文學院

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/handle/20.500.12235/2

院成立於民國44年，歷經50餘年的銳意發展，目前設有國文、英文、歷史、地理、臺文等5個學系、翻譯和臺灣史2個獨立所，以及全球華人寫作中心和國際臺灣學研究中心。除臺史所僅設碩士班，其餘6個系所均設有碩、博士班；目前專兼任教師近250人，學生約2500餘人。

本院早期以培養優秀中學國文、英文、歷史和地理教師為鵠的，臺灣中學語文和史地教育的實踐與成功，本院提供不可磨滅的貢獻。近年來，本院隨師範體系轉型而調整發展方向，除維持中學師資培育的優勢外，也積極朝理論研究和實務操作等面向前進。目前，本院各系所師培生的教師檢定通過率平均在95%以上；非師培生在文化、傳播、文學、應用史學及環境災害、地理資訊系統等領域發展，也已卓然有成。

本院各系所教師的研究能量極為豐富，參與國內外學術活動相當活躍。根據論文數量、引用次數等指標所作的學術力評比，本院居人文領域全國第2名。各系所之間，無論是教師的教學與研究，或學生的生活與學習，都能相輔相成、榮辱與共，彼此渾然一體，足堪「為師、為範」而無愧。

News

系所網址：http://www.cla.ntnu.edu.tw/main.php

Browse

Filters

2006 - 20072

Settings

Has files: NoSubject: search.filters.subject.Levinas

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    要不要臉
    (國立臺灣大學出版中心, 2007-12-01) 梁孫傑
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    狗臉的歲／水月
    (國立臺灣大學出版中心, 2006-01-01) 梁孫傑
    法國哲學家列維納斯以人本關懷著稱於世，強調我們對他者無條件的歡迎接納，在二十世紀的倫理學研究上產生舉足輕重的深遠影響。本論文擬就列維納斯的倫理主張為理論依循指標，探索動物是否有可能成為列維納斯倫理思維中所悅納的異己。列氏將其倫理哲學設定在人與人的關係上，在先天上就已將動物排拒在待客之道之外，但他在〈一條狗的名字，或是自然權利〉裡，卻聲稱一條他在集中營裡有邂逅的狗是「納粹德國最後一位康德的追隨者」，又和他的倫理觀有所杆格齟齬。本論文從列氏的主要倫理概念著手，簡介待客之道、他者、面貌、語言對人類和對動物有不同程度的適用性，致使他的倫理思想在動物問題上會產生嚴重的雙重標準，而列氏的解決之道是藉用文學象徵手法，在這些人類和動物互動的事件裡，營造出動物所象徵的文化意涵，然而意義一旦得以彰顯，動物被賦與的象徵功能立刻自動消散，人還是人、狗還是狗，各自歸回其位。動物和人類之間不可逾越的鴻溝其實是列氏對納粹親身經驗和嚴肅思者的結果。假如人類是動物的話，那納粹的暴行都可解釋成生物演化過程中自然的一環。但基於這樣的邏輯卻讓列維納斯的倫理觀不得不架構在物種位階體系的必然性上，也因此對列維納斯而言，動物稱不上是我們的客人。
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    On Violence, Justice and Deconstruction
    (英語學系, 2003-01-??) Chung-hsiung Lai
    In this paper, I will first explore the chiasmus relation between violence and metaphysics in the thought of Levinas1 and Derrida. Then, I will move to examine “the aporia2 of justice” in Derrida’s reinterpretation of Benjamin’s critique of violence with respect to law-making and law-preserving. Finally, by problematizing the aporia of deconstruction, I will attempt to provide a critique of Derrida’s “Plato’s Pharmacy” in order to place Derrida’s ethical account of deconstruction under erasure. My core contention is: if de- construction is, as Derrida claims, ethical and just, it must be unethical and unjust in the first place in what he calls an “economy of violence.” Violence per se lies at the heart of both deconstructive justice and injustice. Yet, to achieve the former, the latter paradoxi- cally must be accomplished first—a betrayal which functions as the condition of possibility and thus of impossibility of deconstructive justice—thereby making the very moment of deconstructive decision an anxious and painful experience of aporia, or in Kierkegaard’s phrase, “a moment of madness.”
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Derrida and the Problem of Ethics
    (英語學系, 2003-01-??) Shyh-jen Fuh
    An increasing number of literary critics and theorists have come to investigate Derri- da’s contribution to ethics in recent years. This trend both challenges an earlier tendency to attack Derrida for being ethically irrelevant and complicates the discussion of the relationship between deconstruction and ethics. In response to the on-going debates over the ethical significance of Derrida’s works, this paper attempts to trace the relationship between Levinas and Derrida with regard to the thinking or problematizing of ethics: while Levinas foregrounds ethics as “first philosophy,” seeing the ethical relation as a fundamental openness to the other that precedes subjective being, Derrida—seeing de- constructive “reading” as an opening out of the text (of “writing”)—is aware of the danger (and perhaps impossibility) of clearly “naming” that which is “ethics” (or “ethic- al”), as well as the need to be open to its “possibilities.” My contention then is that, if Levinas’s ethics involves moving beyond the totality of being to the infinity of otherness, deconstruction is simultaneously ethical and non-ethical, exceeding incessantly the boundary of the ethical.