从休闲到休闲哲学

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2022.06.171

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1270 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The research works and approaches of leisure philosophy in countries such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom have greatly influenced the Chinese research on leisure philosophy, which views the leisure philosophy as a reflection on leisure from a philosophical perspective. However, this approach has largely limited the development of leisure philosophy in China. Among the four main streams of thought exploring leisure in France, Germany and Italy, leisure has been considered as the main driving force for reflecting on traditional Western philosophy and breaking through the inherent dilemmas of contemporary Western philosophy, such as breaking through the technical and distributional governance of the systematic bio-politics, breaking through intellectual, political and affective biases against laborers, and breaking through the temporality of traditional daily life. This can fundamentally stimulate the potential of Chinese leisure philosophy research.Based on different orientations of leisure philosophy, this article provides a basic framework for defining different types of leisure philosophy and their basic research methods and contents by determining the intersection between the perspective adopted when understanding the relationship between leisure and philosophy and the dimension of inquiry into leisure, in order to provide a common ground for a dialogue for different types of philosophies of leisure. At the same time, this dialogue also relies on a rigorous etymological interpretation of the concept of “leisure”. Based on Heidegger’s “thought-language” integrated etymological method, this article conducts a holistic and historical examination on the meaning and evolution of “leisure” in the Indo-European languages, thus showing that both the Anglo-Saxon ?metta meaning of “spare time” and the meaning of “spare time” introduced by Boyer fundamentally define the basic meaning of modern English leisure as “spare time”. At this point, there are fundamental differences between leisure in modern english and σχολ? in ancient Greek, licet and its infinitive licēre in Latin, and loisir/loysir/leisir in old French: the basic meaning of the former is “spare time”, and the basic meaning of the latter is “be permitted”. That is to say, due to the errors of French lexicographer, leisure as “be permitted” in ancient Greek, Latin, and old French was replaced by leisure as “spare time” in modern English, leading to a disjunction in meaning and concept between modern leisure and ancient leisure. In ancient philosophy, leisure does not belong to the organic components of daily life, but rather referred to the interruption of daily life. More precisely, it was a sacred space that “permitted” the participants to obtain superior experience and divine tranquility. In this sense, leisure is “outside” work, labor and intervals. Currently, the way of bridging the gap lies in restoring its meaning of “be permitted” and its complete etymological genealogy, thus eliminating the exclusive right to interpret leisure in the sense of free time, recreation, idleness or laziness.In addition to the etymological interpretation, this article examines Heidegger’s understanding of the concept of leisure: in his early thoughts, leisure was understood as lingering in pure contemplation; in his later thoughts, leisure was understood as the permission of “lassen” and “Gelassenheit”, that is, “zulassen-lassen” and “zulassen-Gelassenheit”. In this sense, only when leisure is understood as “being permitted”, that is, not only having its etymological necessity but also its philosophical basis, can all beings be themselves. From a practical point of view, leisure as “being permitted” will break away from the temporal dependence on spare time, thus completing a breakthrough in the technological worldview with “acceleration” as its main symptom.Furthermore, this article presents a framework for defining different types of leisure philosophy, which is not limited to an interpretation of the concept of “leisure” in the Indo-European language family. Moreover, this framework can propose new types of leisure philosophy by pairing perspectives and dimensions, thus breaking through the limitations of Western disciplinary and academic discourse systems.

Key words： leisure leisure philosophy interpretation of etymology be permitted Gelassenheit

Received: 17 June 2022

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Liu Huimei
	Zhou Yu

Cite this article:

Liu Huimei,Zhou Yu. From Leisure to Leisure Philosophy: A Leisure Philosophy from the Perspective of Western Etymology of “Leisure”[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2023, 53(5): 94-106.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2022.06.171 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2023/V53/I5/94

1 马惠娣：《“休闲：终归是哲学问题”——记于光远休闲哲学思想》，《哲学分析》2014年第4期，第148-154页。
2 庞学铨：《休闲学：挑战、希望与出路》，《浙江学刊》2019年第1期，第80-90页。
3 吴文新：《休闲哲学是如何可能的》，《北京电子科技学院学报》2010年第3期，第86-91页。
4 Owens J.， “Aristotle on leisure，” Canadian Journal of Philosophy， Vol. 11， No. 4 （1981）， pp. 713-723.
5 Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate （ed.）， Leisure in Canada： The Proceedings of the Montmorency Conference on Leisure， Quebec： Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate， 1969.
6 Vattel E.， Le loisir philosophique ou pièces diverses de philosophie， de morale et d’amusement， Dresde： George Conrad Walther， 1747.
7 Dangel J.， Les loisirs et l’héritage de la culture classique： Actes du XIIIe Congrès de l’Association Guillaume Budé， in André J. M. & Demont P. （eds.）， Bruxelles： Latomus， 1996.
8 美］汉娜·阿伦特：《人的境况》，王寅丽译，上海：上海人民出版社，2017年。
9 Aho K.， “Recovering play： on the relationship between leisure and authenticity in Heidegger’s thought，” Janus Head， Vol. 10， No. 1 （2007）， pp. 217-238.
10 Rancière J.， The Philosopher and His Poor， trans. by Drury J.， Oster C. & Parker A.， Durham： Duke University Press， 2003.
11 法］米歇尔·福柯：《必须保卫社会》，钱翰译，上海：上海人民出版社，2010年。
12 意］吉奥乔·阿甘本：《例外状态》，薛熙平译，台北：麦田出版社，2010年。
13 美］托马斯·拉姆克：《生命政治及其他：论福柯的一个重要理论之流布》，见汪民安编：《生命政治：福柯、阿甘本与埃斯波西托》，桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2011年，第56-66页。
14 Stiegler B.， Mécréance et Discrédit I， Paris： éditions Galilée， 2004.
15 郑明、陆庆祥：《人的自然化：休闲哲学论纲》，《兰州学刊》2014年第5期，第26-30页。
16 于光远、马惠娣：《于光远马惠娣十年对话》，重庆：重庆大学出版社，2008年。
17 成素梅：《休闲哲学视域中的文明与人性》，《洛阳师范学院学报》2010年第3期，第1-5页。
18 王景全：《休闲哲学刍议》，《中州学刊》2019年第11期，第102-107页。
19 Rolandsen U.， Leisure and Power in Urban China： Everyday Life in a Chinese City， New York： Routledge， 2011.
20 张永红：《休闲的词源涵义考》，《湖南工业大学学报（社会科学版）》2010年第4期，第130-133页。
21 德］马丁·海德格尔：《林中路》，孙周兴译，上海：上海译文出版社，2004年。
22 Dieu é.， “Grec σχαλ?ω， σχ?λλω， σχολ?，” Glotta， Vol. 91， No. 1 （2015）， pp. 46-61.
23 法］皮埃尔·阿多：《古代哲学的智慧》，张宪译，上海：上海译文出版社，2012年。
24 Harada H.， “Estudar， Filosofia？” Revista Filosófica S?o BoaVentura， Vol. 1， No. 1 （2008）， pp. 3-11.
25 Vickers B.， “Leisure and idleness in the Renaissance： the ambivalence of otium，” Renaissance Studies， Vol. 4， No. 1 （1990）， pp. 1-37.
26 Paquot T.， “Loisir et loisirs， Hermès，” La Revue， Vol. 2， No. 71 （2015）， pp. 182-188.
27 Marchant J.， Cassell’s Latin dictionary， London： Nabu Press， 1977.
28 Klinkert T.， Mu?e und Erza?hlen： ein poetologischer Zusammenhang， Tu?bingen： Mohr Siebeck， 2016.
29 Enninger W.， Bedeutungsgeschichte von Licēre-Leisir/Loisir-Leisure， Bonn： Bonn， 1968.
30 Bertrand O. & Menegaldo S.， Vocabulaire d’ancien fran?ais， Paris： Armand Colin， 2021.
31 Cicero T.， The Speech of Cicero： For Aulus Cluentius Habitus， London： Charles Griffin Company， 1863.
32 Caesar J.， Caesar’s Gallic War， New York： American Book Company， 1891.
33 Buridant C.， “La substantivation de l’infinitif en ancien fran?ais，” Langue fran?aise， No. 147 （2005）， pp. 98-120.
34 Zawieja P.， Dictionnaire de la Fatigue， Paris： Librairie Droz， 2016.
35 Brunne R.， Handlyng Synne， London： 25 Parliament Street， 1862.
36 Brunne R.， The Chronicle， Binghamton： SUNY Press， 1996.
37 Chaucer G.， The Romaunt of the Rose， London： 43 Gerrard Street， 1890.
38 Chaucer G.， A Six-text Print of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales， in Furnivall F. J. （ed.）， London： Oxford University Press， 1890.
39 Hall J.， A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary， New York： The Macmillan Company， 1916.
40 Watkins C.， The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots， Boston： Houghtou Mifflin Company， 1985.
41 Genna? A.， L’Idéal de repos dans la littérature fran?aise du XVIe siècle， Paris：éditions Classiques Garnier， 2012.
42 Nicot J.， Thresor de la langue Francoyse， tant ancienne que moderne， Paris： David Dovceve， 1606.
43 Ménage G.， Dictionnaire étymologique ou Origines de la langue fran?oisep， Paris： Jean Anisson， 1694.
44 Boyer A.， Dictionnaire Royal Fran?ois-Anglois et Anglois-Fran?ois， Rotterdam： Jean Daniel Beman， 1727.
45 Littré é.， Pathologies verbales： Lésions de certains mots dans le cours de l’usage， Paris： édition du Boucher， 2003.
46 薛建成编：《拉鲁斯法汉双解词典》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2001年。
47 Heidegger M.， Supplements： From the Earliest Essays to Being and Time and Beyond， in Buren J. （ed.）， New York： State University of New York Press， 2002.
48 德］马丁·海德格尔：《柏拉图的〈智者〉》，熊林译，北京：商务印书馆，2015年。
49 谢青龙：《论存在的时间性与空间性：海德格尔前后期哲学比较》，《揭谛》2017年第33期，第119-154页。
50 Niederhauser J.， Heidegger on Death and Being： An Answer to the Seinsfrage， Berlin： Springer， 2021.
51 德］韩炳哲：《时间的味道》，包向飞、徐基太译，重庆：重庆大学出版社，2017年。
52 德］马丁·海德格尔：《演讲与论文集》，孙周兴译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2018年。
53 王庆节：《解释学、海德格尔与儒道今释》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2009。
54 Heidegger M.， Anmerkungen I-V， Frankfurt： Vittorio Klostermann， 2015.
55 Heidegger M.， Aus der Erfahrung des Denkens （1910-1976）， Frankfurt： Vittorio Klostermann， 1983.
56 Cattin E.， “Leaving philosophy？ Heidegger， bauen， lassen，” in Martinengo A. （ed.）， Beyond Deconstruction， Berlin： de Gruyter， 2012， pp. 13-26.
57 Keiling T.， “Was ist Mu?e？” 2017-08-20， https：//wyme.de/was-ist-muse， 2023-02-23.
58 Keiling T.， “Letting things be for themselves： gelassenheit as enabling thinking，” in Wendland A.， Hadjioannou C. & Merwin C. （eds.）， Heidegger on Technology， London： Routledge， 2018， pp. 96-114.