close
Reflection on Pheng Cheah’s Paper “What Is a World? On World Literature as World-Making Activity”
In this paper, Pheng Cheah portrays world literature may regard as world-making activity and he cites many ideas from three philosophers, Kant, Goethe, and Marx, and he also mentions the postcolonial literature. But in this response, I would like to refer the two thinker’s ideas on world-making activity and world literature. In Cheah’s view, cosmopolitanism is mainly about imaging people as part of world which may transcend the limited ties of kinship and country to the human beings. After he claim that “World literature is an important aspect of cosmopolitanism because it is a type of world-making activity that enables us to imagine a world”, he cites three thinkers’ ideas on these. (Cheah 26) In Kant’s view, “The way of thinking may regards and conduct as a mere citizen of the world” (Cheah 27) Kant also mentions literature creates the world and cosmopolitan bonds and enhances the humanity. In Goethe’s interpretation, world literature may regard as a negotiation in order to arrive at the universal. Cheah also refers Goethe’s ideas on world literature full of eurocentrism and hierarchical because in Goethe’s view, only Greek literature has the archetypal beauty of humanity. In my won view, I don’t know why Goethe does this, ignores other literature even minority literature. Also I think his idea is not absolutely right about the vision of world literature. How world literature’s view only exists the Greek literature? Does he mean the anthology of world literature only needs to embody Greek literature? It sounds ridiculous to me.
In this paper, Pheng Cheah portrays world literature may regard as world-making activity and he cites many ideas from three philosophers, Kant, Goethe, and Marx, and he also mentions the postcolonial literature. But in this response, I would like to refer the two thinker’s ideas on world-making activity and world literature. In Cheah’s view, cosmopolitanism is mainly about imaging people as part of world which may transcend the limited ties of kinship and country to the human beings. After he claim that “World literature is an important aspect of cosmopolitanism because it is a type of world-making activity that enables us to imagine a world”, he cites three thinkers’ ideas on these. (Cheah 26) In Kant’s view, “The way of thinking may regards and conduct as a mere citizen of the world” (Cheah 27) Kant also mentions literature creates the world and cosmopolitan bonds and enhances the humanity. In Goethe’s interpretation, world literature may regard as a negotiation in order to arrive at the universal. Cheah also refers Goethe’s ideas on world literature full of eurocentrism and hierarchical because in Goethe’s view, only Greek literature has the archetypal beauty of humanity. In my won view, I don’t know why Goethe does this, ignores other literature even minority literature. Also I think his idea is not absolutely right about the vision of world literature. How world literature’s view only exists the Greek literature? Does he mean the anthology of world literature only needs to embody Greek literature? It sounds ridiculous to me.
全站熱搜
留言列表
{{ article.title }}