统一性、决定论等现代模式,建立多元性、多样化,保持异质性的后现代秩序。而利奥塔提出的以“非人”抗拒“非人”的艺术理想和重写现代性的社会理想,最终是借助于他在艺术和社会政治领域的“崇高美学”来实施的。利奥塔的“崇高美学”思想不仅是他的后现代主义哲学的有机组成部分,而且随着利奥塔思想的发展,“崇高美学”在他的后现代理论中占据了越来越重要的地位。研究利奥塔的“崇高美学”思想,深化对利奥塔整个后现代主义哲学的认识,从而发掘出其在美学艺术领域和社会政治领域的独特价值,厘清其中存在的局限,是本论文的主要研究目的。
本论文由七个部分组成。
导言部分重在说明论文的选题意义,介绍国内外学者对利奥塔哲学、美学思想的研究现状。在选题意义方面,说明了本论文以利奥塔的“崇高美学”思想为主题来展开研究的理由：一是因为利奥塔是当代“崇高”理论发展中最主要的哲学家之一,他的“崇高美学”思想因其与后现代主义的紧密关系而独树一帜,值得关注。对利奥塔的“崇高美学”进行研究,不但能加深我们对他整个哲学思想的认识,也有助于我们进一步理解和把握崇高这一古老的美学范畴在当今社会的新发展,更为我们当前的审美、政治、伦理提供了新的思考可能性。二是因为,在当前中国的现实语境下,研究利奥塔的“崇高美学”思想,了解他对当代西方社会文化和艺术的批判性反思,可以为我们当下文化、艺术的健康发展提供有益的借鉴。在研究现状方面,介绍了国内外学者几十年来对利奥塔的哲学、美学思想研究的总体情况。指出与国外学者对利奥塔研究的广度与深度相比,目前国内的利奥塔研究,尤其是对他的美学和艺术理论的研究在一定程度上还只能说是“冰山一角”。
论文第一章以利奥塔的思想发展历程为研究对象。相比于很多埋头学术的哲学家,利奥塔具有更多的对社会和政治的关注热情,他的个人实践和社会交往对其思想的形成和发展有着重要的影响。而他对美学问题和艺术作品的探讨,也始终伴随于他的哲学研究。利奥塔的思想发展经历了三个阶段,首先是20世纪五六十年代,他主要从胡塞尔现象学和马克思主义那里寻找批判和改造社会的思想武器,并热心于马克思主义无产阶级革命理论的革命实践。第二阶段是20世纪70年代末以前,这是利奥塔思想的“漂流”期。他在现实的多样化矛盾面前逐渐丧失了对马克思主义的信仰,先是以尼采的思想来改造弗洛伊德和马克思的理论并发展了一种“欲望哲学”,而后又抛弃了这一哲学立场,转向异教主义,在其中已经显示出后现代主义的端倪。第三阶段,也就是20世纪70年代末以后,是利奥塔思想发展的最后阶段。他正式提出了自己的后现代主义,并在此基础上大力颂扬“崇高美学”,深入探索社会公正问题。
论文第二章论述了利奥塔的“欲望美学”。“欲望美学”可以看作利奥塔的“崇高美学”的最初表述。《话语,图像》一书集中体现了他的“欲望美学”思想,主要在两个方面展开：首先,利奥塔重新阐释了话语和图像,解构了二者之间的单纯对立关系,把图像作为话语的他者来看待,让我们意识到在话语中存在一些不可表现、异于表现的东西。在此基础上,他把美学与理论对立起来,用艺术形象来颠覆理论话语,主张感官和经验优于抽象物和概念,把诗歌、绘画等艺术看作是异质空间的同时展开。实际上,后现代主义、崇高都是利奥塔言说“图像”的一种方式,他对“图像”的论述、对“异质性”的坚持以及由此对艺术所作的分析,都为后来的“崇高美学”奠定了基础。第二,借助弗洛伊德的精神分析学说,利奥塔着重考察了图像,把图像看作无意识欲望的直接表达,并且区分了“图像-肖像”、“图像-形式”和“图像-母体”三种图像,认为“图像-母体”把异质的不可共存之物汇聚起来,带领我们接近无意识的欲望。而艺术作品作为强度和结构的集合体,既揭示了结构的局限又保持了结构变形的开放性,不是欲望的完成而是未完成。关于艺术作品开放性和未定性的思想在利奥塔“崇高美学”的艺术理论中得到进一步发展。
论文第三章在考察了崇高这一重要美学范畴的历史发展脉络和其在当今社会的发展境遇后,集中论述了利奥塔的崇高论说的理论源流,详细阐述了利奥塔关于崇高的基本认识和核心观念。利奥塔对“崇高美学”的理解,与他对哈贝马斯的“现代性规划”的批判和他提出的重写现代性有关。他认为哈贝马斯对秩序和稳定性的追求就是让艺术家回到公众的怀抱,停止艺术实验,这是一种重整现实主义美学的企图。他反对20世纪前期的庸俗现实主义和一切与资本主义消费价值观一致的后现代主义,指出后现代性对现代性的重写只能属于崇高的课题范围。除了在新的社会现实条件下思考“崇高”,利奥塔还借鉴了西方美学家对崇高的论述,他尤其看重柏克的紧张化观念和康德关于的否定性呈现的观念。但与柏克和康德所不同的是,他以未定性把主体从理性的控制中释放出来,也由此把他的后现代崇高范畴与现代崇高范畴区别开来。利奥塔所理解的崇高,已经转向了生命意义的存在论崇高,明显与海德格尔的存在论哲学联系在一起,是生命于当下瞬间对于原初本真状态的自我体认。利奥塔重新厘定了后现代崇高的核心要义,具体来说有三点。首先,崇高是一种“呈现不可呈现性”的情感,也就是把崇高作为未知的革新力量的确证。而对于崇高情感中表现的主客合一的感受性,即对主体的统一性的打断,利奥塔实则意在用某种难以捕捉的发生把主体从康德式主体自我独断的意志中释放。第二,崇高发生在“现在”的状态下,它具有未完成的现时性品质,从而是无法绝对理解和把握的。崇高的本性也可以看作是利奥塔所说的“此时此地”发生的“事件”,意味着矛盾性、特殊性、未定性、偶然性,意味着断裂和突破规范的状态,需要新的体验模式和不同的判断形式。第三,崇高作为利奥塔所谓的“不可决定的”判断的范型,这种情感的中心正是歧论。歧论是两方或者多方间的争论由于缺乏一种可作用于双方或多方的共识判断规则而不能被公平解决。歧论在痛苦的沉默中被确证,同时又召唤着新判断规则的发明,其中伴随着一种快感——这正是崇高。由此,我们可以发现利奥塔对“崇高”的认识表现出一种强调个体生存的价值取向。
论文第四章考察了由利奥塔的“崇高美学”基本思想阐发出的艺术理论。他的崇高理论的独特之处在于把“崇高美学”与先锋艺术相连,提出以先锋艺术的“非人”来对抗资本主义社会作用下的非人性和现代科技发展的非人化,这充分体现了利奥塔的“崇高美学”对人的心灵苦难和生存境遇的深刻关注。利奥塔指明了两种崇高：怀旧的崇高和革新的崇高。他认为怀旧的作品无法实现其崇高潜能,而革新的作品强调存在感的增加和创造艺术新规则的喜悦,通过呈现不可呈现性的实验把艺术的本质问题化。因而,艺术家的作品具有事件的特性,他们身上体现的是一种绝对先锋的艺术精神。实际上,不管是后现代主义还是“崇高美学”,抑或是先锋派艺术,在利奥塔看来都要摒除总体性和最终结论,强调无限感和碎片性,在拒绝旧有规则的同时不断探寻新规则。这也是他强调要重视先锋派的意义所在。围绕“崇高”这一中心,利奥塔又提出“此时此地”的先锋艺术创作理念,强调瞬时性,认为先锋派的崇高就表现为“此时此地”的未实现状态。不仅如此,他还指出,形式已经不能承载对不可呈现之物的呈现,先锋艺术创作必须更加强调对非物质材料的运用。
论文第五章论述了社会政治领域的“崇高美学”。利奥塔借助于“崇高美学”,试图在反思判断中发现政治判断的合理依据,并在康德的批判哲学中找到后现代政治的出路。在他看来,先锋艺术为他的“歧论”政治学探索提供了一种范型。利奥塔始终没有放弃对平等、公正、自由的社会生活的理想追求。不过,理想的实现对他来说意味着保持历史异质性的本来面貌,绝非实现某种总体性的思路。他揭示了审美判断和政治判断之间的相关性和一致性。对前者来说,重要的是对不可呈现性的呈现,对后者来说,历史的“事件”特性则突显出政治判断的特征。利奥塔认为,反思性判断力除了作用于审美对象和自然之外,还可以作用于社会政治领域,这也是经验的道德所应该遵循的判断。艺术、哲学、政治,都不属于特定的话语类型,也不能被归结到认知领域之中,其中运用的反思性判断力,在没有标准的情况下进行判断,见证可能出现的歧论,呈现不可呈现性,这是利奥塔的“崇高美学”能够在社会政治领域有所作为的最根本基础。但是三者虽然可以类比,却无法同一,因为共同的先验规则并不存在。而对于不可呈现性之呈现的崇高感,则在政治、历史事件中起到了记号的作用,它是一种感情的悖论,在经验内部构成了对社会理念和道德理念虚拟呈现,暗示了一种自由的因果关系,又证明了进步话语。
最后,结语部分分析了利奥塔的“崇高美学”思想带给我们的有益启示和他的思想本身具有的局限性,并指出在当前的中国语境下,我们对利奥塔后现代主义的“崇高美学”思想的借鉴,必须以对马克思主义的历史发展观和辩证唯物观的坚持为前提。
Jean-Francois Lyotard is one of the most representative contemporary postmodern philosophers in the West; People even take him as the synonym of Postmodernism. From the 1970s, Lyotard's postmodernism has attracted much concern from different domains of social sciences and human sciences, and has led to many discussions, so as to have had a large influence in the West academe. His postmodern philosophy depicts a painting of postmodernity in the realm of scientific knowledge, ethics, aesthetics and politics. His central idea is to spurn totality, determinism and other modern pattern, so to build the postmodern order with multiplicity and heterogeneity. The artistic ideal of antagonizing'inhumanity' with'inhumanity'and the social ideal of rewriting the Modernity that Lyotard brings forward, are actualized at last by his aesthetics of the Sublime in Art and Politics. Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime is not only the organic part of his postmodern philosophy, but takes more and more important position with the development of his own idea. To research Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime can help us to deepen our understanding of his postmodern philosophy, to find out its particular value to Art and Politics and to make its limitations clear. These are the main objects of this dissertation.
This dissertation contains a preface, five chapters and a conclusion.
In the preface, I introduce the significance of the topic, review the research to Lyotard's philosophy and aesthetics from different scholars in and out of China, and the main task and the innovations of my thesis. As the significance of the topic, the first reason I choose it is that Lyotard is one of the most important contemporary philosophers to the Sublime, and his aesthetics of the Sublime is so unique because of its close relationship with his postmodernism. To research Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime, can not only help us to deepen the understanding of his philosophy, but can make us more clear with the new development of the aesthetics of the Sublime in contemporary society as well. What's more, it can offer new possibilities for us to think contemporary aesthetics, politics and ethics. The second reason is that we can learn the good points from Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime and his critics of the contemporary western culture and art, so to well develop our own culture and art. As the review of Lyotard studies, I introduce the studies of him in and out of China these years. What's more, I find that our Chinese scholars' study to Lyotard is just as a corner of a huge iceberg, compared with the scope and the depth of foreign scholars'study.
In ChapterⅠ, I generally discuss the development of Lyotard's philosophy. Compared to many other philosophers who only concern philosophy, Lyotard has more passion to the social politics. His social practice and affiliation affects his philosophy in a large scale. And his concerns to Aesthetics and Art accompany his philosophy all the time. There are three period of the development of his philosophy. The first is in the 1950s and the 1960s. He took mental weapon from Husserl's Phenomenology and Marxism to unfold his social critics. At that time, he fell over himself for the revolutionary practice of the proletariat revolution in Marxism. The second is before the 1970s. To his philosophy, it was a time of driftage. After losing the belief to Marxism in front of the diverse conflict in society, he firstly developed a'philosophy of desire', to reverse the theory of Freud and Marx with Nietzsche's philosophy. Then he cast off it and raised the theory of paganism, in which we can see the clue of his postmodernism. The third is after the 1970s until his death. This is the last developing period of Lyotard's theory. He formally brought forward his postmodernism, advocated his aesthetics of the Sublime on the basis of it and went deep into the problems of justice.
In ChapterⅡ, I analyze Lyotard's aesthetics of desire, which is the initial declaration of his aesthetics of the Sublime. Discourse, Figure, this book is mainly about his aesthetics of desire, and it deploys in two aspects. In the first, Lyotard re-explains discourse and figure, then deconstruct their opposite relationship. He treats figure as discourse's Other, and it lets us realize that there is something in discourse can't be presented or different from presentation. Taking this point as a basis, he opposes Aesthetics and Theory, and uses artistic figure to reverse theory discourse. He claims that senses and experiences are better than abstract concepts. Poetry and paintings are the simultaneous extending of heterogeneous spaces. In fact, Postmodernism and the Sublime are ways that Lyotard used to explain'figure'. His ideas of'figure', his insistence of heterogeneity and relevant analysis to Art all settle a basis for his aesthetics of the Sublime. In the second, borrowing Freud's psychology, Lyotard examines figure in detail. He sees figure as the direct expression of unconscious desire. He distinguishes figure-image, figure-form and figure-matrix. It is figure-matrix, gathering the things that can't coexist, that leads us to approach unconscious desire. Art works, as the collection of intensity and structure, disclose the limits of structure and keep the openness of distortion. They are not the finished of desire but the unfinished. Lyotard develops this idea in his theory of avant-garde.
In ChapterⅢ, after introducing the history of the Sublime and its condition in contemporary society, I focus on the headstream of Lyotard's theory of the Sublime, and then particularly explain Lyotard's core idea about the Sublime. His understanding to the Sublime bears on Habermas's project to Modernity and has close relationship with the rewriting of the Modernity meanwhile. He thinks that Habermas's court to order and stability is to make artists withdraw to the public. It is a return to the aesthetics of realism. He opposes to the trite realism ih the first half of the 20th century and all the postmodernism being consistent with the capital consumer values. He points out that the rewriting of the Modernity can only belong to the subject of the Sublime. Excepting for thinking the Sublime in contemporary society, Lyotard also borrows ideas about the Sublime from different Western philosophers. He especially attaches importance to Burke's point of the tension and Kant's point of negative representation, although the sublime in his mind has already turned to ontology, and obviously connected with Heidegger. It is the self presentation of the moment. With these preparations, Lyotard stipulates his understanding to the postmodern Sublime. There are three aspects. Firstly, the Sublime is a feeling to present the unpresentable, which means that the Sublime is the witness to the unknown new power. In the feeling of the Sublime, the distance between the subject and the object will disappear; this is a disturbance to the unity of the subject. With this point, Lyotard wants to release the subject from the Kantian subject's dogmatized will by some intricate happening. Secondly, the Sublime happens instantly, it has the unfinished quality that can't be absolutely understanded and held. So the nature of the sublime can be seen as Lyotardian event happening'here and now'. It means contradictoriness, particularity and uncertaintity, also a status of disruption and breaking the rule. Then we need new way to experience it and new forms to judge it. Thirdly, it is differend being in the center of the Sublime, which is a feeling as the representative from the 'indeterminate'judgment. Differend is the condition that the dispute between two parties or various parties can't be resolved evenly because of the lack of the consensus rule. In the suffering silence, the differend can be testified; meanwhile, with a pleasure, it calls for the discovery of new rules—it is just the Sublime. From these points, we can find that Lyotard in fact espress a value oriention by sublime, which is to emphasize or to protect different livings of single lives.
In ChapterⅣ, I introduce the artistic theory of Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime. The unique point of Lyotard's sublime is that he connects the aesthetics with the avant-garde. He poses that we need to resist the inhumanity of the capital society and the development of science and technology with the inhumanity of the avant-garde. We can realize Lyotard's deep concern to the mental misery in human mind and human survival in society. He believes that there are two kinds of Sublime, the nostalgic sublime and the renovating sublime. He claims that the nostalgic works can't realize the potential of the Sublime. However, the renovating works emphasize the increase of the feeling of existence and the joyfulness of the creation of new rules in Art. They make the essence of Art as a problem by the experiment of the presentation of the unpresentable. Therefore, the artistic works have the characteristic of events; they embody a spirit of the absolutely avant-garde. In fact, postmodernism, the aesthetics of the Sublime and the art of avant-garde are all to dismiss the totality and the last answer, to emphasize the feeling of infinity and fragments, and to reject the old rules while keeping the exploration to new ones. This is his intension to stress the avant-garde. Surrounding the center of the Sublime, Lyotard poses the idea of creations of the avant-garde, which is'here and now'. He puts forward the instance, and claims that the Sublime in the avant-garde is represented as an unconsummated condition. What's more, he thinks that the form of Art can't bear the weight of the presentation of the unpresentable anymore. The creation of the avant-garde should pay more attention to the immaterial.
In ChapterⅤ, I discuss Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime in society and politics. By right of the aesthetics of the Sublime, Lyotard tries to find out the reasonable operation of the reflective judgment in the political judgment. He finds out the way out for the postmodern politics in Kant's critical philosophy. In his view, the avant-garde offers a model for his exploration to the politics of the 'differend'. Lyotard never gives up his pursuit to the social lives with equality, justice and freedom. However, this doesn't mean some totality to him, but to keep the history's heterogeneity. He discloses the consistence of the reflective judgment and the political judgment. For the former, what is important is the presentation of the unpresentable; while for the latter, the characteristic of historic events reveals the particularity of the political judgment. He believes that the reflective judgment can be applied to politics excepting for the application in aesthetic objects and nature. In the same time, it should be the judgment in the domain of morality. Art, Philosophy and Politics, are not belong to some given genre of discourse; they can't be sum up to the realm of knowledge. We judge without rule with the application of the reflective judgment in them, to be the witness of the possible differend, and to present the unpresentable; those are the base of Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime that can work in the domain of society and politics. We also need to notice that Art, Philosophy and Politics are analogous, but not identical, for there isn't some transcendental grammar. The feeling of the Sublime, as the presentation of the unpresentable, it works as the sign of history in historic events. This contradiction implies a free causality and protests the progress by it's'as if' presentation to social reason and moral reason in human experience.
In the conclusion, I analyze the reasonable inspiration to us from Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime and its limits. At last, I realize that in contemporary China, if we use Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime as reference, we must keep the premise of the insistence of scientific view of history development and the view of dialectical materialism of Marxism.
本论文由七个部分组成。
导言部分重在说明论文的选题意义,介绍国内外学者对利奥塔哲学、美学思想的研究现状。在选题意义方面,说明了本论文以利奥塔的“崇高美学”思想为主题来展开研究的理由：一是因为利奥塔是当代“崇高”理论发展中最主要的哲学家之一,他的“崇高美学”思想因其与后现代主义的紧密关系而独树一帜,值得关注。对利奥塔的“崇高美学”进行研究,不但能加深我们对他整个哲学思想的认识,也有助于我们进一步理解和把握崇高这一古老的美学范畴在当今社会的新发展,更为我们当前的审美、政治、伦理提供了新的思考可能性。二是因为,在当前中国的现实语境下,研究利奥塔的“崇高美学”思想,了解他对当代西方社会文化和艺术的批判性反思,可以为我们当下文化、艺术的健康发展提供有益的借鉴。在研究现状方面,介绍了国内外学者几十年来对利奥塔的哲学、美学思想研究的总体情况。指出与国外学者对利奥塔研究的广度与深度相比,目前国内的利奥塔研究,尤其是对他的美学和艺术理论的研究在一定程度上还只能说是“冰山一角”。
论文第一章以利奥塔的思想发展历程为研究对象。相比于很多埋头学术的哲学家,利奥塔具有更多的对社会和政治的关注热情,他的个人实践和社会交往对其思想的形成和发展有着重要的影响。而他对美学问题和艺术作品的探讨,也始终伴随于他的哲学研究。利奥塔的思想发展经历了三个阶段,首先是20世纪五六十年代,他主要从胡塞尔现象学和马克思主义那里寻找批判和改造社会的思想武器,并热心于马克思主义无产阶级革命理论的革命实践。第二阶段是20世纪70年代末以前,这是利奥塔思想的“漂流”期。他在现实的多样化矛盾面前逐渐丧失了对马克思主义的信仰,先是以尼采的思想来改造弗洛伊德和马克思的理论并发展了一种“欲望哲学”,而后又抛弃了这一哲学立场,转向异教主义,在其中已经显示出后现代主义的端倪。第三阶段,也就是20世纪70年代末以后,是利奥塔思想发展的最后阶段。他正式提出了自己的后现代主义,并在此基础上大力颂扬“崇高美学”,深入探索社会公正问题。
论文第二章论述了利奥塔的“欲望美学”。“欲望美学”可以看作利奥塔的“崇高美学”的最初表述。《话语,图像》一书集中体现了他的“欲望美学”思想,主要在两个方面展开：首先,利奥塔重新阐释了话语和图像,解构了二者之间的单纯对立关系,把图像作为话语的他者来看待,让我们意识到在话语中存在一些不可表现、异于表现的东西。在此基础上,他把美学与理论对立起来,用艺术形象来颠覆理论话语,主张感官和经验优于抽象物和概念,把诗歌、绘画等艺术看作是异质空间的同时展开。实际上,后现代主义、崇高都是利奥塔言说“图像”的一种方式,他对“图像”的论述、对“异质性”的坚持以及由此对艺术所作的分析,都为后来的“崇高美学”奠定了基础。第二,借助弗洛伊德的精神分析学说,利奥塔着重考察了图像,把图像看作无意识欲望的直接表达,并且区分了“图像-肖像”、“图像-形式”和“图像-母体”三种图像,认为“图像-母体”把异质的不可共存之物汇聚起来,带领我们接近无意识的欲望。而艺术作品作为强度和结构的集合体,既揭示了结构的局限又保持了结构变形的开放性,不是欲望的完成而是未完成。关于艺术作品开放性和未定性的思想在利奥塔“崇高美学”的艺术理论中得到进一步发展。
论文第三章在考察了崇高这一重要美学范畴的历史发展脉络和其在当今社会的发展境遇后,集中论述了利奥塔的崇高论说的理论源流,详细阐述了利奥塔关于崇高的基本认识和核心观念。利奥塔对“崇高美学”的理解,与他对哈贝马斯的“现代性规划”的批判和他提出的重写现代性有关。他认为哈贝马斯对秩序和稳定性的追求就是让艺术家回到公众的怀抱,停止艺术实验,这是一种重整现实主义美学的企图。他反对20世纪前期的庸俗现实主义和一切与资本主义消费价值观一致的后现代主义,指出后现代性对现代性的重写只能属于崇高的课题范围。除了在新的社会现实条件下思考“崇高”,利奥塔还借鉴了西方美学家对崇高的论述,他尤其看重柏克的紧张化观念和康德关于的否定性呈现的观念。但与柏克和康德所不同的是,他以未定性把主体从理性的控制中释放出来,也由此把他的后现代崇高范畴与现代崇高范畴区别开来。利奥塔所理解的崇高,已经转向了生命意义的存在论崇高,明显与海德格尔的存在论哲学联系在一起,是生命于当下瞬间对于原初本真状态的自我体认。利奥塔重新厘定了后现代崇高的核心要义,具体来说有三点。首先,崇高是一种“呈现不可呈现性”的情感,也就是把崇高作为未知的革新力量的确证。而对于崇高情感中表现的主客合一的感受性,即对主体的统一性的打断,利奥塔实则意在用某种难以捕捉的发生把主体从康德式主体自我独断的意志中释放。第二,崇高发生在“现在”的状态下,它具有未完成的现时性品质,从而是无法绝对理解和把握的。崇高的本性也可以看作是利奥塔所说的“此时此地”发生的“事件”,意味着矛盾性、特殊性、未定性、偶然性,意味着断裂和突破规范的状态,需要新的体验模式和不同的判断形式。第三,崇高作为利奥塔所谓的“不可决定的”判断的范型,这种情感的中心正是歧论。歧论是两方或者多方间的争论由于缺乏一种可作用于双方或多方的共识判断规则而不能被公平解决。歧论在痛苦的沉默中被确证,同时又召唤着新判断规则的发明,其中伴随着一种快感——这正是崇高。由此,我们可以发现利奥塔对“崇高”的认识表现出一种强调个体生存的价值取向。
论文第四章考察了由利奥塔的“崇高美学”基本思想阐发出的艺术理论。他的崇高理论的独特之处在于把“崇高美学”与先锋艺术相连,提出以先锋艺术的“非人”来对抗资本主义社会作用下的非人性和现代科技发展的非人化,这充分体现了利奥塔的“崇高美学”对人的心灵苦难和生存境遇的深刻关注。利奥塔指明了两种崇高：怀旧的崇高和革新的崇高。他认为怀旧的作品无法实现其崇高潜能,而革新的作品强调存在感的增加和创造艺术新规则的喜悦,通过呈现不可呈现性的实验把艺术的本质问题化。因而,艺术家的作品具有事件的特性,他们身上体现的是一种绝对先锋的艺术精神。实际上,不管是后现代主义还是“崇高美学”,抑或是先锋派艺术,在利奥塔看来都要摒除总体性和最终结论,强调无限感和碎片性,在拒绝旧有规则的同时不断探寻新规则。这也是他强调要重视先锋派的意义所在。围绕“崇高”这一中心,利奥塔又提出“此时此地”的先锋艺术创作理念,强调瞬时性,认为先锋派的崇高就表现为“此时此地”的未实现状态。不仅如此,他还指出,形式已经不能承载对不可呈现之物的呈现,先锋艺术创作必须更加强调对非物质材料的运用。
论文第五章论述了社会政治领域的“崇高美学”。利奥塔借助于“崇高美学”,试图在反思判断中发现政治判断的合理依据,并在康德的批判哲学中找到后现代政治的出路。在他看来,先锋艺术为他的“歧论”政治学探索提供了一种范型。利奥塔始终没有放弃对平等、公正、自由的社会生活的理想追求。不过,理想的实现对他来说意味着保持历史异质性的本来面貌,绝非实现某种总体性的思路。他揭示了审美判断和政治判断之间的相关性和一致性。对前者来说,重要的是对不可呈现性的呈现,对后者来说,历史的“事件”特性则突显出政治判断的特征。利奥塔认为,反思性判断力除了作用于审美对象和自然之外,还可以作用于社会政治领域,这也是经验的道德所应该遵循的判断。艺术、哲学、政治,都不属于特定的话语类型,也不能被归结到认知领域之中,其中运用的反思性判断力,在没有标准的情况下进行判断,见证可能出现的歧论,呈现不可呈现性,这是利奥塔的“崇高美学”能够在社会政治领域有所作为的最根本基础。但是三者虽然可以类比,却无法同一,因为共同的先验规则并不存在。而对于不可呈现性之呈现的崇高感,则在政治、历史事件中起到了记号的作用,它是一种感情的悖论,在经验内部构成了对社会理念和道德理念虚拟呈现,暗示了一种自由的因果关系,又证明了进步话语。
最后,结语部分分析了利奥塔的“崇高美学”思想带给我们的有益启示和他的思想本身具有的局限性,并指出在当前的中国语境下,我们对利奥塔后现代主义的“崇高美学”思想的借鉴,必须以对马克思主义的历史发展观和辩证唯物观的坚持为前提。
Jean-Francois Lyotard is one of the most representative contemporary postmodern philosophers in the West; People even take him as the synonym of Postmodernism. From the 1970s, Lyotard's postmodernism has attracted much concern from different domains of social sciences and human sciences, and has led to many discussions, so as to have had a large influence in the West academe. His postmodern philosophy depicts a painting of postmodernity in the realm of scientific knowledge, ethics, aesthetics and politics. His central idea is to spurn totality, determinism and other modern pattern, so to build the postmodern order with multiplicity and heterogeneity. The artistic ideal of antagonizing'inhumanity' with'inhumanity'and the social ideal of rewriting the Modernity that Lyotard brings forward, are actualized at last by his aesthetics of the Sublime in Art and Politics. Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime is not only the organic part of his postmodern philosophy, but takes more and more important position with the development of his own idea. To research Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime can help us to deepen our understanding of his postmodern philosophy, to find out its particular value to Art and Politics and to make its limitations clear. These are the main objects of this dissertation.
This dissertation contains a preface, five chapters and a conclusion.
In the preface, I introduce the significance of the topic, review the research to Lyotard's philosophy and aesthetics from different scholars in and out of China, and the main task and the innovations of my thesis. As the significance of the topic, the first reason I choose it is that Lyotard is one of the most important contemporary philosophers to the Sublime, and his aesthetics of the Sublime is so unique because of its close relationship with his postmodernism. To research Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime, can not only help us to deepen the understanding of his philosophy, but can make us more clear with the new development of the aesthetics of the Sublime in contemporary society as well. What's more, it can offer new possibilities for us to think contemporary aesthetics, politics and ethics. The second reason is that we can learn the good points from Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime and his critics of the contemporary western culture and art, so to well develop our own culture and art. As the review of Lyotard studies, I introduce the studies of him in and out of China these years. What's more, I find that our Chinese scholars' study to Lyotard is just as a corner of a huge iceberg, compared with the scope and the depth of foreign scholars'study.
In ChapterⅠ, I generally discuss the development of Lyotard's philosophy. Compared to many other philosophers who only concern philosophy, Lyotard has more passion to the social politics. His social practice and affiliation affects his philosophy in a large scale. And his concerns to Aesthetics and Art accompany his philosophy all the time. There are three period of the development of his philosophy. The first is in the 1950s and the 1960s. He took mental weapon from Husserl's Phenomenology and Marxism to unfold his social critics. At that time, he fell over himself for the revolutionary practice of the proletariat revolution in Marxism. The second is before the 1970s. To his philosophy, it was a time of driftage. After losing the belief to Marxism in front of the diverse conflict in society, he firstly developed a'philosophy of desire', to reverse the theory of Freud and Marx with Nietzsche's philosophy. Then he cast off it and raised the theory of paganism, in which we can see the clue of his postmodernism. The third is after the 1970s until his death. This is the last developing period of Lyotard's theory. He formally brought forward his postmodernism, advocated his aesthetics of the Sublime on the basis of it and went deep into the problems of justice.
In ChapterⅡ, I analyze Lyotard's aesthetics of desire, which is the initial declaration of his aesthetics of the Sublime. Discourse, Figure, this book is mainly about his aesthetics of desire, and it deploys in two aspects. In the first, Lyotard re-explains discourse and figure, then deconstruct their opposite relationship. He treats figure as discourse's Other, and it lets us realize that there is something in discourse can't be presented or different from presentation. Taking this point as a basis, he opposes Aesthetics and Theory, and uses artistic figure to reverse theory discourse. He claims that senses and experiences are better than abstract concepts. Poetry and paintings are the simultaneous extending of heterogeneous spaces. In fact, Postmodernism and the Sublime are ways that Lyotard used to explain'figure'. His ideas of'figure', his insistence of heterogeneity and relevant analysis to Art all settle a basis for his aesthetics of the Sublime. In the second, borrowing Freud's psychology, Lyotard examines figure in detail. He sees figure as the direct expression of unconscious desire. He distinguishes figure-image, figure-form and figure-matrix. It is figure-matrix, gathering the things that can't coexist, that leads us to approach unconscious desire. Art works, as the collection of intensity and structure, disclose the limits of structure and keep the openness of distortion. They are not the finished of desire but the unfinished. Lyotard develops this idea in his theory of avant-garde.
In ChapterⅢ, after introducing the history of the Sublime and its condition in contemporary society, I focus on the headstream of Lyotard's theory of the Sublime, and then particularly explain Lyotard's core idea about the Sublime. His understanding to the Sublime bears on Habermas's project to Modernity and has close relationship with the rewriting of the Modernity meanwhile. He thinks that Habermas's court to order and stability is to make artists withdraw to the public. It is a return to the aesthetics of realism. He opposes to the trite realism ih the first half of the 20th century and all the postmodernism being consistent with the capital consumer values. He points out that the rewriting of the Modernity can only belong to the subject of the Sublime. Excepting for thinking the Sublime in contemporary society, Lyotard also borrows ideas about the Sublime from different Western philosophers. He especially attaches importance to Burke's point of the tension and Kant's point of negative representation, although the sublime in his mind has already turned to ontology, and obviously connected with Heidegger. It is the self presentation of the moment. With these preparations, Lyotard stipulates his understanding to the postmodern Sublime. There are three aspects. Firstly, the Sublime is a feeling to present the unpresentable, which means that the Sublime is the witness to the unknown new power. In the feeling of the Sublime, the distance between the subject and the object will disappear; this is a disturbance to the unity of the subject. With this point, Lyotard wants to release the subject from the Kantian subject's dogmatized will by some intricate happening. Secondly, the Sublime happens instantly, it has the unfinished quality that can't be absolutely understanded and held. So the nature of the sublime can be seen as Lyotardian event happening'here and now'. It means contradictoriness, particularity and uncertaintity, also a status of disruption and breaking the rule. Then we need new way to experience it and new forms to judge it. Thirdly, it is differend being in the center of the Sublime, which is a feeling as the representative from the 'indeterminate'judgment. Differend is the condition that the dispute between two parties or various parties can't be resolved evenly because of the lack of the consensus rule. In the suffering silence, the differend can be testified; meanwhile, with a pleasure, it calls for the discovery of new rules—it is just the Sublime. From these points, we can find that Lyotard in fact espress a value oriention by sublime, which is to emphasize or to protect different livings of single lives.
In ChapterⅣ, I introduce the artistic theory of Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime. The unique point of Lyotard's sublime is that he connects the aesthetics with the avant-garde. He poses that we need to resist the inhumanity of the capital society and the development of science and technology with the inhumanity of the avant-garde. We can realize Lyotard's deep concern to the mental misery in human mind and human survival in society. He believes that there are two kinds of Sublime, the nostalgic sublime and the renovating sublime. He claims that the nostalgic works can't realize the potential of the Sublime. However, the renovating works emphasize the increase of the feeling of existence and the joyfulness of the creation of new rules in Art. They make the essence of Art as a problem by the experiment of the presentation of the unpresentable. Therefore, the artistic works have the characteristic of events; they embody a spirit of the absolutely avant-garde. In fact, postmodernism, the aesthetics of the Sublime and the art of avant-garde are all to dismiss the totality and the last answer, to emphasize the feeling of infinity and fragments, and to reject the old rules while keeping the exploration to new ones. This is his intension to stress the avant-garde. Surrounding the center of the Sublime, Lyotard poses the idea of creations of the avant-garde, which is'here and now'. He puts forward the instance, and claims that the Sublime in the avant-garde is represented as an unconsummated condition. What's more, he thinks that the form of Art can't bear the weight of the presentation of the unpresentable anymore. The creation of the avant-garde should pay more attention to the immaterial.
In ChapterⅤ, I discuss Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime in society and politics. By right of the aesthetics of the Sublime, Lyotard tries to find out the reasonable operation of the reflective judgment in the political judgment. He finds out the way out for the postmodern politics in Kant's critical philosophy. In his view, the avant-garde offers a model for his exploration to the politics of the 'differend'. Lyotard never gives up his pursuit to the social lives with equality, justice and freedom. However, this doesn't mean some totality to him, but to keep the history's heterogeneity. He discloses the consistence of the reflective judgment and the political judgment. For the former, what is important is the presentation of the unpresentable; while for the latter, the characteristic of historic events reveals the particularity of the political judgment. He believes that the reflective judgment can be applied to politics excepting for the application in aesthetic objects and nature. In the same time, it should be the judgment in the domain of morality. Art, Philosophy and Politics, are not belong to some given genre of discourse; they can't be sum up to the realm of knowledge. We judge without rule with the application of the reflective judgment in them, to be the witness of the possible differend, and to present the unpresentable; those are the base of Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime that can work in the domain of society and politics. We also need to notice that Art, Philosophy and Politics are analogous, but not identical, for there isn't some transcendental grammar. The feeling of the Sublime, as the presentation of the unpresentable, it works as the sign of history in historic events. This contradiction implies a free causality and protests the progress by it's'as if' presentation to social reason and moral reason in human experience.
In the conclusion, I analyze the reasonable inspiration to us from Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime and its limits. At last, I realize that in contemporary China, if we use Lyotard's aesthetics of the Sublime as reference, we must keep the premise of the insistence of scientific view of history development and the view of dialectical materialism of Marxism.
引文
Badmington, Neil, ed., Posthumanism, New York:Palgrave,2000.
Baker, Robert, The Extravagant, Norte Dame:University of Norte Dame Press,2005.
Benjamin, Aandrew, ed., Judging Lyotard, London & New York:Rout ledge, 1992.
Bennington, Geoffrey, Lyotard:Writing the Event, New York:Columbia University, Press,1988.
Brewster, Scott, Joughin, John J., Owen, David, and Walker, Richard J., ed., Inhuman Reflections, Manchester& New York: Manchester University Press,2000.
Browning, Gary K., Lyotard and the end of Grand Narratives, Cardiff: University of Wales Press,2000.
Carroll, David, Paraesthetics-Foucault·Lyotard·Derrida, New York & London:Methuen,1987.
Crowther, Paul, The Kantian Sublime:from Morality to Art, Oxford: Clarendon,1989.
——Critical Aesthetics and Postmodernism, Oxford:Clareton,1993.
Curtis, Neal, Against Autonomy:Lyotard, Judgement and Action, Aldershot, Hants& Burlington, VT:Ashgate,2001.
Davis, Tony, Humanism, London & New york:Routledge,1997.
Haber, Honi Fern, Beyond Postmodern Politics:Lyotard, Rorty, Foucault, London & New York:Routledge,1994.
Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford:Blackwell, 1990.
Harvey, Robert, ed., Afterwords:Essays in Memory of Jean-Francois Lyotard, Occasional papers of the Humanities Institute at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY:Humanities Institute,2000.
Hutchings, Kimberly, Kant, Critique and Politics, London & New York: Routledge,1996.
Lash, Scott and Friedman, Jonathan, ed., Modernity and Identity, Cambridge, Massachusetts:Blackwell,1989.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, Just Gaming, trans. Wlad Godzich, Mineeapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1985.
——Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988.
——The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988.
——The Lyotard Reader, ed. Andrew Benjamin, Oxford:Blackwell,1989.
——Duchamp's Trans/formers, Venice, California:Lapis Press,1990.
——Phenomenology, trans. Brian Beakley, New York:State University of New York Press,1991.
——The Postmodern Explained:Correspondence 1982-1985, trans. Don Barry, Bernadette Maher, Julian Pefanis, Virginia Spate, and Morgan Thomas, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1992.
——The Postmodern Explained to Children, Lpndpn:Turnaround,1992.
——Political Writings, trans.and ed. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul Geiman, London:UCL Press,1993.
——Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press,1993.
——Toward the Postmodern, ed. Robert Harvey and Mark S. Roberts, New Jersey:Humanities Press,1993.
——Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1994.
——Signed Malraux, trans. Robert Harvey, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1999.
——The Confession of Augustine, trans., Richard Beardsworth, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2000.
——Soundproof Room:Malraux's Anti-aesthetics, trans. Robert Harvey, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2001.
——The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006.
Longinus, "Longinus" on Sublimity, ed. and trans. D. A. Russell, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1965.
Malpas, Simon, Jean-Francois Lyotard, London & New York:Routledge, 2003.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, The Primacy of Perception, ed. and trans. James M. Edie, Evanston:Northwestern University Press,1964.
Muller-Zettelman, Eva, Theory into Poetry, Amsterdam& New York:Rodopi B.V.,2005.
Nordquist, Joan, Jean-Francois Lyotard:A Bibliography, Santa Cruz, California:Reference and Research Services,1991.
Nouvet, Claire, Stahuljak, Zrinka, and Still, Kent, ed., Minima Memoria:In the Wake of Jean-Francois Lyotard, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2007.
Pefanis, Julian, Heterology and the Postmodern:Bataille, Baudrillard, and Lyotard, Durham & London:Duke University Press,1991.
Rosiek, Jan, Maintaining the Sublime:Heidegger and Adorno, Bern: Peter Lang AG,2000.
Readings, Bill, Introducing Lyotard:Art and Politics, London & New York:Routledge,1991.
Rojek, Chris and Turner, Bryan S., ed., The Politics of Jean-Francois Lyotard, London & New York:Routledge,1998.
Shaw, Philip, The Sublime, London & New York:Routledge,2006.
Silverman, Hugh J., ed., Lyotard:Philosophy, Politics and the Sublime, London & New York:Routledge,2002.
Sim, Stuart, Beyond Aesthetics, Toronto:University of Toronto Press,1992.
——Jean-Francois Lyotard, Hertfordshire:Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheat sheaf,1996.
——Lyotard and the Inhuman, Cambridge:Icon/Totem,2000.
Steuerman, Emilia, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lyotard, and Melanie Klein on Rationality, London & New York:Routledge,2000.
V·Descombes, Modern French Philosophy, trans., L·Scott-Fox and J·M·Harding, London:Cambridge University Press,1980.
Williams, James, Lyotard and the Political, London & New York: Routledge,2000.
David, Anthony, Lyotard on the Kantian Sublime, in International Studies in Philosophy, Vol.29, Iss.4,1997.
Fry, Karin, The Role of Aesthetics in the Politics of Jean-Francois Lyotard, in Philosophy Today, Vol.48, No.1, Spring 2004.
Holmqvist, Kenneth, and Pluciennik, Jaroslaw, A Short Guide to the Theory of the Sublime, in Style, Vol.36, No.4, Winter 2002.
Huyssen, Andreas, Introduction:Modernism after Postmodernity, in New German Critique, Vol.33, No.3, Fall 2006.
Nuyen, A. T., Lyotard's Postmodern Ethics and the Nomative Question, in Philosophy Today, Vol.42, Iss.4, Winter 1998.
Piche, Claude, The Philosopher-Artist:A Note on Lyotard's Reading of Kant, in Research in Phenomenology, Vol.22,1992.
Plug, Jan, "As if" Political, in Centennial Review, Vol.41, Iss.2, 1997
Ross, Alison, The Art of the Sublime, in Philosophy Today, Vol.49, Iss.1, Spring 2005.
Van de Vall, Renee, Lyotard on the Sublime, in Art & Design, Vol.10, No.1-2,1995.
Diacritics, Vol.14, No.3, Fall 1984.
Jean-Francois Lyotard:Time and Judgment, Yale French Studies, No.99, 2001.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971.
——Derive a Partir de Marx et Freud. Paris:Union Generale d'Editions, 1973.
——Les Transformateurs Duchamp, Paris:Galilee,1977.
——La Condition Postmoderne, Paris:Galilee,1979.
——L'Enthousiasme:la Critique Kantienne de 1'Histoire, Paris: Galilee,1986.
——Que Peindre? Adami Arakawa Bur en (2 vols), Paris:Editions de la Difference,1987.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, Nes en 1925, in Temps Modernes, May (32),1948.
[美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特,《后现代理论——批判性的质疑》,张志斌译,北京：中央编译出版社,1999年。
[美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特,《后现代转向》,陈刚等译,南京：南京大学出版社,2002年。
[美]罗伯特·休斯,《新艺术的震撼》,刘萍君等译,上海：上海人民美术出版社,1989年。
[美]马泰·卡林内斯库,《现代性的五副面孔》,北京：商务印书馆,2004年。
[美]丹尼尔·贝尔,《资本主义文化矛盾》,赵一凡译,北京：三联书店,1989年。
[美]约瑟夫·纳托利,《后现代性导论》,潘非、耿红、聂昌宁译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2004；
[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年。
[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年。
[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年。
[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年。
[法]埃马纽埃尔·列维纳斯,《从存在到存在者》,吴蕙仪译,南京：江苏教育出版社,2006年。
[英]路德维希·维特根斯坦,《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,1996年。
[英]詹姆斯·威廉姆斯,《利奥塔》,姚大志、赵雄峰译,哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2002年。
[英]理查德·墨菲,《先锋派散论——现代主义、表现主义和后现代性问题》,朱进东译,南京：南京大学出版社,2007年。
[德]彼得·比格尔,《先锋派理论》,高建平译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年。
[德]康德,《判断力批判》上卷,宗白华译,北京：商务印书馆,1964年。
[德]胡塞尔,《欧洲科学危机和超验现象学》,张庆熊译,上海：上海译文出版社,1988年。
[德]弗兰克,《理解的界限——利奥塔和哈贝马斯的精神对话》,先刚译,北京：华夏出版社,2003年。
[奥]弗洛伊德,《梦的解析》,北京：中国社会出版社,1999年。
杨大春,《语言身体他者——当代法国哲学的三大主题》,北京：三联书店,2007年。
王恒,《时间性：自身与他者——从胡塞尔、海德格尔到列维纳斯》,南京：江苏人民出版社,2006年。
江怡,《维特根斯坦》,长沙：湖南教育出版社,1999年。
秦喜清,《让-弗·利奥塔》,北京：文化艺术出版社,2002年。
赵雄峰编著,《利奥塔论艺术》,长春：吉林美术出版社,2007年。
余虹、杨恒达、杨慧林主编,《问题》2,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003年。
周宪主编,《文化现代性与美学问题》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年。
王岳川等编,《后现代主义文化与美学》,北京：北京大学出版社,1992年。
陈嘉映,《海德格尔哲学概论》,北京：三联书店,2005年。
高宣扬,《当代法国思想五十年》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年。
高宣扬,《后现代论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年。
高宣扬,《法兰西思想评论》(第一卷),上海：同济大学出版社,2005年。
杨祖陶,邓晓芒编译,《康德三大批判精粹》,北京：人民出版社,2001年。
周国平编译,《尼采读本》,北京：新世界出版社,2007年。
[美]R.罗蒂,《哈贝马斯和利奥塔论后现代性》,李文阁译,《世界哲学》2004年第4期。
韩林合,《维特根斯坦论“语言游戏”和“生活形式”》,《北京大学学报(哲 学社会科学版)》,1996年第1期。
肖鹰,《目击时间的深渊——利奥塔美学评述》,《国外社会科学》,1996年第2期。
戚吟,《走向后现代之路——评利奥塔的〈漫游：法则、形式、事件〉》,《国外社会科学》,1996年第2期。
戚吟,《无奈的后现代主义——论利奥塔的艺术理论》,《文艺理论与批评》,2001年第2期。
杨艳萍,《利奥塔研究述评》,《哲学动态》,2001年第2期。
姚治华,《大圆满(Dzogchen)及海德格尔的四维时间》,《现代哲学》2006年第1期。
杨晓莲,《艺术·否定·社会——论阿多尔诺的美学思想》,《四川师范大学学报(社会科学版)》,2002年第1期。
罗洪,《勒维纳斯的他者问题思考》,《安徽文学》,2008年第8期。
文兵,《现代和后现代价值观的超越：多元中的追求》,《学术研究》,2008年第8期。
苏国辉,《利奥塔后现代知识报告的批判逻辑》,《广西社会科学》,2008年第7期。
汪民安,《后现代性的哲学话语》,《外国文学》,2001年第1期。
陈嘉明,《利奥塔的悖谬逻辑》,《浙江学刊》,2002年第5期。
刘玮,《后现代主义大师利奥塔思想的内在矛盾》,《江西社会科学》,2008年第11期。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006, p.1.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988, p.4.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Political Writings, trans. and ed. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul Geiman, London:UCL Press,1993, p.268.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988, p.17.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Political Writings, trans.and ed. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul Geiman, London:UCL Press,1993, p.41.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, Que Peindre? Adami Arakawa Buren (2 vols), Paris:Editions de la Difference,1987, p.11.
① Bill Readings, Introducing Lyotard:Art and Politics,London & New York:Routledge,1991, p.ⅹⅹⅹ1.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Political Writings, trans. and ed. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul Geiman, London:UCL Press,1993, p.169.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p.20.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p.104.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p133.
② Ibid., p.111.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p.121.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p.55.
②利奥塔意义上的“他者”,趋同于列维纳斯对“他者”的认识。他者,是不同于我自身的独立存在,始终保持着他性、差异性,而不会被包纳在我自身之内。但是,与列维纳斯对“他者”绝对无法表现或还原的观点相异,利奥塔的理论中,“他者”基本同义于“歧论”,虽然不可能被完全、准确地理解和把握,却是可以通过某种变形的方式否定性呈现或间接表现的。
③[美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特,《后现代理论——批判性的质疑》,张志斌译,北京：中央编译出版社,1999年,第206页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第42页。
①[英]路德维希·维特根斯坦,《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,1996年,第17页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Toward the Postmodern, ed. Robert Harvey and Mark S. Roberts, New Jersey:Humanities Press,1993, p.99.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader, ed. Andrew Benjamin, Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.133.
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第36页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard,The Lyotard Reader，ed.Andrew Benjamin,Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.124.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第23页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第33页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第211页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第30-31页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, with Georges Van Den Abbeele, Interview:Jean-Francois Lyotard, Diacritics,14:3 (1984:Fall), p.17.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006, p.92.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Soundproof Room:Malraux's Anti-aesthetics, trans. Robert Harvey, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2001, p.102.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Signed Malraux, trans. Robert Harvey, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1999, p.294.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Soundproof Room:Malraux's Anti-aesthetics, trans. Robert Harvey, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2001, p.16.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Soundproof Room:Malraux's Anti-aesthetics, trans. Robert Harvey, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2001, pp.98-100.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, p.11.
①参见Jean-Francois Lyotard, Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988, p.11.
① Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Primacy of Perception, ed. and trans. James M. Edie, Evanston: Northwestern University Press,1964, p.162.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006., p.43.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, p.61.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck, 1971, p.55.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck, 1971, pp.246-7.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard,Discours,Figure:Collection d'Esthetique,Paris:Klincksieck,1971, p.239.
② Ibid., p.270.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, pp.278-9.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, pp.128-9.
①参见Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Explained to Children, London:Turnaround,1992, p.19-21.
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第203-204页。
①参见Kenneth Holmqvist, Jaroslaw Pluciennik, A Short Guide to the Theory of the Sublime, Style, Vol.36, No.4, Winter 2002; Andreas Huyssen, Introduction:Modernism after Postmodernity, New German Critique 99, Vol.33, No.3, Fall 2006.
① Longinus, "Longinus" on Sublimity, ed. and trans. D. A. Russell, Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1965, p.ⅹⅳ.
①参见1Philip Shaw, The Sublime, London & New York:Routledge,2006, pp.37-8.
① Paul Crowther, The Kantian Sublime:from Morality to Art, Oxford:Clarendon,1989, p.3.
①[美]罗伯特·休斯, 《新艺术的震撼》,刘萍君等译,上海：上海人民美术出版社,1989年,第307页。
② Philip Shaw, The Sublime, London & New York:Routledge,2006, p.7.
①[美]弗雷德里克·詹姆逊,《后现代主义精神》,载《后现代主义文化与美学》,王岳川等编,北京：北京大学出版社,1992年,第100页。
②参见[美]马泰·卡林内斯库,《现代性的五副面孔》,顾爱彬、李瑞华译,北京：商务印书馆,2004年,第334页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第198-202页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第36页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第35页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第36页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第112页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第136页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader, ed. Andrew Benjamin, Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.245.
② Ibid., p.242.
③ Is it happening的法语原文是arrive-t-il,在法语中,il作为主语,意为“他”或“它”。利奥塔在这里强调的是“发生了吗”(arrive-t-il)其中的“发生”(arrive)这个动态,而不是去追究到底“什么东西”发生,不去追究主语il到底指代什么。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader, ed. Andrew Benjamin, Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.243.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第126页。
①参见杨大春,《语言身体他者——当代法国哲学的三大主题》,北京：三联书店,2007年,第10页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第18-19页。
①参见姚治华,《大圆满(Dzogchen)及海德格尔的四维时间》,《现代哲学》2006年第1期,第78-89页。
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006, p.341.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1994, p.145.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.123.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, L'Enthousiasme:la Critique Kantienne de l'Histoire, Paris:Galilee, 1986, p.11.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1994, p.ⅹ.
③ Ibid., pp.54-6.
④[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、佐晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第123页。
⑤同上书,第159页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、佐晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第39页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第209页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第210页。
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.13.
③ Jean-Francois Lyotard, Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1994, p.79.
①秦喜清,《让-弗·利奥塔》,北京：文化艺术出版社,2002年,第183页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, p.277.
①秦喜清,《让-弗·利奥塔》,北京：文化艺术出版社,2002年,第191页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第18页。
③转引自《问题》2,余虹、杨恒达、杨慧林主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003,第129页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第156-157页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第115页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第91页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第154页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第155页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第150页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第156页。
②同上书,第157页。
③[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第150页。
④同上书,第23页。
⑤[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第29页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、佐晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第19页。
②同上书,第27页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第133页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第2页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第76页。
②同上书,第76页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第4页。
②同上书,第5页。
③[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、佐晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第75页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第7页。
②同上书,第81页。
③转引自[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第2页。
④同上书,第70页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Duchamp's Trans/formers, Venice, California:Lapis Press,1990, p.15.
①参见《文化现代性与美学问题》,周宪主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年,第138-147页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第7页。
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, Just Gaming, trans. Wlad Godzich, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1985, p.23.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第74页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Explained:Correspondence1982-1985, trans. Don Barry, Bernadette Maher, Julian Pefanis, Virginia Spate, and Morgan Thomas, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1992, p.71.
① Jean-Franpois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.170.
②[英]詹姆斯·威廉姆斯,《利奥塔》,姚大志、赵雄峰译,哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2002年,第147页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard,The Lyotard Reader,ed.Andrew Benjamin,Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.409.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.57.
① Richard Brons, Postmodern Thinking of Transcendence, in Lyotard:Philosophy, Politics, and the Sublime, ed. Hugh J. Silverman, London & New York:Routledge,2002, p.191.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.164.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第87-88页。
②同上书,第64-65页。
③参见Simon Malpas, Jean-Francois Lyotard, London & New York:Routledge,2003, pp.54-5.
④[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第47页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第130页。
②身为后现代主义的代表人物,利奥塔却被有的学者评价为深具现代气质。在这里,我们发现他的确与启蒙理想的“现代气质”有某种契合之处。因为他的这一观点很自然的让我们想起法国大启蒙思想家伏尔泰的名言：“我不同意你说的话,但我誓死捍卫你说话的权利”。
③ Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.13.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第81页。
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, with Georges Van Den Abbeele, Interview:Jean-Francois Lyotard, Diacritics,14:3(1984:Fall), p.18.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第47页。
①参见Jean-Francois Lyotard, Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988, p.5.
①参见文兵,《现代和后现代价值观的超越：多元中的追求》,《学术研究》,2008年第8期,第58页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第31-32页。
②同上书,第27页。
①秦喜清,《让-弗·利奥塔》,北京：文化艺术出版社,2002年,第237页。
Baker, Robert, The Extravagant, Norte Dame:University of Norte Dame Press,2005.
Benjamin, Aandrew, ed., Judging Lyotard, London & New York:Rout ledge, 1992.
Bennington, Geoffrey, Lyotard:Writing the Event, New York:Columbia University, Press,1988.
Brewster, Scott, Joughin, John J., Owen, David, and Walker, Richard J., ed., Inhuman Reflections, Manchester& New York: Manchester University Press,2000.
Browning, Gary K., Lyotard and the end of Grand Narratives, Cardiff: University of Wales Press,2000.
Carroll, David, Paraesthetics-Foucault·Lyotard·Derrida, New York & London:Methuen,1987.
Crowther, Paul, The Kantian Sublime:from Morality to Art, Oxford: Clarendon,1989.
——Critical Aesthetics and Postmodernism, Oxford:Clareton,1993.
Curtis, Neal, Against Autonomy:Lyotard, Judgement and Action, Aldershot, Hants& Burlington, VT:Ashgate,2001.
Davis, Tony, Humanism, London & New york:Routledge,1997.
Haber, Honi Fern, Beyond Postmodern Politics:Lyotard, Rorty, Foucault, London & New York:Routledge,1994.
Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford:Blackwell, 1990.
Harvey, Robert, ed., Afterwords:Essays in Memory of Jean-Francois Lyotard, Occasional papers of the Humanities Institute at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY:Humanities Institute,2000.
Hutchings, Kimberly, Kant, Critique and Politics, London & New York: Routledge,1996.
Lash, Scott and Friedman, Jonathan, ed., Modernity and Identity, Cambridge, Massachusetts:Blackwell,1989.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, Just Gaming, trans. Wlad Godzich, Mineeapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1985.
——Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988.
——The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988.
——The Lyotard Reader, ed. Andrew Benjamin, Oxford:Blackwell,1989.
——Duchamp's Trans/formers, Venice, California:Lapis Press,1990.
——Phenomenology, trans. Brian Beakley, New York:State University of New York Press,1991.
——The Postmodern Explained:Correspondence 1982-1985, trans. Don Barry, Bernadette Maher, Julian Pefanis, Virginia Spate, and Morgan Thomas, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1992.
——The Postmodern Explained to Children, Lpndpn:Turnaround,1992.
——Political Writings, trans.and ed. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul Geiman, London:UCL Press,1993.
——Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press,1993.
——Toward the Postmodern, ed. Robert Harvey and Mark S. Roberts, New Jersey:Humanities Press,1993.
——Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1994.
——Signed Malraux, trans. Robert Harvey, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1999.
——The Confession of Augustine, trans., Richard Beardsworth, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2000.
——Soundproof Room:Malraux's Anti-aesthetics, trans. Robert Harvey, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2001.
——The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006.
Longinus, "Longinus" on Sublimity, ed. and trans. D. A. Russell, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1965.
Malpas, Simon, Jean-Francois Lyotard, London & New York:Routledge, 2003.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, The Primacy of Perception, ed. and trans. James M. Edie, Evanston:Northwestern University Press,1964.
Muller-Zettelman, Eva, Theory into Poetry, Amsterdam& New York:Rodopi B.V.,2005.
Nordquist, Joan, Jean-Francois Lyotard:A Bibliography, Santa Cruz, California:Reference and Research Services,1991.
Nouvet, Claire, Stahuljak, Zrinka, and Still, Kent, ed., Minima Memoria:In the Wake of Jean-Francois Lyotard, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2007.
Pefanis, Julian, Heterology and the Postmodern:Bataille, Baudrillard, and Lyotard, Durham & London:Duke University Press,1991.
Rosiek, Jan, Maintaining the Sublime:Heidegger and Adorno, Bern: Peter Lang AG,2000.
Readings, Bill, Introducing Lyotard:Art and Politics, London & New York:Routledge,1991.
Rojek, Chris and Turner, Bryan S., ed., The Politics of Jean-Francois Lyotard, London & New York:Routledge,1998.
Shaw, Philip, The Sublime, London & New York:Routledge,2006.
Silverman, Hugh J., ed., Lyotard:Philosophy, Politics and the Sublime, London & New York:Routledge,2002.
Sim, Stuart, Beyond Aesthetics, Toronto:University of Toronto Press,1992.
——Jean-Francois Lyotard, Hertfordshire:Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheat sheaf,1996.
——Lyotard and the Inhuman, Cambridge:Icon/Totem,2000.
Steuerman, Emilia, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lyotard, and Melanie Klein on Rationality, London & New York:Routledge,2000.
V·Descombes, Modern French Philosophy, trans., L·Scott-Fox and J·M·Harding, London:Cambridge University Press,1980.
Williams, James, Lyotard and the Political, London & New York: Routledge,2000.
David, Anthony, Lyotard on the Kantian Sublime, in International Studies in Philosophy, Vol.29, Iss.4,1997.
Fry, Karin, The Role of Aesthetics in the Politics of Jean-Francois Lyotard, in Philosophy Today, Vol.48, No.1, Spring 2004.
Holmqvist, Kenneth, and Pluciennik, Jaroslaw, A Short Guide to the Theory of the Sublime, in Style, Vol.36, No.4, Winter 2002.
Huyssen, Andreas, Introduction:Modernism after Postmodernity, in New German Critique, Vol.33, No.3, Fall 2006.
Nuyen, A. T., Lyotard's Postmodern Ethics and the Nomative Question, in Philosophy Today, Vol.42, Iss.4, Winter 1998.
Piche, Claude, The Philosopher-Artist:A Note on Lyotard's Reading of Kant, in Research in Phenomenology, Vol.22,1992.
Plug, Jan, "As if" Political, in Centennial Review, Vol.41, Iss.2, 1997
Ross, Alison, The Art of the Sublime, in Philosophy Today, Vol.49, Iss.1, Spring 2005.
Van de Vall, Renee, Lyotard on the Sublime, in Art & Design, Vol.10, No.1-2,1995.
Diacritics, Vol.14, No.3, Fall 1984.
Jean-Francois Lyotard:Time and Judgment, Yale French Studies, No.99, 2001.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971.
——Derive a Partir de Marx et Freud. Paris:Union Generale d'Editions, 1973.
——Les Transformateurs Duchamp, Paris:Galilee,1977.
——La Condition Postmoderne, Paris:Galilee,1979.
——L'Enthousiasme:la Critique Kantienne de 1'Histoire, Paris: Galilee,1986.
——Que Peindre? Adami Arakawa Bur en (2 vols), Paris:Editions de la Difference,1987.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, Nes en 1925, in Temps Modernes, May (32),1948.
[美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特,《后现代理论——批判性的质疑》,张志斌译,北京：中央编译出版社,1999年。
[美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特,《后现代转向》,陈刚等译,南京：南京大学出版社,2002年。
[美]罗伯特·休斯,《新艺术的震撼》,刘萍君等译,上海：上海人民美术出版社,1989年。
[美]马泰·卡林内斯库,《现代性的五副面孔》,北京：商务印书馆,2004年。
[美]丹尼尔·贝尔,《资本主义文化矛盾》,赵一凡译,北京：三联书店,1989年。
[美]约瑟夫·纳托利,《后现代性导论》,潘非、耿红、聂昌宁译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2004；
[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年。
[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年。
[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年。
[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年。
[法]埃马纽埃尔·列维纳斯,《从存在到存在者》,吴蕙仪译,南京：江苏教育出版社,2006年。
[英]路德维希·维特根斯坦,《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,1996年。
[英]詹姆斯·威廉姆斯,《利奥塔》,姚大志、赵雄峰译,哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2002年。
[英]理查德·墨菲,《先锋派散论——现代主义、表现主义和后现代性问题》,朱进东译,南京：南京大学出版社,2007年。
[德]彼得·比格尔,《先锋派理论》,高建平译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年。
[德]康德,《判断力批判》上卷,宗白华译,北京：商务印书馆,1964年。
[德]胡塞尔,《欧洲科学危机和超验现象学》,张庆熊译,上海：上海译文出版社,1988年。
[德]弗兰克,《理解的界限——利奥塔和哈贝马斯的精神对话》,先刚译,北京：华夏出版社,2003年。
[奥]弗洛伊德,《梦的解析》,北京：中国社会出版社,1999年。
杨大春,《语言身体他者——当代法国哲学的三大主题》,北京：三联书店,2007年。
王恒,《时间性：自身与他者——从胡塞尔、海德格尔到列维纳斯》,南京：江苏人民出版社,2006年。
江怡,《维特根斯坦》,长沙：湖南教育出版社,1999年。
秦喜清,《让-弗·利奥塔》,北京：文化艺术出版社,2002年。
赵雄峰编著,《利奥塔论艺术》,长春：吉林美术出版社,2007年。
余虹、杨恒达、杨慧林主编,《问题》2,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003年。
周宪主编,《文化现代性与美学问题》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年。
王岳川等编,《后现代主义文化与美学》,北京：北京大学出版社,1992年。
陈嘉映,《海德格尔哲学概论》,北京：三联书店,2005年。
高宣扬,《当代法国思想五十年》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年。
高宣扬,《后现代论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年。
高宣扬,《法兰西思想评论》(第一卷),上海：同济大学出版社,2005年。
杨祖陶,邓晓芒编译,《康德三大批判精粹》,北京：人民出版社,2001年。
周国平编译,《尼采读本》,北京：新世界出版社,2007年。
[美]R.罗蒂,《哈贝马斯和利奥塔论后现代性》,李文阁译,《世界哲学》2004年第4期。
韩林合,《维特根斯坦论“语言游戏”和“生活形式”》,《北京大学学报(哲 学社会科学版)》,1996年第1期。
肖鹰,《目击时间的深渊——利奥塔美学评述》,《国外社会科学》,1996年第2期。
戚吟,《走向后现代之路——评利奥塔的〈漫游：法则、形式、事件〉》,《国外社会科学》,1996年第2期。
戚吟,《无奈的后现代主义——论利奥塔的艺术理论》,《文艺理论与批评》,2001年第2期。
杨艳萍,《利奥塔研究述评》,《哲学动态》,2001年第2期。
姚治华,《大圆满(Dzogchen)及海德格尔的四维时间》,《现代哲学》2006年第1期。
杨晓莲,《艺术·否定·社会——论阿多尔诺的美学思想》,《四川师范大学学报(社会科学版)》,2002年第1期。
罗洪,《勒维纳斯的他者问题思考》,《安徽文学》,2008年第8期。
文兵,《现代和后现代价值观的超越：多元中的追求》,《学术研究》,2008年第8期。
苏国辉,《利奥塔后现代知识报告的批判逻辑》,《广西社会科学》,2008年第7期。
汪民安,《后现代性的哲学话语》,《外国文学》,2001年第1期。
陈嘉明,《利奥塔的悖谬逻辑》,《浙江学刊》,2002年第5期。
刘玮,《后现代主义大师利奥塔思想的内在矛盾》,《江西社会科学》,2008年第11期。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006, p.1.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988, p.4.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Political Writings, trans. and ed. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul Geiman, London:UCL Press,1993, p.268.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988, p.17.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Political Writings, trans.and ed. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul Geiman, London:UCL Press,1993, p.41.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, Que Peindre? Adami Arakawa Buren (2 vols), Paris:Editions de la Difference,1987, p.11.
① Bill Readings, Introducing Lyotard:Art and Politics,London & New York:Routledge,1991, p.ⅹⅹⅹ1.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Political Writings, trans. and ed. Bill Readings and Kevin Paul Geiman, London:UCL Press,1993, p.169.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p.20.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p.104.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p133.
② Ibid., p.111.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p.121.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant, London:Athlone Press, 1993, p.55.
②利奥塔意义上的“他者”,趋同于列维纳斯对“他者”的认识。他者,是不同于我自身的独立存在,始终保持着他性、差异性,而不会被包纳在我自身之内。但是,与列维纳斯对“他者”绝对无法表现或还原的观点相异,利奥塔的理论中,“他者”基本同义于“歧论”,虽然不可能被完全、准确地理解和把握,却是可以通过某种变形的方式否定性呈现或间接表现的。
③[美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特,《后现代理论——批判性的质疑》,张志斌译,北京：中央编译出版社,1999年,第206页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第42页。
①[英]路德维希·维特根斯坦,《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,1996年,第17页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Toward the Postmodern, ed. Robert Harvey and Mark S. Roberts, New Jersey:Humanities Press,1993, p.99.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader, ed. Andrew Benjamin, Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.133.
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第36页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard,The Lyotard Reader，ed.Andrew Benjamin,Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.124.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第23页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第33页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第211页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第30-31页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, with Georges Van Den Abbeele, Interview:Jean-Francois Lyotard, Diacritics,14:3 (1984:Fall), p.17.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006, p.92.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Soundproof Room:Malraux's Anti-aesthetics, trans. Robert Harvey, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2001, p.102.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Signed Malraux, trans. Robert Harvey, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1999, p.294.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Soundproof Room:Malraux's Anti-aesthetics, trans. Robert Harvey, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2001, p.16.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Soundproof Room:Malraux's Anti-aesthetics, trans. Robert Harvey, Stanford:Stanford University Press,2001, pp.98-100.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, p.11.
①参见Jean-Francois Lyotard, Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988, p.11.
① Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Primacy of Perception, ed. and trans. James M. Edie, Evanston: Northwestern University Press,1964, p.162.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006., p.43.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, p.61.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck, 1971, p.55.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck, 1971, pp.246-7.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard,Discours,Figure:Collection d'Esthetique,Paris:Klincksieck,1971, p.239.
② Ibid., p.270.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, pp.278-9.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, pp.128-9.
①参见Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Explained to Children, London:Turnaround,1992, p.19-21.
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第203-204页。
①参见Kenneth Holmqvist, Jaroslaw Pluciennik, A Short Guide to the Theory of the Sublime, Style, Vol.36, No.4, Winter 2002; Andreas Huyssen, Introduction:Modernism after Postmodernity, New German Critique 99, Vol.33, No.3, Fall 2006.
① Longinus, "Longinus" on Sublimity, ed. and trans. D. A. Russell, Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1965, p.ⅹⅳ.
①参见1Philip Shaw, The Sublime, London & New York:Routledge,2006, pp.37-8.
① Paul Crowther, The Kantian Sublime:from Morality to Art, Oxford:Clarendon,1989, p.3.
①[美]罗伯特·休斯, 《新艺术的震撼》,刘萍君等译,上海：上海人民美术出版社,1989年,第307页。
② Philip Shaw, The Sublime, London & New York:Routledge,2006, p.7.
①[美]弗雷德里克·詹姆逊,《后现代主义精神》,载《后现代主义文化与美学》,王岳川等编,北京：北京大学出版社,1992年,第100页。
②参见[美]马泰·卡林内斯库,《现代性的五副面孔》,顾爱彬、李瑞华译,北京：商务印书馆,2004年,第334页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第198-202页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第36页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第35页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第36页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第112页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第136页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader, ed. Andrew Benjamin, Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.245.
② Ibid., p.242.
③ Is it happening的法语原文是arrive-t-il,在法语中,il作为主语,意为“他”或“它”。利奥塔在这里强调的是“发生了吗”(arrive-t-il)其中的“发生”(arrive)这个动态,而不是去追究到底“什么东西”发生,不去追究主语il到底指代什么。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader, ed. Andrew Benjamin, Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.243.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第126页。
①参见杨大春,《语言身体他者——当代法国哲学的三大主题》,北京：三联书店,2007年,第10页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第18-19页。
①参见姚治华,《大圆满(Dzogchen)及海德格尔的四维时间》,《现代哲学》2006年第1期,第78-89页。
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Lyotard Reader & Guide, ed. Keith Crome and James Williams, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2006, p.341.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1994, p.145.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.123.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, L'Enthousiasme:la Critique Kantienne de l'Histoire, Paris:Galilee, 1986, p.11.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1994, p.ⅹ.
③ Ibid., pp.54-6.
④[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、佐晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第123页。
⑤同上书,第159页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、佐晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第39页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第209页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代状况》,岛子译,长沙：湖南美术出版社,1996年,第210页。
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.13.
③ Jean-Francois Lyotard, Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1994, p.79.
①秦喜清,《让-弗·利奥塔》,北京：文化艺术出版社,2002年,第183页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure:Collection d'Esthetique, Paris:Klincksieck,1971, p.277.
①秦喜清,《让-弗·利奥塔》,北京：文化艺术出版社,2002年,第191页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第18页。
③转引自《问题》2,余虹、杨恒达、杨慧林主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003,第129页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第156-157页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第115页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第91页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第154页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第155页。
②[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第150页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第156页。
②同上书,第157页。
③[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第150页。
④同上书,第23页。
⑤[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第29页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、佐晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第19页。
②同上书,第27页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第133页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第2页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第76页。
②同上书,第76页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第4页。
②同上书,第5页。
③[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、佐晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第75页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第7页。
②同上书,第81页。
③转引自[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第2页。
④同上书,第70页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, Duchamp's Trans/formers, Venice, California:Lapis Press,1990, p.15.
①参见《文化现代性与美学问题》,周宪主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年,第138-147页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《非人——时间漫谈》,罗国祥译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年,第7页。
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, Just Gaming, trans. Wlad Godzich, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1985, p.23.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代性与公正游戏》,谈瀛洲译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年,第74页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Explained:Correspondence1982-1985, trans. Don Barry, Bernadette Maher, Julian Pefanis, Virginia Spate, and Morgan Thomas, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1992, p.71.
① Jean-Franpois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.170.
②[英]詹姆斯·威廉姆斯,《利奥塔》,姚大志、赵雄峰译,哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2002年,第147页。
① Jean-Francois Lyotard,The Lyotard Reader,ed.Andrew Benjamin,Oxford:Blackwell,1989, p.409.
① Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.57.
① Richard Brons, Postmodern Thinking of Transcendence, in Lyotard:Philosophy, Politics, and the Sublime, ed. Hugh J. Silverman, London & New York:Routledge,2002, p.191.
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.164.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第87-88页。
②同上书,第64-65页。
③参见Simon Malpas, Jean-Francois Lyotard, London & New York:Routledge,2003, pp.54-5.
④[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第47页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第130页。
②身为后现代主义的代表人物,利奥塔却被有的学者评价为深具现代气质。在这里,我们发现他的确与启蒙理想的“现代气质”有某种契合之处。因为他的这一观点很自然的让我们想起法国大启蒙思想家伏尔泰的名言：“我不同意你说的话,但我誓死捍卫你说话的权利”。
③ Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrase in Dispute, trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele, Mineeapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1988, p.13.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第81页。
② Jean-Francois Lyotard, with Georges Van Den Abbeele, Interview:Jean-Francois Lyotard, Diacritics,14:3(1984:Fall), p.18.
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第47页。
①参见Jean-Francois Lyotard, Peregrinations:Law, Form, Event, New York:Columbia University Press,1988, p.5.
①参见文兵,《现代和后现代价值观的超越：多元中的追求》,《学术研究》,2008年第8期,第58页。
①[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔,《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年,第31-32页。
②同上书,第27页。
①秦喜清,《让-弗·利奥塔》,北京：文化艺术出版社,2002年,第237页。