反映论与毕达可夫《文艺学引论》——中国文论学科的方法论源流考辨

Theory of Reflection and Pidakov's An Introduction to Literary and Artistic Theories—— An Investigation of Origins and Development of Methodology in Chinese Theory of Literature

把反映论与毕达可夫《文艺学引论》的关系,当作考辩中国文论学科方法论源流的一个聚焦,这对有百年学术记忆的亲历者暨反思者来说,既是久违的念旧,也是陌生的重读。比如说,从毕达可夫到以群因受制于哲学反映论对文艺的强制性阐释,势必导致对文艺的审美性的掩抑及其对马克思美学思想的理论统战,这在逻辑上不难领悟,颇近乎学术史的念旧。但若说到把反映论从哲学腾挪到文艺学,是对《唯物主义与经验批判主义》语境的反映论的"转基因",且此"转基因"不仅有悖列宁本义,也是对列宁《托尔斯泰是俄国革命的镜子》一文的误读或曲解,或许就不免陌生乃至错愕。而经此考辩,中国文论学科半世纪来习焉不察却经不起证伪的诸多立论,恐将因其方法论源头的破绽而裸露学术窘困。

The relationship between the theory of reflection and Pidakov＇s An Introduction to Literary and Artistic Theories taken as a focus to investigate the methodological origins and development of Chinese theory of literature means a long time forgotten nostalgia as well as an alien re-reading for the participants with a century＇s academic memory. For instance, the forceful interpretation to literary and art works by the philosophical theory of reflection from Pidakov to Ye Yiqun will be sure to restrict aesthetics and to conform to Marxist aesthetics, which is understandable. While for the transmitting of the theory of reflection from philosophy to the theory of literature and art, it is a distortion of the theory of reflection in the context of Lenin＇s Materialism and Empirio-criticism, and this transmitting is far from Lenin＇s original meaning. And it is also a misread and a distortion to Lenin＇s Tolstoy Is the Mirror of Russian Revolution, perhaps it will lead to alienation and even error. This article is expected to explain the above misgivings from the perspective of etymology.