期刊刊名：修平人文社會學報 　 卷期：20期

篇名出版日期：2013年3月1日

作者：Yu-Chi Chiang,蔣裕褀

語言：English

關鍵字：nonsense, humor, Wittgenstein, Carroll, Deleuze,荒誕,幽默,維根斯坦,卡萊爾,德勒茲

被點閱次數：5次

閱讀時間：433sec

摘要：
It really surprises us to see that only a few researchers have undertaken a comparative study between Lewis Carroll and Wittgenstein, and among the scant researches George Pitcher's much celebrated article “Wittgenstein, Nonsense, and Lewis Carroll” in 1965 has remarkably demonstrated the extent and depth of theaffinity between these two great writers with respect to nonsense. It is interesting, asPitcher suggests, that “the very same confusions with which Wittgenstein chargesphilosophers were deliberately employed by Carroll for comic effect” （231）. He begins with three similar aims to try to illustrate the affinity between Wittgenstein'sphilosophical nonsense and Carroll's literary nonsense. However, three of Pitcher's arguments seem plausible to me and need further examination. First of all, his idea oflater Wittgenstein's opinion of nonsense negatively portrays Wittgenstein the philosopher as if he is fighting a bloody battle to “exorcize nonsense from philosophy” and “uses it like a vaccine that cures us of itself”（230）. Secondly, fromearly to later Wittgenstein, he never says that Carroll's literary nonsense in fantasyliterature has ever exerted a profound influence on his philosophical works, but I willexplore the similarities and differences between Wittgenstein and Carroll in Pitcher's essay to look for proof of such influence. Last, Carroll's comic humor is not given enough recognition especially when Pitcher's argument proceeds in the direction ofWittgenstein's train of thought with Carroll's textual support in order to disclose that“nonsense” is negative in Wittgenstein's philosophy. Thus, I plan to apply Deleuze's contrast between negative irony and affirmative humor in The Logic of Sense in general, and his Series 19 on Humor in particular to affirm Carroll's nonsense humor.The aim of this article attempts to reexamine Pitcher's alleged affinity between the philosopher Wittgenstein and the literary writer Carroll, and also his hasty argument and conclusion. The first half of this paper focuses on the transition from Wittgenstein's early thought of logic and his later thought of language game, andhow the philosophical nonsense can be approached with these two thoughts. In the second half, although Carroll's influence on the later Wittgenstein can be proved with indirect evidence, the discrepancy between Pitcher's hypothesis of later Wittgenstein's Carrollian turn and his portray of later Wittgenstein as a bloody warrior on a battlefield makes the later Wittgenstein's philosophical nonsense all the more ambiguous. Without taking Pitcher's hasty argument （later Wittgenstein's Carrollian turn） and conclusion（they might stand very close to each other, but they are worlds apart） into consideration, I can argue that the later Wittgenstein is still fighting philosophical nonsense on his bloody battlefield. Instead of drawing uponthe later Wittgenstein's philosophical nonsense, I turn to Deleuze's argument abouthumor in The Logic of Sense to reassess the affirmative power of Carroll's nonsense humor.

　　　　　[全文下載]