A HISTORICAL STUDY ON THE REPRESENTATIONS OF REASON IN ENGLISH LITERATURE

我们的研究主要围绕以下两个问题展开。(1)在构建作为人类故事的“历史”时，“循环”观和“线性”观都是基本结构。前者起源于古典古代，后者起源于犹太人的救赎史，有其开始和结束。在这两种情况下，都有必要对这些“历史”事件和事件提出合理的解释，因为它们本质上是“偶然的”。在前一种情况下，“理性”试图在循环运动中看到“重复”结构，并积极地将其作为一种认识和理解历史的原则。然而，与此同时，从消极的角度来看，“重复”结构也有可能带来一种虚无主义的历史观。在后一种情况下，它的“线性”结构，本质上必须被视为“非理性的”，因为上帝的任意干预，来代表黑格尔的“理性的狡猾”。这种观点是基于“线性”结构被“世俗化”并转化为现代“进步”观念的历史假设。(2)如果理性的现代表述在黑格尔的“绝对精神”这样的“概念结构”中被赋予象征性的表达，同时又必然要面对一些重要的重大政治问题，那么“后现代性”中的“历史理性”就必然要警惕任何形式的政治权力。与此同时，面对日益高涨的各种媒体形式，它必须努力建立自己的原则或基础。这种“后现代性”中的“历史理性”已经被表现为某种类似于“差异”的东西，德里达在“权力”和“知识”之间发现了这种差异，并以一种巧妙的方式向我们展示了它。

Our research is mainly conducted around the following two problematics.(1) In constructing a "history" as the story of human beings, there have been as bssic structures both the "cyclic" view and the "linear" conception. The former originates in Classical Antiquity and the latter, having its beginning and end, in the Jewish salvation history. In both instances, it is necessary to present a reasonable explanation of those "historical" events and affairs, which are by their nature essentially "accidantal." In the former case, "reason" tries see in the cyclic movements the "repetitive" structure, which she adopts positively as a principle in historical recognition and understanding. At the same time, however, there is a possibility in which the "repetitive" structure, taken negatively, brings about a nihilistic historical outlook. In the latter case, its "linear" structure, which must essentially be regarded as "irrational" because of God's arbitrary intervention, comes to be represented as Hegel's "cunning of reason." This view is based on the historical assumption that the "linear" structure has been "secularized" and transformed into the modern idea of "progress."(2) If the modern representations of reason is given a symbolic expression in such a "conceptual structure" as the Hegelian "absolute spirit, " and at the same time is bound to face some of the important major political issues, then the "historical reason" in "post-modernity" should inevitably be on guard against any form of political power. At the same time, it must try to establish its own priciple or foundation in relation to various forms of media, which has increasingly gained their momentum. This "historical reason" in "post-modernity" has come to be represented something like "difference, " which Derrida detects between "power" and "knowledge" and shows us in an ingenious manner.