“纯粹意向性对象”还是“纯粹知觉对象”？——论茵加登与杜夫海纳之争

茵加登在考察文学作品的存在方式时,明确提出文学作品是一个"纯粹意向性对象",杜夫海纳则把审美对象看作是一个"纯粹知觉对象"。在现象学的框架内,虽然两者都是意象性对象,但是,在对各自意向性对象含义的理解和阐释上则存在着明显的差异。茵加登把意向对象看作是意向活动的指向者和构成者,而杜夫海纳仅仅把意向对象看作是意向活动的指向者,而否定其构成。造成这种差异的根本原因在于,茵加登更深地受到胡塞尔纯粹理性意识的影响,把意识活动看作是智性活动,因而其所说的纯粹意向性对象就被杜夫海纳看作是智力对象;而杜夫海纳则更深地受到梅洛-庞蒂的影响,把胡塞尔的纯粹意识修正为纯粹知觉意识,因而其所说的纯粹知觉对象就是一个感性对象。杜夫海纳就是立足于此展开对茵加登的批评的。概而言之,现实性与非现实性、自律与他律成为"纯粹知觉对象"与"纯粹意向性对象"的最显著区别。

"Pure Intent Object" or "Pure Aesthesia Object": on the Conflict between Ingarden and Dufrenne

Ingarden brings forward that literature works is a "pure intent object" when he reviews the existing manner of literature works,while Dufrenne regards the taste object as a "pure aesthesia object".Though both of them are imago objects in phenomenology,they show obvious differences in the comprehension and explanation of intent meaning separately.Ingarden considers the intent as the ultimate and the constructor,while Dufrenne views the intent as the ultimate only but not the constructor.The fundamental cause of the differences is that Ingarden is deeply influenced by Husserl who views the conscious activities as the intelligent ones,so the "pure intent object" is equal to intelligent object in Husserl's eyes;while Dufrenne is greatly affected by Merleau-Ponty who amends Husserl's pure consciousness and conseders it as pure aesthesia,so the so-called "pure aesthesia object"is a sensible object,Dufrenne commences criticizing against Ingarden and on the basis of that.In a word,being realistic or non-realistic,being self-displined or being heteronomous are the prominent differences of "pure intent object" and "pure aesthesia object".