{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","title":"技术体系：理性的社会生活","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787552024104","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","id":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","uuid":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","title":"技术体系：理性的社会生活","normalized_title":"技术体系理性的社会生活","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787552024104","isbns":["9787552024104"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":328,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E4%BD%93%E7%B3%BB%EF%BC%9A%E7%90%86%E6%80%A7%E7%9A%84%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E7%94%9F%E6%B4%BB","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/search"},"page":{"printed_page":161,"pdf_page":251,"physical_index":251,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"f0f3d6c7af023ddf164420595a9ca6726a709171224ec417cd7297b514c3b79f"},"chapter":"第七章抗争的逻辑","content":"第七章抗争的逻辑\n\n引言\n\n本章拟从修辞理论的角度论述对技术体系予以公共干预的逻辑。公共辩论的修辞分析在哈贝马斯审议式民主的理性主义理论之外展现了另一种选择，其目的是理解实际抗争的合理性，而非确立有效沟通的理想。类似的关切已使一些批判理论家回归第一代批判理论的主题。在这一章中，我依据的是阿尔贝娜·阿兹马诺瓦(Albena Azmanova)的理论贡献。将她的理论应用于技术体系，使我们对工具理性的批判获得了崭新的见解。霍克海默、阿多诺和马尔库塞攻击了工具理性的霸权，并主张另一种形式的理性既可实现启蒙的梦想，又没有破坏性的后果。但是必须承认，他们未能有效地阐明这种替代方式的本质。恰如第五章所讨论的那样，霍克海默只是简单地把主观和客观的理性并置在一起，而未对其加以调和。马尔库塞最接近为理性的新观念提供内容，但却处于一个不能令人信服的革命范式之内。为此，他受到哈贝马斯及其追随者的批评。①\n\n161","previous_page":160,"next_page":162}