雙面的安提戈涅與祁克果的悲劇理論

Two Sided Antigone and Kierkegaard's Tragedy Theory

溫權(Quan WEN)

《非此即彼》 ； 安提戈涅 ； 悲哀 ； 痛苦 ； 恐懼 ； 焦慮 ； 自由 ； Either/Or ； Antigone ； Sorrow ； Pain ； Fear ； Anxiety ； Freedom

哲學與文化

48卷11期（2021 / 11 / 01）

113 - 125

繁體中文

針對索福克勒斯筆下的悲劇人物安提戈涅，祁克果在《非此即彼》一書的「古典悲劇元素在現代悲劇內容中的反映」篇中，就其所蘊含的藝術特質進行了深刻反思。與此同時，作者在充分把握古希臘悲劇理論之餘，又重塑了安提戈涅的形象，並使她具有現代悲劇的審美內涵。進而，通過比對同一藝術對象的經典與現代兩種表現範式，祁克果提煉出古典與現代悲劇理論差異的核心所在。即二者在情節的處理上，分別以悲哀與痛苦為側重點。值得一提的是，在痛苦當中往往隱含著個體對自身的反思，以及隨之而來的恐懼與焦慮心理。這在祁克果看來，正是現代美學領域中，使自由得以確立的關鍵所在。因此，其悲劇理論毋寧是對自由涵義的一種美學式解讀。

Aiming at the tragic character of Antigone in Sophocles' works, Kierkegaard reflected the artistic characteristics of classical tragic elements in the content of modern tragedy in Either/Or. In addition, the author not only fully grasps the ancient Greek tragedy theory, but also reshapes the image of Antigone, and makes her have the aesthetic connotation of modern tragedy. By comparing the classical and modern performance paradigms of the same artistic object, Kierkegaard abstracts the difference between the classical and modern tragedy theories. That is to say, both of them focus on sadness and pain respectively. It is worth mentioning that, in the pain, there is often an individual's reflection on himself, followed by fear and anxiety. In Kierkegaard's view, this is the key to the establishment of freedom in the field of modern aesthetics. Therefore, his tragedy theory is rather an aesthetic interpretation of the meaning of freedom.

1. Dunning, Stephen(1985).Kierkegaard’s Dialectic of Inwardness.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
2. Goldhill, Simon,Hall, Edith(2009).Sophocles and the Greek Tragic Tradition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3. Kierkegaard, Sǿren,Thomte, Reidar(Trans. ed.)(1980).The Concept of Anxiety.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
4. Ormand, Kirk(2012).A Companion to Sophocles.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.
5. Pattison, George(1992).Kierkegaard: The Aesthetic and the Religious.London:Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd.
6. Perkins, Robert(1995).International Kierkegaard Commentary.Macon GA:Mercer University Press.
7. Stewart, Jon(2003).Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered.New York:Cambridge University Press.
8. Sylvia, Walsh(1991).Kierkegaard and Postmodernism.International Journal for Philosophy of Religion,29
9. Williams, Raymond(1966).Modern Tragedy.Stanford CA:Stanford University Press.
10. 大衛斯,陳明珠（譯）(2012).哲學之詩——亞裡斯多德〈詩學〉解詁.北京:華夏出版社.
11. 祁克果,京不特（譯）(2009).非此即彼.北京:中國社會科學出版社.
12. 劉小楓(1997).個體信仰與文化理論.成都:四川人民出版社.