COMPACT DISC
COMPACT DISC
复制标题
压缩碟片
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
LA Rioja
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
LA Rioja
书名的意义。我怀疑，如果丹托必须做出选择，他会站在那些承认身体固有知觉的人一边，而不是那些认为身体只是大脑的一个美化的讲台的人。他叙述了在行动理论发展的背景下，卢梭和梅洛-庞蒂试图重构身体和精神的努力（第65页），正如丹托所看到的，行动理论要求承认人脑和思想的“独立性”。在第10章中，我们将看到一个人，这个人被认为是西方形而上学中心灵/身体分裂的始作俑者，一个贯穿整本书的哲学家。笛卡尔不止一次地明确指出，心灵是由与身体不同的物质组成的。然而，丹托在这里表明，随后将笛卡尔称为典型的二元论者是简单化和不公平的。在《第六冥想》中，他同样明确地宣称心灵和身体的“融合”，理由是他的心灵包含在他所知道的任何真实的事物中，而且当他知道他的身体是真实的时，它也是他的一部分他的思想（这个论点同样可以扩展到世界，他也承认这是真实的，所以心灵、身体和世界变得“紧密结合”）。对丹托来说，笛卡尔的划分与其说是在心灵和身体之间，不如说是在“已知”的身体和“未知”的身体之间，这就成为了书名中的“身体/身体问题”。考虑到这本书内容的重要性和复杂性，这本书很难公正地加以总结。丹托的风格并不总是容易遵循，哲学化的过程有时会掩盖叙述。他作为一个原创艺术评论家的声誉是稳固的;他是否值得另一个原创哲学家的声誉则不太确定。但他可能不会接受这个差异。他写道：“哲学和艺术不是一个分裂的学科的不连续的片段，而是一个单一的哲学的各个方面，它从艺术的角度思考艺术，从艺术的角度思考哲学。鉴于艺术和哲学关注的是表征的地位，同时也是表征的一种，很少有其他思想家能够以如此严谨、活泼和色彩来解决由此产生的复杂性。
significance of the book’s title. I suspect that if he had to choose, Danto would be on the side of those acknowledging the inherent sentience of the body as opposed to those regarding the body as merely a glorified podium for the brain. He recounts both Sartre’s and Merleau-Ponty’s attempts to reconstitute the body and the mind (p. 65) within the context of the development of theories of action which, as Danto sees it, demand an acknowledgement of the “embodiedness” of the human brain and thought. This brings us, in chapter 10, to the man credited with inflicting the mind/ body split on western metaphysics in the first place—a philosopher whose presence imbues this whole book. Descartes explicitly states, more than once, that the mind is composed of a different substance than the body. Yet Danto here shows that the subsequent branding of Descartes as the epitomic dualist are simplistic and unfair. In “The Sixth Meditation,” he just as explicitly declares the “fusion” of mind and body, on the grounds that his mind consists in anything he knows to be true, and as he knows his body to be true, it is also part of his mind (the argument could equally be extended to the world, which he also admits to being true, so the mind, body and world become “tightly bound”). For Danto then, Descartes’ division lies not so much between the mind and the body as between the body “known” and the body “unknown,” which becomes the “body/body problem” of the title. This is an extraordinarily difficult book to try and summarize with any justice, given the importance and complexity of much of its content. Danto’s style is not always easy to follow, and the philosophizing processes can sometimes obscure the narrative. His reputation as an original art critic is secure; whether he deserves another reputation as an original philosopher is less certain. But he would probably not accept the difference. He writes, “Philosophy and art are not discontinuous fragments of a divided subject, but facets of a single unitary philosophy, which thinks of art philosophically and philosophy from the perspectives of art” (p. ix). Given that art and philosophy are concerned with the status of representation, while also being kinds of representation, there are few other thinkers who could address the resultant complexities with such rigor, buoyancy and color.