怪誕「美」學:以物件導向本體論析論洛夫克拉夫特小說中的美學

Abstract

本論文旨在從物件導向本體論的角度，探討洛夫克拉夫特作品中的美學。哈曼的理論著重於探討存在每個物之中的四個象限，並提出不僅僅存在於兩個個體間，每個物的內部也存在一個根本的斷裂。而隱喻則是唯一可以間接靠近物本體的管道。然而，哈曼的論述無法充分解釋洛夫克拉夫特的本體論，因為在本體層次並不存在一個根本的斷裂。洛夫克拉夫特作品中的物確實和其他物產生接觸。相較於哈曼的框架，夏維羅的思辨美學更重視本體層次的動力學，他認為每個物的本身會不斷地消滅，因為物的內部會持續地變動，但在本體層面，兩個個體間的互動仍會產生。夏維爾主張有一種美學能量平等地存在每個物之中，但是洛夫克拉夫特作品中物的詭異特質，展現的是超越人類理解範疇，屬於物的本體論。詭異的外型和相互牴觸的特質會在同一個物上顯現，它們怪異的存在形式撼動人類對外在環境的認知。此外，洛夫克拉夫特的本體論暗示的是一股普遍存在每個物之中但有特殊先決條件的美學能力。透過特定的中介方式，它們顯示造成因果關係的先決條件並沒有固定規則的。洛夫克拉夫特的宇宙觀不只揭示夏維爾論述中，在本體層面，每個物皆持有的美學能量，也補足夏維爾的美學式因果關係論述之不足。洛夫克拉夫特的本體論與夏維爾的思辨美學兩者間理論的類似性與差異性，透過洛夫克拉夫特作品中的物明確地顯露出來，其物所透露的互動前的詭異先決條件，亦增進了洛夫克拉夫特本體論的詭譎性。

This thesis aims to explore the aesthetics in H. P. Lovecraft’s works from the perspective of object-oriented ontology. Harman’s quadruple object emphasizes the four extremes within each object. He argues that there is a fundamental fracture not only between two entities but within each object as well. Metaphor is the only way to indirectly access the reality of the object. However, Harman’s philosophy cannot completely explain Lovecraft’s ontology because there is not a fundamental fracture at the ontological level. In the stories, Lovecraftian things still make contact with other objects. Contra Harman, Shaviro’s speculative aesthetics pays more attention to the dynamics of objects at the ontological level. He suggests that objects will perpetually perish because they are constantly changing. At the ontological level, contact between two entities still occurs. Shaviro proposes that there is a democratic aesthetic force that fairly exists in each object. Yet, the weird characteristics of Lovecraftian things show the ontology of objects, which is beyond human knowledge. They are weird in shape, and paradoxical features will appear on a single entity. Their weird presence challenges the observer’s understanding of the world. Moreover, Lovecraftian things require a specific precondition before contact. Lovecraft’s ontology indicates that there is an aesthetic capacity for each object at the ontological level. Through a specific mediation, they show an irregular precondition of causality. Objects in Lovecraft’s universe not only demonstrate Shaviro’s suggestion of a democratic force within each object at the ontological level but also supplement Shaviro’s presupposition of aesthetic causality. Lovecraftian things reveal the affinity and difference between Lovecraft’s ontology and Shaviro’s speculative aesthetics. Their precondition before contact enhances the weirdness of Lovecraft’s ontology.