“生态正义”何以可能:两种形而上学辩护  

“Ecological Justice”: Two Kinds of Metaphysical Defense

作　　者：赵卿 Zhao Qing(Department of Chinese Language and Literature,East China Normal University)

机构地区：[1]华东师范大学中国语言文学系

出　　处：《文艺理论研究》2019年第5期209-217,共9页Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art

基　　金：2017年山东省社会科学规划青年项目“生态艺术及其理论中的自然之代理问题”[项目编号:17DZWJ03]阶段性成果~~

摘　　要：本文旨在对"生态正义"进行认识论意义上的初步辨析。事实上,"生态正义"的一个主要问题是去主体化问题,即在认识自然过程中,如何最大限度地破除人类中心主义立场,从而达到生态平等、生态民主。对此,西方和中国各自有不同的解决思路。就西方而言,以阿多诺的生态神学观为例证,阿多诺以否定辩证法的方式论述了接近自然本身的可能性;就中国而言,以石涛的"我为山川代言"命题为例证,它依据天人合一观念,强调予即为山川的思想。二者的差异在于:作为一种神学视角,阿多诺笔下的自然被抬高到"上帝创造"的整个存在中,山川由此获得了神性,其意在借助"神"去压制人的主体性/理性。后者则基于中国形而上的思想预设,采取物我两忘、天人合一的立场排除人的主体性,其意在取消自然与人二者间的断裂。可见,无论是阿多诺还是石涛,二者致思的殊途同归,均为生态正义的合法性作了论证,提供了值得珍视的思想资源。尽管它们的思考路径不同,但都为这种殊途同归的认识论作出了辩护。This article aims to undertake an epistemological discussion of ecological justice with de-subjectivity as its core theme from both the perspectives of Adorno’s ecological theology and Shi Tao’s proposition of "spokesman for shan-shui". The former argues that the negative dialectics holds the possibility of approaching nature itself, and the latter advocates the harmony of heaven and human. Specifically, Adorno elevated the status of nature in the realm of human beings created by God, whereby nature acquires divinity and subjectivity is suppressed. In a different yet compatible way, by conceptualizing the harmony between heaven and human for the exclusivity of subjectivity, Shi Tao rejected the disharmony between nature and human beings. The article concludes that, different as they are in theorization, both are useful not only to the legitimization of ecological justice, but, as well, in defense of the epistemology.

关 键 词：生态正义 阿多诺 石涛 “为山川代言” 

分 类 号：G63[文化科学—教育学]