環境倫理學與環境美學的東西差異──與Holmes Rolston, III商榷

East-West Difference and Diversity of Environmental Ethics and Environmental Aesthetics－Response for Holmes Rolston III and Other Matters

所謂「荒野模式」，主張環境倫理學和環境美學皆要「荒野化」，本文就與荷姆斯‧羅斯頓III 提出的「哲學走向荒野」之基本觀點進行商榷。中國環境主義傳統走出的就是另一條「天人學」之路，而且，這條道路在東西差異之間更具有全球適用性。這是由於，傳統的「自然——文化」二分法已經過時，如今人類面臨的境遇是如何更好地融入業已人化的自然當中，而不是逃離到荒野之外。無論是關於「自然全美」的積極美學的爭論，還是關於「自然之醜」是否存在的爭論，皆關係到如何應對人與自然基本關係的難題。由此，就可以從中國儒家的「審美倫理學」或「倫理美學」的視角，來重新探尋環境倫理學與環境美學之新型關聯。

The socalled “The Paradigm of Wild”, means whether environmental ethicsor environmental aesthetics be gone wild, and I would discuss by HolmesRolston III about “philosophy gone wild”. Chinese traditional environmentalismextended another kind of anthropocosmic way, and it has a global applicabilityin the contexts of the east-west diversity. The dichotomy of “nature-culture” wasalready out of time, and human have to face to the new relation of thehumanized-nature today. The debates between “positive aesthetics” and “ugly innature” are related to the new human-nature relationship. From the perspectiveof Confucian aesthetic-ethics or ethic-aesthetics, we are shaping a passagewaybetween environmental ethics and environmental aesthetics in the end.