Reflections On Some Theoretical Issues In Comparative Literature

Although it has already been a dependent discipline in its history, and also had got great achievement which was respected by other discipline, Comparative Literature still contains lots of theory problem in itself. The internal illogicality and congenital deficiency are the root causes that make comparative literature lose the disciplinary consciousness in its growth. Those critical issues today reduced a series problem. Especially in a globalized age, with the developing of era, the theoretical turn, the pan-cultural trends, great emergence of cultural studies and the flooding of deconstructive torrent within the past30years, the concept of theory has been changed greatly and all such things lead the discipline into "crisis" and "death", even make the terms of Comparative Literature that originally was not so clear more confused than before. So in order to make Comparative Literature can have a deep development, we should face those old thoery again and try to figue out the key of the problem. Based on those background, the present text intended to do discovery, investigation Selection, reflections on these questions and try to resort out:what is the foundational question among so much theory problem when Comparative Literature is existing as a dependent discipline; what is the other expression of these rooted question; what is the systematically relationship between those question. In order to fulfill such task and target, the way of our investigation is as following: First of all, we will accord the philosophic thinking to find the foundational questions; second, we will analysis them and make clear what they want to ask; and then, find out the logic relationship between them. Because those questions is the danamic of this discipline in the past, also is the bottleneck of it today, so to rethink these issue, to grasp the real point by rereading the classic theory books of Comparative Literature and referring current new research, constructed some key concepts, and then established a frame of questions, it is not a little thing for further developing in the future of our discipline.The present text chooses ten basis theory questions to analysis. They are:What on earth is the spiritual basis of comparative literature as a discipline; What is the ontology of comparative literature can be thought; Weather the "comparison" can define a reign of discipline or not; the mistaken of the dgugement "comparison is not reason"; what is the essence of "Literariness" of Comparative Literature; what is the essence of "Comparability" of Comparative Literature; The character of method of this research is aesthetic or scientic; The basic method of comparative can be from the different point or not; what is the meaning of Comparative Literature for Literature; How we to dguge the crisis of Comparative Literature. These ten questions we used one chapter to discuss one problem, so we have ten chapters in this paper. The order of the chapter was arranged according to the inside logical relationship. First, we will Reinterpret the meaning of Comparative literature as a discipline by referring to old theory books; Second, based on it, we will think What the ontology of comparative literature can be supposed; Third, based on it, we will think some characters of comparative literature, such as what the essence of "Literariness" and "Comparability" of Comparative Literature is, that bacause Literariness and Comparability is an important subject in theory, which refers to whether comparative literature can be constructed as a discipline and the comparative research can be executed effectively or not; Forth, we will rethink the method based on these unique charaters we can choose for our research; Fifth, we will take common stands of mankind and revive our confidence in literary expression of feelings of human life, and make the reconsideration of locality and worldliness of literature and do the reflections on so called "crisis" and "death" of comparative literature as a discipline.