對 西 方 傳 統 知 識 真 理 觀 的 解 構 策 略 - 傅 科 、 李 歐 塔 的 批 判 解 構 策 略 初 探

學年度:85
學期:1
校院:東吳大學
系所:社會學系碩士班
論文名稱(中):對西方傳統知識真理觀的解構策略-傅科、李歐塔的批判解構策略初探
論文名稱(英):Deconstructional Strategies about Westesn Traditional Knowledge-Truth Views -Discuss Foucault's and Lyotard's
學位類別:碩士
語文別:中文
學號:82615011
頁數:93
研究生(中)姓名:葉泰宏
研究生(英)姓名:Yeh , Tai-Hung
指導教授(中) 姓名:黃瑞祺教授
指導教授(英) 姓名:Richard Ruey-Chyi Hwang
關鍵字(中) :解構策略、後現代、批判性的脈絡化知識、海德格、傅科、李歐塔
關鍵字(英) :deconstructional strategies , postmodern , critically contextual knowledge , Heidegger , Foucault , Lyotard


提要(中):

  本論文主要是以一後現代的向度來探討知識真理的課題。討論的方式主要是從三個層面來進行。首先是對西方傳統知識真理觀進行批判,進一步提出另一種看待知識的策略,最後再探討這些策略所具有的解構意涵。我們以兩位後現代思想家傅柯與李歐塔作為例子,而以這三個層面來對他們的理論進行探討。
  論文所提之批判解構策略正是在此三個層面的展現。我們以“批判性的脈絡化知識”一概念來表示這一批判解構策略的意涵,並以此概念架構來探討傅柯與李歐塔的知識策略。對我們而言,知識總是具有一脈絡化的特性,也就是它總是扣連在人的作為之中。相對於西方傳統知識真理觀將知識真理視為一可超越人的侷限而呈現出一普遍客觀的特性,在脈絡化的反思中我們的認知總不可避免處在某一脈絡中而進行。對於此一知識脈絡的反思可以從各種不同的角度來探討,例如心理學,政治學,社會學等。各種學科均可視為一參考方式,藉此我們便能對我們的認知有所脈絡性的考察。但這一考察已不是像過去西方的傳統一般仍想要去追求一“超越性”的知識,卻是在這一考察中我們獲得了一種對“可能性”的了解與實踐。在脈絡性的考察中我們反思到我們所是以及所知的所在,但也正因為反思到所已是的可能而使我們能對此提出一種新的可能。所以在對於知識的態度上我們不再是過去西方式的追求一超越性的“同一”,而是試圖對所是的脈絡化特徵進行踰越,是一種追求“差異”的可能。我們認為傅柯與李歐塔都具有此一對待知識的態度,前者提出“踰越”作為一解構的策略,而後者提出“解合法化”的策略。同時,在我們探討他們的知識策略時我們亦取一社會學的視野來看待他們的批判解構策略所具有的社會理論特性。
  最後我們藉由對海德格關於“詮釋學的循環”的探討來更進一步考慮批判解構策略的意涵。我們認為對知識的批判解構策略應該是多元的,不同學科即可成為各種不同策略的可能。而解構知識與建構知識又可視為一同時進行的活動,正是在二者的交互作用中我們的知識才成為我們的作為的具體表現。


提要(英):

 This book discusses knowledge-truth theme in the light of postmodern perspective. It takes three steps to discuss, first it criticize western traditional knowledge-truth views, second it suggests alternative model of knowledge, third it expresses the meaning of deconstruction of the alternative model. These discussions will focus on the thoughts of Foucault's and Lyotard's.
 We will use the term "critically contextual knowledge" to express the meaning of deconstructional strategies. In this way, knowledge is always contextual, that is it is involving human's conducts. Western traditional model of knowledge regards knowledge as universal objective kind that transcends human's confined conditions. By contrast, in the reflexion of knowledge's contextual character we understand our cognition is always involving some contextual activity. We can reflect by variform ways, for example psychology, politics, sociology. This reflexion is not the western traditional model that wants to seek the "transcendent" knowledge, but that it draws the possibilities of understanding and practice. In this way, we reflect the states
of our being and knowing, and we can draw a new possible state. So the attitude of knowledge is not western traditional model to seek the transcendent "identity", but to discover possible "difference". Foucault and Lyotard possess this attitude, the former takes "transgression" as the deconstructional strategy for knowledge, the latter takes "de-legitimation" as another. Simultaneously we also take sociological perspective to consider the social dimension of deconstructional strategies.
 Finally, we discuss Heidegger's "hermeneutic circle" to further considerate implication of deconstructional strategies. We agree that deconstructional strategies for knowledge are diversiform, different discipline could be as different strategy. Both deconstructing knowledge and constructing knowledge could be seen the same thing. They involve a mutually effective action, so our knowledge becomes concrete expression of our conducts.