Question

求英语大神帮忙翻译一段文字

Animation has never been a
subject that has attracted much interest from philosophers. Indeed,
one is hard-pressed to find any examples of philosophers working centrally
within the discipline who have directly addressed the topic of animation.
Someone like Thomas Lamarre, who
must surely be counted one of the leading theorists of animation, comes from
outside philosophy even though he also draws heavily on philosophical ideas and
sources. Often when animation is directly addressed by philosophers, it is from
within discussions of film or visual
aesthetics (and frequently only as part of some larger discussion – e.g.
Cavell, 1979, or Deleuze,
1986), or else, more commonly, in terms of the philosophical content for which
particular animated works are taken as the vehicle (this seems especially true
of the volumes in the Philosophy
and Popular Culture series that address
animation, e.g. Irwin et al., 2001, and Steiff and
Tamplin, 2010). Often animation itself appears as a field onto which already existing
philosophical approaches and concerns can be projected and inscribed – and to
some extent this is
true, notwithstanding its groundbreaking position in the field, of Alan
Cholodenko’s seminal
Corresponding author:
Jeff Malpas, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 78, Hobart TAS 7001,
Australia.

Answer 1

Animation has never been a
subject that has attracted much interest from philosophers. Indeed,
one is hard-pressed to find any examples of philosophers working centrally
within the discipline who have directly addressed the topic of animation.
Someone like Thomas Lamarre, who
must surely be counted one of the leading theorists of animation, comes from
outside philosophy even though he also draws heavily on philosophical ideas and
sources. Often when animation is directly addressed by philosophers, it is from
within discussions of film or visual
aesthetics (and frequently only as part of some larger discussion – e.g.
Cavell, 1979, or Deleuze,
1986), or else, more commonly, in terms of the philosophical content for which
particular animated works are taken as the vehicle (this seems especially true
of the volumes in the Philosophy
and Popular Culture series that address
animation, e.g. Irwin et al., 2001, and Steiff and
Tamplin, 2010). Often animation itself appears as a field onto which already existing
philosophical approaches and concerns can be projected and inscribed – and to
some extent this is
true, notwithstanding its groundbreaking position in the field, of Alan
Cholodenko’s seminal
Corresponding author:
Jeff Malpas, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 78, Hobart TAS 7001,
Australia.
动画从来
的课题，已经引起了人们的兴趣，从哲学家。事实上，
一个是很难找到的任何实例，哲学家的工作中心
在那些直接处理动画的主题的学科。
有人喜欢托马斯拉马尔，谁
肯定算一动画的主要理论家，来自
在哲学之外即使他也大量借鉴了哲学思想
来源。通常当动画是由哲学家直接解决的，它是从
在电影或视觉的讨论
美学（通常只有一些大讨论–如部分
卡维尔，1979，或德勒兹，
1986），或者，更普遍的是，在其哲学的内容
特别的动画作品作为车辆（这似乎尤其如此
在哲学卷
与流行文化系列地址
动画，如欧文等人。，2001，和史迪夫和
坦普林，2010）。通常动画本身表现为一个场上已经存在
哲学的方法和关注可以投影和刻–和
某种程度上这是
真的，尽管其开创性的场上位置，艾伦
Cholodenko的精
通讯作者：
杰夫佩斯，塔斯马尼亚大学，私人78袋，霍巴特助教7001，
澳大利亚。