{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7","title":"狄俄尼索斯的劳动对国家-形式的批判","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787560449197","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7","id":"04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7","uuid":"04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7","title":"狄俄尼索斯的劳动对国家-形式的批判","normalized_title":"狄俄尼索斯的劳动对国家形式的批判","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787560449197","isbns":["9787560449197"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":548,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E7%8B%84%E4%BF%84%E5%B0%BC%E7%B4%A2%E6%96%AF%E7%9A%84%E5%8A%B3%E5%8A%A8%E5%AF%B9%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%B6-%E5%BD%A2%E5%BC%8F%E7%9A%84%E6%89%B9%E5%88%A4","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/04558c0a-f186-4087-aaf5-40763c71d1e7/search"},"page":{"printed_page":"361 / 236","pdf_page":376,"physical_index":376,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"14c1b8d45b0104d0a6afe1bf819b997c3211b0a7e6c6390734318c9ba6ca6189"},"chapter":"第二章","content":"第六章 后现代法律与市民社会的消亡\n\n361\n\n①如果我们单独考察《正义论》，我们就只能反对罗蒂的做法，因为这种发展扭曲了罗尔斯的原意。事实上我们可以在罗尔斯的文本中发现好几处与罗蒂的文章存在明显龃龉的地方：“良心和思想自由不应该建立在哲学或伦理学怀疑主义的基础上，也不应该建立在对各种宗教和道德利益的无视上。正义的原则在这两个极端中间开辟了一条合适的通道：一个极端是独断论和不宽容，另一个极端是把宗教和道德视为纯粹偏好的还原论。”(第243页)(中译文见《正义论》修订版，前引，第191页，译文有改动。——译注)。然而，在罗尔斯后来的文章中(如《作为公平的正义》《重叠共识的观念》《权利的优先性和善的观念》[“The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good”]以及《政治的领域和重叠共识》[“The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Con-sensus”])，他的立场则没有那么清晰，在某些方面的确支撑了罗蒂的解读。对罗尔斯这一时期作品的概括和分析，见库卡塔斯和佩蒂特，《罗尔斯》，第133-141页，特别是第148-150页。\n\n236","previous_page":375,"next_page":377}