道德形而上视角对于文学的意义

王晓华认为 ,张光芒与张宝明在论战中对中国新文化与新文学进行系统反思时 ,触及了我们在建构中国文化时无法绕过的基本问题 ,即当下人文世界是否需要通过与超越性的不断对话而获得意义 ;由于对超越性的拒斥与中国当下文化及文学的欠缺有因果关系 ,因而包括张光芒在内的人文知识分子由“道德形而上主义”这一命名所显现的建构方向是完全合理的。姚新勇则认为张光芒的理论阐释从立论之始就走上了逻辑混乱的不归之路 ,包括对“启蒙”概念的含混移位、对不同范畴理论资源的严重混用等 ,甚至可以说 ,张光芒所“抽象”称赞的“反启蒙文学”不仅不纯粹 ,而且恰恰是“暴力实用主义”。罗宗宇指出 ,张宝明的质疑文章激情有余但理性不足 ,而陈晓明从后现代立场出发的质疑则放弃了人文关怀 ,只有张光芒从现代人文立场出发的既不乏历史理性又不乏人文关怀的批评 ,为文学的自我救赎提供了可能。刘士林则从如何拯救学术本身的角度入手 ,指出论争各方都存在着缺乏规则和语境的“乱说”问题 ,他们必须首先能够证明这种不同观念、经验之间的混战在逻辑上的合法性 ,然后才能保证以下的言说与结论本身的可靠性。

Contending about Moral Metaphysics and Pragmatism in Chinese New Literature in Recent One Hundred Years

Wang Xiao-hua says the debates between Zhang Guang-mang and Zhang Bao-ming come into contact with a basic question in constructing Chinese culture and literature, that is, whether contemporary humanities field need transcendence. The direction from"Moral Metaphysics" is rational. According to Yao Xin-yong, the logic of Zhang Guang-mang's theory is disordered, including the usage of the concept "enlightenment", etc. Luo Zong-yu points out that Zhang Bao-ming and Chen Xiao-ming abandon humanist stand, while Zhang Guang-mang's theory provides probability of saving literature. In Liu Shi-lin's opinion, the debaters all have a question of "disordered saying". Only when they testify the logical legitimation of these ideas, can they ensure the reliability of their explanation and conclusion.