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。

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • 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.”
  • 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.