‘필연의 왕국’에서 ‘자유의 왕국’으로 ― 사상해방운동의 주체성 논리와 그 인식론적 한계
From ‘the Kingdom of Necessity’ to ‘the Kingdom of Freedom’: the Meanings and the Limits of Subject Theory in “Mind Emancipation Movement”
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The word ‘mind emancipation’ was the representative word of Post-Mao era. After Cultural Revolution, for overcoming the faults of ultra-leftism in Cultural Revolution period, Reformers had to readjust Marxism-Leninism and Mao's thought. But that ‘readjustment’ did not mean total change or abandonment of all ideological principles of Socialism period, but those processes included both continuity and discontinuity. Especially the principle of ‘objective truth’ as historic principle and the principle of ‘sublation of contradictions’, the main principle of historical materialism, still remained as authoritative discourse. For example, the controversy on ‘the criterion of truth’ and ‘humanism’ and ‘alienation’ shows that the period of emancipation still in the realm of historical materialism. In terms of episteme, the most important subject theory in the era of reform, Li Zehou and Gao Ertai, also remained in the realm of historical materialism, and because of that, they just produced ‘limited subject’ which could not emerge from the principle of historial materialism. For describing their subject theories more concretely, we have to delve deeper into the inner logics of them.
Abstract
The word ‘mind emancipation’ was the representative word of Post-Mao era. After Cultural Revolution, for overcoming the faults of ultra-leftism in Cultural Revolution period, Reformers had to readjust Marxism-Leninism and Mao's thought. But that ‘readjustment’ did not mean total change or abandonment of all ideological principles of Socialism period, but those processes included both continuity and discontinuity. Especially the principle of ‘objective truth’ as historic principle and the principle of ‘sublation of contradictions’, the main principle of historical materialism, still remained as authoritative discourse. For example, the controversy on ‘the criterion of truth’ and ‘humanism’ and ‘alienation’ shows that the period of emancipation still in the realm of historical materialism. In terms of episteme, the most important subject theory in the era of reform, Li Zehou and Gao Ertai, also remained in the realm of historical materialism, and because of that, they just produced ‘limited subject’ which could not emerge from the principle of historial materialism. For describing their subject theories more concretely, we have to delve deeper into the inner logics of them.
참고문헌 (29)
- 程光煒, "當代文學的 ｢歷史化｣" (2011), 北京大學出版社
- 査建英, "八十年代訪談錄" (2009), 三聯書店
- 高爾泰, "美是自由的象徵" (1988), 人民文學出版社
- 列寧, "唯物主義和經驗批判主義" (1960), 人民出版社
- 李學泰, "當代中國思想解放大論爭 第一卷" (1998), 南方出版社
- 李澤厚, "批判哲學的批判" (2007), 三聯書店
- 馬克思, "馬克思恩格斯選集" (2008), 人民出版社
- 斯達林, "斯達林文選", 人民出版社
- 許紀霖, "啓蒙的自我瓦解", 吉林出版集團有限責任公司
- "中國共産黨第八次全國代表大會關於政治報告的決議", 人民日報, ~ (1956)
- 丁耘, "啓蒙主體性與三十年思想史 ― 以李澤厚爲中心", 讀書, 11 (2008)
- 胡福明, "眞理是客觀的 沒有階級性", 學術月刊, 3 (1979)
- 李若夫, "堅持客觀眞理 堅持實踐標準", 河南大學學報, 6 (1979)
- 李澤厚, "關於主體性的補充說明", 中國社會科學院硏究生學報 (1985)
- 劉奔, "認識的由來和眞理標準", 哲學硏究, 9 (1979)
- 馬鳴, "目的和利益都不是檢驗眞理的標準", 哲學硏究, 8 (1980)
- 毛澤東, "關於正確處理人民內部的矛盾", 人民日報 (1957)
- 王鵬令, "面向主體和科學", 中國社會科學, 3 (1987)
- 張偉棟, "李澤厚的主體論與80年代的精神圖景", 渤海大學學報, 6 (2010)
- Bernard Yack, "The Longing for Total Revolution" (1992), Univ. of Califonia Press
- edited by Bill Brugger, "Chinese Marxism in Flux" (1985), M. E. Sharp, Inc
- edited by Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang, "Politics, Ideology, and Literary Discourse in Modern China" (1993), Duke
- Liu Kang, "Aesthetics and Marxism" (2000), Duke
- Michael Foucault, "The Order of Things" (2006), Routledge
- Stuart Schram, "Economics in Command?” Ideology and Policy since the Third Plenum", pp.1978~1984 (1984), Quarterly
- Tang Tsou, "The Historical Change in Direction and Continuity with the Past" (1984), The China Quarterly
- 송태욱, "트랜스크리틱 - 칸트와 마르크스 넘어서기" (2005), 한길사
- 김서영, "시차적 관점" (2009), 마티
- 한치영, "1978년 진리표준논쟁과 그 정치적 의의", 한국정치연구, 13(1) (2004)