康德的“崇高”与先秦“大”美之比较
A Comparison between Kant’s “Sublime” and Pre-Qin’s “Great” Beauty
DOI: 10.12677/ACPP.2024.131001, PDF,   
作者: 徐甜甜:贵州大学哲学学院,贵州 贵阳
关键词: 崇高“大”美超越Sublime “Great” Beauty Beyond
摘要: “崇高”是典型的西方审美范畴,康德的“崇高论”代表了西方的“崇高”观念的经典内涵。中国古典美学没有“崇高”的概念,但却有与之相似的表达“大”美的概念,并且中华文化最具代表性的儒道两家都对“大”美有着深刻的阐释。本文旨在比较康德的“崇高”和我国先秦儒道的“大”美之异同,从而对中西方不同的审美文化观念进行深入理解。
Abstract: “Sublime” is a typical western aesthetic category, and Kant’s “sublime theory” represents the classical connotation of the western concept of “sublime”. There is no concept of “sublime” in Chinese classical aesthetics, but there is a similar concept of expressing “great” beauty, and the most representative Confucian and Taoist schools of Chinese culture have a profound interpretation of “great” beauty. The purpose of this paper is to compare the “sublime” of Kant with the “great” beauty of pre-Qin Confucianism and Taoism in China, so as to deeply understand the different aesthetic cultural concepts of China and the West.
文章引用:徐甜甜. 康德的“崇高”与先秦“大”美之比较[J]. 哲学进展, 2024, 13(1): 1-6. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACPP.2024.131001

参考文献

[1] 康德. 判断力批判[M]. 北京: 人民出版社, 2017: 65-77.
[2] 朱立元. 西方美学范畴史[M]. 太原: 山西教育出版社, 2006: 109-112.
[3] 叶朗. 中国美学史大纲[M]. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1985: 54.
[4] 朱熹. 四书章句集注•孟子集注[M]. 北京: 中华书局, 1983: 370.
[5] 张学军. 先秦儒家“君子人格”的阳刚美及其现代价值[J]. 学术论坛, 2005(5): 29-33.
[6] 北京大学哲学系美学教研室. 中国美学史资料选编[M]. 北京: 中华书局, 1980: 26.
[7] 朱谦之. 新编诸子集成•老子校注[M]. 北京: 中华书局, 1983: 100-170.
[8] 曹础基. 庄子浅注[M]. 北京: 中华书局, 2000: 193.
[9] 郭庆藩. 庄子集释[M]. 北京: 中华书局, 2004: 88.