...
首页> 外文期刊>Postcolonial Studies >Theory and Asian humanity: on the question of humanitas and anthropos
【24h】

Theory and Asian humanity: on the question of humanitas and anthropos

机译:理论与亚洲人性:关于人性与人类的问题

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

What can an Asian theory be? Is the question a blatant oxymoron, or some intellectual anomaly? What is at stake in this enquiry is not the character of Asia at all. On the contrary, what makes the pairing of Asia and theory somewhat strange is our presumption that theory is something we normally expect of Europe or the West. (Europe and the West must be differentiated historically and geopolitically, but for reasons of space the two designations are treated almost interchangeably in this article.)Just like any other civilization, Europe produces knowledge, but it is distinguished from other civilizations by its unique mode of operation in knowledge production. Until recently, Europe was proud of its commitment to theory—or philosophy at large—in the sense that it determines itself in terms of the secondary or derivative mode of theory: it is constantly reflecting upon, criticizing, and transforming its own manner of knowledge production. The Europeans regarded themselves as an exceptional kind of humanity capable of theory, and they called themselves humanitas in contrast to other types of humanity, namely anthropos: those who produce knowledge, but are incapable of reflecting upon and criticizing their modus operandi in knowledge production. However, the central topic of this article is not the dichotomy of humanitas and anthropos which still shapes the disciplinary configuration of human sciences today, but rather what has been generally referred to as the crisis of European humanity. This crisis stems from the fact that it has been increasingly difficult to sustain the exceptionalist notion of the West or European humanity. Through an examination of the crisis of European humanity, this article discusses what the status of theory might potentially mean to us in relation to Asian humanity today.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2010.526539
机译:亚洲理论是什么?这个问题是公然的矛盾词,还是某些智力异常?这次询问所涉及的根本不是亚洲的特征。相反,使亚洲与理论的结合有些奇怪的原因是,我们认为理论是我们通常期望的欧洲或西方。 (欧洲和西方必须在历史和地缘政治上有所区别,但是出于篇幅考虑,本文将这两个名称几乎互换使用。)就像其他任何文明一样,欧洲也产生知识,但是它以独特的方式与其他文明区分开知识生产中的运作。直到最近,欧洲一直以其对理论(或整个哲学)的承诺感到自豪,因为它是根据理论的次生或衍生模式来确定自己的:它不断反思,批判和转变自己的方式知识生产。欧洲人认为自己是具有理论能力的一种特殊的人类,与其他类型的人类(即人类)相反,他们称自己为人性:那些生产知识的人,但无能力反思和批评他们在知识生产中的作案手法。但是,本文的主题不是人文主义和人类的二分法,它仍然塑造了当今人类科学的学科结构,而是通常被称为欧洲人类危机。造成这种危机的原因是,维持西方或欧洲人类的例外主义观念变得越来越困难。通过研究欧洲人文危机,本文讨论了当今亚洲人的理论地位可能对我们意味着什么。查看全文下载全文相关的var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand:“泰勒和弗朗西斯在线”,services_compact: “ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,美味,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2010.526539

著录项

  • 来源
    《Postcolonial Studies》 |2010年第4期|p.441-464|共24页
  • 作者

    Naoki Sakai;

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号