http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 발행기관 : 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 (검색결과 425 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
인문성과 문본성, 그 편재적 성격 : 한국 인문학의 새로운 구상
정대현 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2015 탈경계인문학 Vol.8 No.2
The so-called “crisis of the humanities” can be understood in terms of an asymmetry between the natural and social sciences on the one hand and the humanities on the other. While the sciences approach topics related to human experience in quantificational or experimental terms, the humanities often turn to ancient texts in the search for truths about human experience. As both of these approaches have their own unique limitations, overcoming or rectifying the asymmetry between them is desirable. The present article seeks to do just that by advancing and defending the following two claims: a) that the humanities are ubiquitous wherever language is used, and b) that anything that can be experienced by humans is in need of interpretation. Two arguments are presented in support of these claims. The first argument concerns the nature of questions, which are fundamental marks or manifestations of human language. All questions are ultimately attempts to find alternative meanings or interpretations of what is presented. As such, in questioning phenomena, one seeks to transcend the oppression of imposed structures and in doing so reveals one’s humanity. Second, all phenomena are textual in nature: that which astrophysicists find in distant galaxies or which cognitive neuroscientists find in the structures of the human brain are no less in need of interpretation than the dialogues of Plato or the poems of Homer. Texts are ubiquitous. The implications of these two arguments are identified and discussed in this article. In particular, the ubiquity of humanity and textuality points to a view of human nature that is neither individualistic nor collectivist, but rather integrational in suggesting that the realization of oneself is inseparable from the realization of all others (成己成物).
-
-
-
-
-
박이문 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2010 탈경계인문학 Vol.3 No.2
We divide the world into almost infinite numbers of the ontological categories of things such as mind and body, mountain and ocean, the solid and the liquid, the animate and the inanimate, frog and toad, male and female, and so on, as if these divisions were metaphysically fixed and eternal just like the Platonic Ideas. But as the Hindus have already known all along, the Brahman refers to the single indivisible totality of all things in the universe and is identical with the infinite numbers of individual realities referred to as Atman, and since the beginning of the 20th century, quantum mechanics has shown that reality is more like a chaotic Rorschach’s inkblot in constant motion, indivisible and fluid, one single realty only open to be divided into the kinds of things that we humans like according to our particular needs and our convenience at a particular occasion. Although ontologically the reality of the universe is one, conceptually and thus artificially, it is disposed to be divided into an infinite number. So it is with the nature of the academic division itself as well as with its origins. The academic division between the humanities and the sciences, between philosophy and literature, for instance, is not ontologically founded, not really real, but only conceptual, i.e., artificially and thus temporarily invented by humans for epistemological reasons, i.e., practical reasons in order to cope better with our daily world. The more the world becomes developed and thus complicated, the more the numbers of academic divisions grow. And as the numbers are increasing, knowledge about the world has become fragmented, partial, myopic, and confused. This is what explains for recent fashionable call for academic unity, “consilience,” “fusion,” epistemological holism, and warnings about the crisis of the human sciences. But these warnings and calls for the fusion of different academic divisions remain empty unless we first clearly understand the semantic meaning of the unity, fusion, and consilience of the academic disciplinary divisions and its practical as well as its logical feasibility. Most people seem to believe that the best candidate for such as possibility rests with science. My views are (a) that the academic fusion as usually understood is either nonsensical or very hard, and (b) that it is the humanities, philosophy in particular rather than science, that can be the final candidate for such a task. For the scientific view of the world, which considers itself to be the only objective view, is one of many other human, hence, subjective conceptual construction.
-
접두어 ‘trans-’의 의미와 ‘탈경계 인문학(Trans-Humanities)’ 연구에 관한 소고
김연수 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2010 탈경계인문학 Vol.3 No.3
In this article, I try to think about research methods in our trans-humanities agenda by bringing the meaning of the prefix “trans-” into focus. For this purpose, the concepts of “transculturation” and “transculturality” in cultural and literary studies should be analysed. For example, there is the oldest concept of “transculturation,” from the Cuban anthropologist Fernando Ortiz in the 1940s, which was incorporated and further developed within the realm of literary studies by the Urguayan critic Angel Rama in the 1970s, as well as the concept of “transculturation” used by the German philosopher Wolfgang Welsch and the discussions concerning his concept in German cultural and literary studies. On the basis of this paper’s analysis, the meaning of the prefix “trans-” in our trans-humanities agenda can be modified in accordance with cultural and scholarly contexts. The trans-humanities are trans-scholarly, which means that this sort of humanities crosses the boundary between the real world and the academy and has relevance to reality beyond the walls of the university. The boundary between outside reality and the academy is permeable, so the humanities of this sort are communicable and interactive. Additionally, the trans-humanities are transdisciplinary, a point relevant to research methods. In order to research phenomena in the glocal area, the disciplines must be open, communicating and cooperating with other disciplines.
-
오용득 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2020 탈경계인문학 Vol.13 No.2
Rising such unexperienced problems as the posthuman or the posthumanity, it is necessary to reflect the classical study of humanities to conceptualize the humanity anyway. Thereby if we will draw a new study of humanities, it may be called the ‘posthumanstudies’ to mean “humanstudies after humanstudies” literally. The posthumanstudies discovered in such way make their appearance in two mode: the posthumanstudies and the posthuman-studies. On the one hand, the post-humanstudies always will try to break down every attempt to define the humanity and the posthumaniy conceptually, by criticizing the attitude of the classical study of humanities to conceptualize the humanity. On the other hand, the posthuman-studies will try to inquire into various posthuman images that can not to be defined conceptually, by adjusting their own course according to critical attitude of the post-humanstudies.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
