|
|
|
| From “Container”, “Place” to “Society”: The Modern Turn of Spatial Narratives in Western Philosophy |
| XIE Li-xia |
| Institute of Philosophy, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510641 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The multiple meanings of spatial interpretation make the theoretical task of clarifying the mapping of spatial concepts and the axes of evolution particularly important. Three were two types of “mise-en-scène” in the concept pedigre of space in Western philosophy before the 19th century. The first is the “myopic” distortion of spatial absolutism, which uses natural science as a yardstick, focuses too closely on the appearance of objects, and understands space as the form of existence of objects, the “container” that exists before the material entity, and reduces the significance of space to materiality. Secondly, it is the space relativism of “far-sightedness” fantasy, which replaces the concept of “object” with “field”, and projects too far to the subjective imagery, thinking that space is the action field composed of the system of relations between substances. The reduction of space to a juxtaposition of relations or perceptual concepts to the abstract world of mental conception obscures the diversity of relations between things. In order to correct the naturalistic or empirical myopia of space formed by the confrontation between spatial absolutism and spatial relativism, Marx criticized the old materialism and idealism and emphasized the importance of practice in constructing the world, so that the concept of “social space” with practice as the kernel became a new theoretical growth point. Following this, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and other theorists broke the constraints of the traditional interpretation of space, and took human existence as the origin of the foundation for the understanding of space, and the philosophical interpretation of space took a new turn. The paradigm shift of spatial narrative gives theoretical resonance to Chinese-style modernization and urbanization.
|
|
Received: 10 July 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] (英)大卫·哈维.地理学中的解释[M].高泳源,刘立华,蔡运龙译.北京:商务印书馆,1996.
[2] (美)爱德华·W.苏贾.后现代地理学:重申批判社会理论中的空间[M].王文斌译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[3] (古希腊)亚里士多德.物理学[M].张竹明译.北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[4] (古希腊)柏拉图. 蒂迈欧篇[M].谢文郁译注.上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[5] 陆扬. 论柏拉图的空间思想[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2018,60(4):27-33.
[6] (荷兰)斯宾诺莎. 笛卡尔哲学原理[M].王荫庭,洪汉鼎译.北京:商务印书馆,2009.
[7] (德)伊曼努尔·康德.纯粹理性批判[M].邓晓芒译,杨祖陶校.北京:人民出版社,2017.
[8] (英)伊萨克·牛顿.自然哲学的数学原理[M].赵振江译.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[9] (德)伊曼努尔·康德.自然科学的形而上学基础[M].邓小芒译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1988.
[10] (法)米歇尔·福柯.不同空间的正文与上下文[A].//包亚明主编.后现代性与地理学的政治[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.20.
[11] (德)莱布尼茨,(英)克拉克.莱布尼茨与克拉克论战书信集[M].陈修斋译.北京:商务印书馆,1996.
[12] (英)约翰·洛克.人类理解论(上册)[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆,1959.
[13] (英)乔治·贝克莱.视觉新论[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆,2017.
[14] (英)大卫·休谟.人性论(上册)[M].关文运译.北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[15] (德)黑格尔.自然哲学[M].梁志学,薛华等译.北京:商务印书馆,1986.
[16] 俞吾金. 存在、自然存在和社会存在——海德格尔、卢卡奇和马克思本体论思想的比较研究[J].中国社会科学,2001,(2):54-65.
[17] 杨庆峰. 符号空间、实体空间与现象学变更[J].哲学分析,2010,(3):131-140.
[18] (法)笛卡尔.谈谈方法[M].王太庆译.北京:商务印书馆,2000.30.
[19] 俞吾金. 本体论研究的复兴和趋势[J].浙江学刊,2002,(1):46-52.
[20] Sebastian Dorsch.Space/Time Practices and the Production of Space and Time. An Introduction[J]. Historical Social Research,2013,38(3):7-21.
[21] Henri Lefebvre.The Production of Space[M].translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Malden: Blackwell Publis-hing,1991.16.
[22] 任政. 现代都市空间生产下日常生活与消费主体的再生产逻辑[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版),2023, 40(3):133-141.
[23] (德)马丁·海德格尔.存在与时间[M].陈嘉映,王庆节译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2014.
[24] (法)爱弥尔·涂尔干.宗教生活的基本形式[M].渠东,汲喆译.北京:商务印书馆,2011.13.
[25] (法)莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂.知觉现象学[M].姜志辉译.北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[26] 马克思恩格斯全集(第30卷)[M]马克思恩格斯全集(第30卷)[M].中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译.北京:人民出版社,1995.538.
[27] Lukasz Stanek.Henri Lefebvre on Space:Architecture,Urban Research,and the Production of Theory[M].Minn-eapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 2011.77. |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 40 
