Questions of the nature of understanding and interpretationâhermeneuticsâare fundamental in human life, though historically Westerners have tended to consider these questions within a purely Western context. In this comparative study, Zhang Longxi investigates the metaphorical nature of poetic language, highlighting the central figures of reality and meaning in both Eastern and Western thought: the Tao and the Logos. The author develops a powerful cross-cultural and interdisciplinary hermeneutic analysis that relates individual works of literature not only to their respective cultures, but to a combined worldview where East meets West.
Zhang's book brings together philosophy and literature, theory and practical criticism, the Western and the non-Western in defining common ground on which East and West may come to a mutual understanding. He provides commentary on the rich traditions of poetry and poetics in ancient China; equally illuminating are Zhang's astute analyses of Western poets such as Rilke, Shakespeare, and Mallarmé and his critical engagement with the work of Foucault, Derrida, and de Man, among others.
Wide-ranging and learned, this definitive work in East-West comparative poetics and the hermeneutic tradition will be of interest to specialists in comparative literature, philosophy, literary theory, poetry and poetics, and Chinese literature and history.
张隆溪,生于四川成都,北京大学西语系硕士,美国哈佛大学比较文学博士,著名比较文学学者。现任香港城市大学中文、翻、译及语言学系讲座教授。曾受聘于美国加州大学河滨校区,任比较文学教授。他的研究范围包括英国文学、中国古典文学、中西比较文学、文学理论、阐释学及跨文化研究。主要著述有:《道与逻各斯》、《20世纪西方文论述评》及《走出封闭的文化圈》等。
一本关于文学阐释学的专著。阐释学主要研究文学的理解和阐释问题,即一部作品能否被理解,意义能否被传达,理解和误解的标准,意义、语言和文字的关系,传达与接受的关系,作者的意图、读者的视野、文本本身在理解中的地位,等等。阐释学在存在主义、现象学等哲学基础上发展而...
评分一本关于文学阐释学的专著。阐释学主要研究文学的理解和阐释问题,即一部作品能否被理解,意义能否被传达,理解和误解的标准,意义、语言和文字的关系,传达与接受的关系,作者的意图、读者的视野、文本本身在理解中的地位,等等。阐释学在存在主义、现象学等哲学基础上发展而...
评分 评分一本关于文学阐释学的专著。阐释学主要研究文学的理解和阐释问题,即一部作品能否被理解,意义能否被传达,理解和误解的标准,意义、语言和文字的关系,传达与接受的关系,作者的意图、读者的视野、文本本身在理解中的地位,等等。阐释学在存在主义、现象学等哲学基础上发展而...
评分一拿到这本书,我就被它的封面设计深深吸引了。简约而不失深意,颜色搭配也恰到好处,仿佛在暗示着某种哲学上的平衡与和谐。我迫不及待地翻开第一页,期待着作者能带领我进入一个充满智慧的殿堂。我最感兴趣的部分是,作者是如何将“道”的这种深不可测、难以言喻的特性,与“逻各斯”这种讲求清晰、逻辑和论证的理性概念联系起来的。我想象中,书中可能会以一种非常生动的方式来阐述“道”的无为而治,顺其自然,以及“逻各斯”的逻辑推演和辩证思考。这本书是否会提供具体的例子,来说明在现实生活中,如何将这两种看似不相关的哲学智慧融合?例如,在面对复杂的人生困境时,我们是应该遵循“道”的随遇而安,还是运用“逻各斯”的分析问题,逐个击破?我更期待的是,这本书会不会探讨,在东方和西方文化交流日益频繁的今天,如何理解和运用这两种不同的思想体系,以达到一种更全面、更深刻的人生境界。我甚至在想,作者是否会提到一些历史上的人物,他们身上同时体现了“道”的智慧和“逻各斯”的理性,比如一些伟大的科学家,他们既有严谨的逻辑思维,又对宇宙的奥秘充满了敬畏和好奇。这本书对我来说,可能不仅仅是关于哲学,更是关于一种生活方式,一种看待世界的方式,一种在纷繁复杂中寻找宁静与秩序的方法。我期待它能给我带来启发,让我的人生更加豁达与理性。
评分这本书的书名瞬间抓住了我的眼球,"The Tao and the Logos"——这是一个多么引人遐想的组合!道家思想的神秘与西方哲学中逻辑的严谨,这两者似乎是截然不同的领域,但作者却大胆地将它们并置,这无疑激起了我极大的好奇心。我迫不及待地想知道,作者是如何在这两者之间架起桥梁的?是寻找它们之间的共鸣,还是揭示它们看似矛盾的根源?我期待这本书能够提供一种全新的视角,让我们重新审视我们所熟悉的概念。我猜想,作者或许会从古代东方的智慧中汲取灵感,探讨“道”的无形无象,它的包容万象,它的自然而然。然后,将这种哲学理念与古希腊哲学家们对“逻各斯”的探索进行对比,那个代表着理性、秩序、语言和宇宙规律的“逻各斯”。我脑海中已经浮现出无数种可能性:或许“道”是“逻各斯”更原始、更广阔的源头?又或者,“逻各斯”是对“道”在人类有限认知中的一种表达和理解?书中是否会引用《道德经》的某些经典段落,并尝试用逻辑学的语言去解读?反之,是否会从柏拉图或亚里士多德的著作中选取材料,并赋予它们更具“道”的流动性和非二元性的解读?我甚至开始想象,这本书可能会探讨,在现代科学日益发达的今天,我们对宇宙的理解,是更接近“道”的浑然一体,还是更趋向于“逻各斯”的分析和解构?这本书对我来说,不仅仅是一次阅读,更像是一次智识上的冒险,一次跨越文化和哲学藩篱的探索之旅。我深信,这本书一定会挑战我的既有认知,让我对世界产生更深刻的理解。
评分这本书的名字《The Tao and the Logos》本身就充满了张力,它像是两个古老而强大的概念的对话,又像是两种截然不同的宇宙观的碰撞。我迫切地想知道,作者是如何处理这种潜在的矛盾,或者说,是如何发现它们之间意想不到的共通之处的。我猜想,书中或许会从“道”的“无”开始,探讨其虚无主义的本质,以及它如何孕育万物。然后,再将目光投向“逻各斯”,分析其理性主义的根基,以及它如何构建我们对世界的认知体系。我好奇的是,作者是否会提出一种“道”与“逻各斯”的辩证统一,即“道”是无形无相的本源,而“逻各斯”则是人类在有限的感知和理解能力下,对“道”的一种试图捕捉和表达的方式。换句话说,“逻各斯”是对“道”的一种“命名”和“分析”,但它永远无法完全涵盖“道”的全部。我特别期待书中是否会涉及一些具体的例子,比如,在艺术创作中,我们是如何在遵循某种艺术规律(逻各斯)的同时,又追求那种超越规则、直达心灵的“道”的境界的?又比如,在科学研究中,严谨的逻辑推理(逻各斯)是否也需要一种直觉和灵感(道)的闪现,才能取得突破?这本书对我来说,或许是一次对人类思维模式的深刻反思,一次关于如何平衡直觉与理性,感性与逻辑的探索。我希望它能帮助我更好地理解自己的思维方式,并能在日常生活中更加游刃有余地运用这两种强大的工具。
评分The very title, "The Tao and the Logos," immediately sparked a sense of wonder within me. It felt like an invitation to embark on a journey that bridges millennia and continents, exploring two of humanity's most profound attempts to grapple with the fundamental nature of reality. I couldn't help but ponder the author's intention: was it to reveal hidden convergences, or to illuminate the essential differences that shape our understanding of the world? My imagination began to paint a picture of a book that would start by delving into the ancient wisdom of the Tao, its emphasis on the ineffable, the cyclical, and the interconnectedness of all things, perhaps drawing parallels to the intuitive leaps and holistic understandings that often precede formal logical formulation. Then, I envisioned the narrative shifting to the rigorous, structured world of the Logos, its pursuit of clarity, precision, and verifiable truth, as pioneered by thinkers like Plato and Aristotle. I wondered if the author would explore the idea that "Logos," while essential for navigating the material world and building coherent systems of thought, might also represent a necessary, yet ultimately incomplete, attempt to capture the more elusive essence of the "Tao." Could the book offer insights into how individuals and societies might benefit from a more integrated approach, drawing upon the intuitive wisdom of the Tao for deeper meaning and purpose, while employing the analytical power of the Logos for effective problem-solving and constructive action? I am particularly curious about any potential discussion on how contemporary challenges, from environmental sustainability to interpersonal conflict, might be better addressed by synthesizing these seemingly divergent yet ultimately complementary philosophical traditions. This book, I suspect, will be far more than an academic exercise; it promises to be a profound exploration of how we can live more fully and wisely by embracing the multifaceted nature of existence.
评分当我看到《The Tao and the Logos》这个书名时,我immediately felt a sense of intellectual curiosity bloom within me. The juxtaposition of "Tao" – a concept deeply rooted in Eastern mysticism, evoking a sense of natural flow, effortless action, and profound interconnectedness – with "Logos," the cornerstone of Western rational thought, signifying order, reason, language, and divine principle, presented a fascinating paradox. I found myself wondering if the author intended to highlight the fundamental unity underlying these seemingly disparate traditions, or perhaps to explore the limitations inherent in each when viewed in isolation. My anticipation leans towards the former, imagining a narrative that traces the thread of universal truth through both Eastern and Western philosophical lineages. I envision the book delving into the concept of "wu wei" – the principle of non-action in Taoism – and seeking parallels in Western notions of ethical conduct or perhaps even in the inherent order found in natural laws. Conversely, I am eager to see how the author might re-examine the strictures of logical argumentation and empirical evidence from a "Taoist" perspective, perhaps suggesting that true understanding transcends the confines of empirical data and deductive reasoning. Could the book offer practical advice on how to cultivate a more harmonious and balanced approach to life by integrating these two powerful intellectual frameworks? I'm particularly intrigued by the possibility of exploring how modern advancements in fields like quantum physics, with its inherent uncertainties and interconnectedness, might be interpreted through the lens of both Taoist philosophy and the development of scientific logic. This book promises to be a rich tapestry of ideas, challenging conventional wisdom and offering a more holistic understanding of the human condition.
评分文学欣赏和文学研究本质上是一项个人追求,而诗有可解、不可解、不必解,若水月镜花,勿泥其迹可也。通过写作、声音与意义的等级之争,哲学家、神秘主义者和诗人的反讽模式,无言诗学,还有阐释的多多元化,广涉作者、文本、读者,张隆溪走向了阐释的多元化,不避浅俗,视域融合的瞬间确实宽容而涵盖了文学的精神之粹。道与逻各斯并不是这么难以潜在得化为他者的,不是吗?丰子恺曰:“尝喜小中能见大,还须弦外有余音。”或可明之。重读张隆溪的《道与逻各斯》,让我又真正敬佩起了他反福柯的精神,我仿佛看到了钱钟书意志的传承。突破人文学科各专业的藩篱与迷宫吧,在诗与思中我将薪火相传这一精神,将比较文学、比较美学、比较哲学确确实实地在东西方间建筑拱顶,真善美就是我,我就是诗。这儿是可以言说者的时刻,这儿是它的家园。说吧,并且作证!
评分文学欣赏和文学研究本质上是一项个人追求,而诗有可解、不可解、不必解,若水月镜花,勿泥其迹可也。通过写作、声音与意义的等级之争,哲学家、神秘主义者和诗人的反讽模式,无言诗学,还有阐释的多多元化,广涉作者、文本、读者,张隆溪走向了阐释的多元化,不避浅俗,视域融合的瞬间确实宽容而涵盖了文学的精神之粹。道与逻各斯并不是这么难以潜在得化为他者的,不是吗?丰子恺曰:“尝喜小中能见大,还须弦外有余音。”或可明之。重读张隆溪的《道与逻各斯》,让我又真正敬佩起了他反福柯的精神,我仿佛看到了钱钟书意志的传承。突破人文学科各专业的藩篱与迷宫吧,在诗与思中我将薪火相传这一精神,将比较文学、比较美学、比较哲学确确实实地在东西方间建筑拱顶,真善美就是我,我就是诗。这儿是可以言说者的时刻,这儿是它的家园。说吧,并且作证!
评分文学欣赏和文学研究本质上是一项个人追求,而诗有可解、不可解、不必解,若水月镜花,勿泥其迹可也。通过写作、声音与意义的等级之争,哲学家、神秘主义者和诗人的反讽模式,无言诗学,还有阐释的多多元化,广涉作者、文本、读者,张隆溪走向了阐释的多元化,不避浅俗,视域融合的瞬间确实宽容而涵盖了文学的精神之粹。道与逻各斯并不是这么难以潜在得化为他者的,不是吗?丰子恺曰:“尝喜小中能见大,还须弦外有余音。”或可明之。重读张隆溪的《道与逻各斯》,让我又真正敬佩起了他反福柯的精神,我仿佛看到了钱钟书意志的传承。突破人文学科各专业的藩篱与迷宫吧,在诗与思中我将薪火相传这一精神,将比较文学、比较美学、比较哲学确确实实地在东西方间建筑拱顶,真善美就是我,我就是诗。这儿是可以言说者的时刻,这儿是它的家园。说吧,并且作证!
评分文学欣赏和文学研究本质上是一项个人追求,而诗有可解、不可解、不必解,若水月镜花,勿泥其迹可也。通过写作、声音与意义的等级之争,哲学家、神秘主义者和诗人的反讽模式,无言诗学,还有阐释的多多元化,广涉作者、文本、读者,张隆溪走向了阐释的多元化,不避浅俗,视域融合的瞬间确实宽容而涵盖了文学的精神之粹。道与逻各斯并不是这么难以潜在得化为他者的,不是吗?丰子恺曰:“尝喜小中能见大,还须弦外有余音。”或可明之。重读张隆溪的《道与逻各斯》,让我又真正敬佩起了他反福柯的精神,我仿佛看到了钱钟书意志的传承。突破人文学科各专业的藩篱与迷宫吧,在诗与思中我将薪火相传这一精神,将比较文学、比较美学、比较哲学确确实实地在东西方间建筑拱顶,真善美就是我,我就是诗。这儿是可以言说者的时刻,这儿是它的家园。说吧,并且作证!
评分文学欣赏和文学研究本质上是一项个人追求,而诗有可解、不可解、不必解,若水月镜花,勿泥其迹可也。通过写作、声音与意义的等级之争,哲学家、神秘主义者和诗人的反讽模式,无言诗学,还有阐释的多多元化,广涉作者、文本、读者,张隆溪走向了阐释的多元化,不避浅俗,视域融合的瞬间确实宽容而涵盖了文学的精神之粹。道与逻各斯并不是这么难以潜在得化为他者的,不是吗?丰子恺曰:“尝喜小中能见大,还须弦外有余音。”或可明之。重读张隆溪的《道与逻各斯》,让我又真正敬佩起了他反福柯的精神,我仿佛看到了钱钟书意志的传承。突破人文学科各专业的藩篱与迷宫吧,在诗与思中我将薪火相传这一精神,将比较文学、比较美学、比较哲学确确实实地在东西方间建筑拱顶,真善美就是我,我就是诗。这儿是可以言说者的时刻,这儿是它的家园。说吧,并且作证!
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有