首页> 外文学位 >What we confusedly call 'animal': Deconstruction and the zoology of narrative (Jacques Derrida, Edgar Allen Poe, Herman Melville, Gustave Flaubert, France).
【24h】

What we confusedly call 'animal': Deconstruction and the zoology of narrative (Jacques Derrida, Edgar Allen Poe, Herman Melville, Gustave Flaubert, France).

机译:我们混淆地称为“动物”:解构和叙事的动物学(雅克·德里达,埃德加·艾伦·坡,赫曼·梅尔维尔,古斯塔夫·弗劳伯特,法国)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

For French philosopher Jacques Derrida, the question of “what we confusedly call ‘animal’” continues to prove a difficult threshold in our efforts to think beyond the traditional assumptions of humanism. Our often implicit understanding of an absolute distinction between the human species and all other non-human animal species, still largely uninterrogated despite a growing body of knowledge that would nullify any presumption of absolute difference from all other species, engages the most fundamental questions at stake in such efforts, including our beliefs about subjectivity and language, rights, justice, and the limits of responsibility. That our naming of other non-human animal species as “animal” is confused suggests the essentially epistemological nature of this ultimately ontological and ethical problem. In narrative fiction, the epistemological processes of plot resolve confusion into ontological certainty in scenes of recognition, Aristotle's anagnorisis. As Terence Cave has shown, while the recognition of the other in anagnorisis retroactively confers intelligibility on narrative sequence, anagnorisis is also the site where literary art tends most to show its hand in artifice, casting into doubt conclusions regarding what and where the other is relative to the ethical community. After the eighteenth century, the recognition of “what we confusedly call ‘animal’” became particularly fraught as epistemes in literary and other disciplines grew increasingly anthropological, on the one hand, and as living animals began to recede from the realms of daily human experience, on the other. This study examines the question of animality in Derrida's writings and its epistemological implications for nineteenth-century narrative fiction when the other to be recognized is a non-human “animal.” In Edgar Allen Poe's “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1841), Herman Melville's Moby Dick or, The Whale (1851), and Gustave Flaubert's “La Légende de Saint Julien L'Hospitalier” (1877), plots structured as pursuits of an inhuman other thematize the narrative and ontological stakes of recognition for humans as well as these others.
机译:对于法国哲学家雅克·德里达(Jacques Derrida)而言,“我们混淆地称为'动物'的问题”在我们努力超越传统的人本主义假设的过程中继续被证明是一个困难的门槛。我们经常对人类物种与所有其他非人类动物物种之间的绝对区别进行隐式理解,尽管知识量不断增长,这将使与其他物种的绝对差异的推定无效,但在很大程度上仍未受到质疑,这涉及到最基本的问题在这种努力中,包括我们对主观性和语言,权利,正义和责任范围的信念。我们将其他非人类动物命名为“动物”感到困惑,这说明了这种最终的本体论和伦理学问题的本质是认识论性质。在叙事小说中,情节的认识论过程将混乱转变为认识场景中的本体论确定性,即亚里士多德的无知。正如特伦斯·凯夫(Terence Cave)所表明的,虽然对另一种方式的认识在追溯性上赋予了叙事序列的可理解性,但这种方式也是文学艺术最倾向于表现手法的地方,这使人们对关于另一种方式和相对方式的怀疑结论产生疑问。道德社区。十八世纪之后,一方面,随着文学和其他学科的认识论日益成为人类学,而且随着活体动物开始从人类日常生活的领域中退缩,人们对“我们混淆地称为'动物'”的认识变得尤为紧张。 , 在另一。这项研究考察了德里达著作中的动物性问题及其在十九世纪叙事小说中的认识论含义(当另一种被认为是非人类的“动物”时)。在埃德加·艾伦·坡(Edgar Allen Poe)的《太平间谋杀案》(1841)中,赫尔曼·梅尔维尔(Herman Melville)的<斜体>白鲸迪克或<斜体>鲸鱼(1851),以及古斯塔夫·弗劳伯特的《圣日耳曼》 “朱利安·洛斯皮塔利埃(Julien L'Hospitalier)”(1877年),其情节结构是对非人类的追求,其主题化了人类以及其他人类的叙事和本体论利益。

著录项

  • 作者

    Rowe, Stephanie L.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Oregon.;

  • 授予单位 University of Oregon.;
  • 学科 Literature Comparative.; Literature American.; Literature Romance.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2002
  • 页码 250 p.
  • 总页数 250
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 文学理论;世界文学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
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