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 390 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).
-
-
-
-
오용득 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2020 탈경계인문학 Vol.13 No.2
포스트휴먼이나 포스트휴머니티와 같은 새로운 문제들은 어떤 식으로든 인간의개념화를 지향하는 고전적 인문학에 대한 반성을 촉발한다. 이에 따라 우리가 어떤 새로운 인문학을 그려본다면, 그것은 문자적으로‘ 인문학 다음의 인문학’을 의미하는‘ 포스트인문학’일 것이다. 그런데‘ 포스트인문학’은‘ 포스트-인문학’과‘ 포스트인문-학’으로 분석될 때 좀 더 선명한 의미를 드러낸다. 포스트-인문학은 인문학 본래의 비판정신을 자신의 활동 자체까지 비판하는 철저한 비판정신으로 되살려낸 인문학으로서, 휴머니티나 포스트휴머니티를 개념화하려는 모든 시도에 저항한다. 포스트인문-학은 포스트-인문학의 태도나 방법에 따라 자신의 진행을 반성적으로 조정함으로써 어떤 식으로도 개념화할 수 없는 질료적인 포스트휴먼 이미지들을 탐색한다. 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.
-
-
-
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.
-
아프리카의 탈식민주의 시각으로 본 탈경계 인문학 연구의 한 사례 : 조셉 콘라드의 『암흑의 핵심』을 중심으로
이석호 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2009 탈경계 인문학 Vol.2 No.2
Postcolonialism is a kind of aesthetics which reflects dual perspective in deconstructing the binary opposition of Manichaeism - the West/the East, the white/the black, civilization/madness, the modern/the premodern and so on. Compared to that of postmodernism whose basic tenets could be acknowledged as quintessential components for the later theories of it, it is not so hard to recognize that the aesthetics of postcolonialism looks more political and subversive in the African context. The ambivalence of postcolonialism is reflected in the works of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Heart of Darkness is a well-known canon which is failing to be recognized as a typical text, in terms of imploding the artificially internalized set of values of Europe from within, and exploding the boundary system of the West from without which is used as a gauge to distinguish his race from other's.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
