《悲剧的诞生》的三个解释路径  

Three Interpretation Paths of The Birth of Tragedy

作　　者：毕延英 李咏吟[1] Yanying BI;Yongyin LI(Zhejiang University)

机构地区：[1]浙江大学文学院

出　　处：《马克思主义美学研究》2023年第2期248-264,485,共18页Research on Marxist Aesthetics

摘　　要：欧美学界近年来关于《悲剧的诞生》的研究,大致可以呈现为三个解释路径:①着重考察《悲剧的诞生》的文献来源,并从语文学角度分析这部作品的写作风格;②关注狄奥尼索斯的阐释问题,人们已经认识到狄奥尼索斯的含义在尼采不同思想阶段的变化,但是对于如何阐释这种变化以及如何将这些变化与尼采的其他思想联系起来,还难以形成统一的看法;③关注尼采倡导的悲剧哲学能否有效地取代苏格拉底思想传统的问题。多数学者并不认为悲剧艺术能够取代苏格拉底以来的思想传统。这些解释可能有助于汉语学界对尼采《悲剧的诞生》的重新理解。In recent years,the research in the Western academic community on The Birth of Tragedy can be roughly presented in three explanatory paths;(1)Emphasizing the examination of the literary sources of The Birth of Tragedy and analyzing the writing style of this work from a linguistic perspective;(2)Focusing on the interpretation of Dionysus,it has been recognized that the meaning of Dionysus has changed in Nietzsche’s different stages of thought,but there is still no unified view on how to interpret this change and how to connect these changes with Nietzsche’s other ideas;(3)Examining whether Nietzsche’s philosophy of tragedy can effectively replace the Socratic intellectual tradition.Most scholars do not believe that the art of tragedy can replace the intellectual tradition that has been established since Socrates.These explanations may contribute to a reexamination of Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy in the Chinese academic community.

关 键 词：悲剧 思想来源 狄奥尼索斯 苏格拉底 

分 类 号：B83-0[哲学宗教—美学]