菲利浦羅斯與大衛福斯特華萊士中的德勒茲式內在性創造

Deleuzian Immanent Creation in Philip Roth and David Foster Wallace

李書雨(Shu-Yu Lee)

指導教授 ： 廖咸浩

國立臺灣大學/文學院/外國語文學研究所/博士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700819

摘要

創造向來被認為是來自超越這個世界的另一境界。在超越性思想中，本體創生來自於非物質領域；美學創作是超越主體作用在被動的物質上，倫理則是應用現有的規範和原則。菲利浦羅斯與大衛福斯特華萊士的小說質疑超越性本體論並表達內在性創造思想。在他們的許多作品中，創造是一個源於物質的體現(embodiment)過程，並具有無法預測的實驗性質。本論文從德勒茲內在性創造理論的角度閱讀羅斯與華萊士小說中關於創造的描寫，認為主體更新是由不可感知的自生性物質所驅動，藝術創作非等於再現而是促使世界改變，倫理則在於實現自己和他者的主體再生。
本論文第一章概述德勒茲哲學中的內在性創造，並討論主體作為一個不斷流變的過程。第二章探討羅斯和華萊士小說中的體現和主體性，以及羅斯和華萊士如何挑戰現代人文主義和後現代科技的去身體化，重新將主體思考為不同物質的連接與斷裂。第三章聚焦內在性美學，討論羅斯小說中的非再現式故事編造如何引發作家本身和世界的本體更新，以及華萊士的敘述風格如何激發讀者的主體再生。結論部分探討內在性本體論、藝術，與倫理學的對等性，並說明羅斯和華萊士的想像力倫理如何使生命成為藝術作品。

關鍵字

菲利浦羅斯 ； 大衛福斯特華萊士 ； 德勒茲 ； 創造 ； 內在性

並列摘要

Since antiquity in the Western world, creation has been considered to originate in a transcendent realm out of this world. In transcendent thought, ontological creation has its foundation in an idealist sphere, aesthetic creation is the work of a transcendent, autonomous subject on passive matter, and ethics is the application of preexisting rules and tenets. All these assumptions have seen vigorous rebuttal in the novels of Philip Roth and David foster Wallace. In many of their works, creation is an embodied process originating in matter and takes an experimental course with neither preconceived telos nor predictable results. Employing Gilles Deleuze’s philosophy of immanence, which conceptualizes matter as alive and inventive in itself, this dissertation argues that in Philip Roth’s and David foster Wallace’s novels, the renewal of subjectivity is driven immanently by imperceptible, self-creative matter, artistic creation consists not in representation but in bringing change into the world, and ethics lies in enabling subjective regenesis in oneself and others.
After the introduction, which discusses the origin of the project and the concepts fundamental to the methodology of the dissertation, the first chapter presents an overview of immanent creation in Deleuzian philosophy and investigates the ontogenesis of the subject as an ongoing process of the vitalist matter. Chapter Two explores embodiment and subjectivity in Roth’s and Wallace’s novels to show how Roth and Wallace challenge modern humanist and postmodern technological disembodiment respectively and how they conceptualize the renewal of subjectivity as the connecting and disconnecting of diverse material forces. Chapter Three turns to the aesthetics of immanence to demonstrate how, in Roth, non-representational story-making induces the ontological renewal of the artist and of the world and how Wallace’s narrative style exercises the ability of art to effect the regeneration of subjectivity in the reader. The conclusion examines the adequation of ontology, art, and ethics in immanence and shows how Roth’s and Wallace’s ethics of imagination is an immanent ethics that makes life a work of art.

並列關鍵字

Philip Roth ； David Foster Wallace ； Gilles Deleuze ； creation ； immanence

參考文獻

---. Foucault Live: Collected Interviews, 1961-1984. Ed. Sylvère Lotringer. Trans. Lysa Hochroth and John Johnston. New York: Semiotext(e), 1996. Print.

McLaren, Margaret A. Feminism, Foucault, and Embodied Subjectivity. Albany: State U of New York P, 2002. Print. McLaughlin, Robert L. “Post-postmodernism.” The Routledge Companion to Experimental Literature. Ed. Joe Bray, Alison Gibbons and Brian McHale. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012. 212-223. Print.

Webster, Richard. “Freud, Charcot and hysteria: lost in the labyrinth.” richardwebster. net. Richard Webster. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

Tresco, Matt. “Impervious to U.S. Parsing: Encyclopedism, Autism, and Infinite Jest.” Consider David Foster Wallace: Critical Essays. Ed. David Hering. Los Angeles: Sideshow, 2010. 113-22. Print. Vanhanen, Janne. Encounters with the Virtual: The Experience of Art in Gilles Deleuze’s Philosophy. Diss. University of Helsinki, 2010. Helsinki: Helsinki U Printing House, 2010. HELDA. Web. 30 May 2016. Vetlesen, Arne Johan. A Philosophy of Pain. Tran. John Irons. London: Reaktion, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

Dronsfield, Jonathan. “Between Deleuze and Heidegger There Never Is Any Difference.” French Interpretations of Heidegger. Ed. David Pettigrew and François Raffoul. Albany: State U of New York P, 2008. 151-65. Print.