殊途同归的“诗意的实用主义”——再回应舒斯特曼先生

“Poetic Pragmatism”with Different Ways and Same Goal:a Rebuttal to Mr.Shusterman again

实用主义既有共同的精神旨趣,又有竞争性的差异叙事。罗蒂与舒斯特曼均致力于复兴实用主义传统,均被视为新实用主义的代表人物。但舒斯特曼站在“诗意的实用主义”立场上,批评罗蒂“强健诗人的实用主义”是一种补偿性的文本式逃避,忽视了身体与非话语经验。问题在于,一方面,舒斯特曼对罗蒂实用主义的定位有些偏颇,叙述亦不准确;另一方面,舒斯特曼张扬非话语经验,又坠入了实用主义传统批判过的“所与神话”的泥淖。其实,承认所有经验的语言性,不仅并不意味着否认舒斯特曼身体美学的有效性,而且有助于进一步拓展罗蒂与舒斯特曼都提倡的共同体的建构路径。

There are both common spiritual interests and competitive narrative differences in pragmatism.Both Rorty and Shusterman are committed to reviving the tradition of pragmatism,and are regarded as representatives of new pragmatism.But from the standpoint of“poetic pragmatism”,Shusterman criticizes Rorty s“pragmatism of the strong poet”as a compensatory textual escape,ignoring body and non-discursive experience.The problem is that,on the one hand,Shusterman s positioning of Rorty s pragmatism is somewhat biased and the description is not accurate;on the other hand,Shusterman publicizes the non-discourse experience,and falls into the marsh of“given myth”criticized by the traditional pragmatism.In fact,acknowledging the linguistic nature of all experiences does not necessarily mean denying the effectiveness of Shusterman s body aesthetics,but also helps to further expand the path of community construction advocated by both Rorty and Shusterman.