Bildung, a western cultural ideal, which fundamentally can be traced back to biblical connotations, but is also rich in Platonic elements from the history of hermeneutics, reached its culmination point by the 19th cen...Bildung, a western cultural ideal, which fundamentally can be traced back to biblical connotations, but is also rich in Platonic elements from the history of hermeneutics, reached its culmination point by the 19th century. As the vast superstructure of western erudition, it has acquired the rank of the sole discursive and epistemic normativity, which has defined not only its own system, i.e., education in its narrow sense, but also the criteria of scientific assertions. Since the basis of Bildung was formed by the variations of classical erudition changing by every era, so in the Age of Bildung the defining epistemological and methodological pattern, which determined it from a discursive, and at the same time, an epistemological point of view, was meant by classical philology. As a classical philologist Friedrich Nietzsche was among the first to point out the inseparable connection between rhetoric, interpretation, and epistemology. Nietzsche, as against the monolithic tradition of Bildung, developed a set of aspects of subversive criticism of science, so his surpassing of the nineteenth century academic philology and renewal of it as a kind of cultural hermeneutics walk hand in hand. Nietzschean philology, first and foremost, has to be adapted for revaluing its scientific statements from the aspect of art, i.e., aesthetical sensitivity, which has to be reassessed from viewpoint of effects on life as active potential. The claims of Nietzsche are so comprehensive that the notion of morality defined by Bildung, as well as the ethical system of Bildung, the sole sense of morality is questioned, and his issues are extended over the methodological basis of Bildung considered as normative. However, he does not use such a method of interpretation that, to a certain extent, would not have been known and used by the philology of the Bildung＇s scientific ideal. With the difference that the Nietzschean critical practice does not have respect for the borders defining homologous structures but, by implementing transgressive tactics, it claims the authority of these borders. In my article, I show how the Nietzschean propositions for the methodological reform of classical philology did set the stage for Nietzsche＇s later critical comments, now purely on the philosophy of science, and I analyse the multifold consequences of the concept of the Nietzschean philology as an ＂existential science,＂ which was aimed to de（con）struct the concept of Bildung.展开更多
In traditional philosophy, man is usually treated as a subject of knowledge, not as a subject of activity. This naturally led to an ignorance of his creative side and had its echoes in the models of the world put forw...In traditional philosophy, man is usually treated as a subject of knowledge, not as a subject of activity. This naturally led to an ignorance of his creative side and had its echoes in the models of the world put forward. Thus, when the world was mentioned the world meant was that perceived by man and the world man created or planned to create himself was given either a secondary treatment or else it was completely forgotten. But, as man is carrier of active spirit, the things he creates have their place in this world along those created by God. It is without doubt that things created by man are not produced against God＇s will. Still, human creativity is the corruption of the original creation, of the harmony of the world, of the book of nature. Man brings order, so to speak, to the world. He achieves this however at the cost of corrupting the Great Order within some narrow limits. Man himself is among the many highly interesting books written before and there exist as many variations of this book as there are human beings. What is the most difficult for man is though, to read his own book, to understand himself. In this article, the concept of the culture as a human creation is analyzed in the light of Man-World and Man-Nature-God relations. In this case, the author firstly explains the four different world models and then determines the boundaries of science and culture, as well as the individual and social strata of culture.展开更多
文摘Bildung, a western cultural ideal, which fundamentally can be traced back to biblical connotations, but is also rich in Platonic elements from the history of hermeneutics, reached its culmination point by the 19th century. As the vast superstructure of western erudition, it has acquired the rank of the sole discursive and epistemic normativity, which has defined not only its own system, i.e., education in its narrow sense, but also the criteria of scientific assertions. Since the basis of Bildung was formed by the variations of classical erudition changing by every era, so in the Age of Bildung the defining epistemological and methodological pattern, which determined it from a discursive, and at the same time, an epistemological point of view, was meant by classical philology. As a classical philologist Friedrich Nietzsche was among the first to point out the inseparable connection between rhetoric, interpretation, and epistemology. Nietzsche, as against the monolithic tradition of Bildung, developed a set of aspects of subversive criticism of science, so his surpassing of the nineteenth century academic philology and renewal of it as a kind of cultural hermeneutics walk hand in hand. Nietzschean philology, first and foremost, has to be adapted for revaluing its scientific statements from the aspect of art, i.e., aesthetical sensitivity, which has to be reassessed from viewpoint of effects on life as active potential. The claims of Nietzsche are so comprehensive that the notion of morality defined by Bildung, as well as the ethical system of Bildung, the sole sense of morality is questioned, and his issues are extended over the methodological basis of Bildung considered as normative. However, he does not use such a method of interpretation that, to a certain extent, would not have been known and used by the philology of the Bildung＇s scientific ideal. With the difference that the Nietzschean critical practice does not have respect for the borders defining homologous structures but, by implementing transgressive tactics, it claims the authority of these borders. In my article, I show how the Nietzschean propositions for the methodological reform of classical philology did set the stage for Nietzsche＇s later critical comments, now purely on the philosophy of science, and I analyse the multifold consequences of the concept of the Nietzschean philology as an ＂existential science,＂ which was aimed to de（con）struct the concept of Bildung.
文摘In traditional philosophy, man is usually treated as a subject of knowledge, not as a subject of activity. This naturally led to an ignorance of his creative side and had its echoes in the models of the world put forward. Thus, when the world was mentioned the world meant was that perceived by man and the world man created or planned to create himself was given either a secondary treatment or else it was completely forgotten. But, as man is carrier of active spirit, the things he creates have their place in this world along those created by God. It is without doubt that things created by man are not produced against God＇s will. Still, human creativity is the corruption of the original creation, of the harmony of the world, of the book of nature. Man brings order, so to speak, to the world. He achieves this however at the cost of corrupting the Great Order within some narrow limits. Man himself is among the many highly interesting books written before and there exist as many variations of this book as there are human beings. What is the most difficult for man is though, to read his own book, to understand himself. In this article, the concept of the culture as a human creation is analyzed in the light of Man-World and Man-Nature-God relations. In this case, the author firstly explains the four different world models and then determines the boundaries of science and culture, as well as the individual and social strata of culture.
