{"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":"237 / 163","pdf_page":253,"physical_index":253,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"403b2e7784d7a948a30e57be8b32b1e386e537069dda1bf1162cf1ed671cba98"},"chapter":"第七章抗争的逻辑","content":"技术与技术体系的建构主义进路使得决定论和技治主义的主张不再高深莫测，工具化理论的作用也是如此。但我们现在必须从消除神秘化转向对技术体系社会偶然性的政治意涵进行正面阐述。偶然性意味着技术问题有多个“正确”答案，它们取决于谁被追问，即取决于形成答案的兴趣与信念。公众的基本角色使其对寻求技术问题的解决方案与科学和数学研究做出了区分，这为我们将不确定性的判断与政治相关联开启了技术空间。\n\n然而，要把技术消解为政治又是不可能的，因为正如上一章所论证的，技术的成功有赖于客体的客观属性。我们不能不承认，技术判断的独特性在于其既不是完全主观的，也不是完全客观的。这是对康德在其的第三批判中的反思性判断的概念的写照。反思性判断跨越了个人偏好与共同的基本信仰之间通常的界限，它并不为他者提供证据，而是迎合对方。这是修辞学而不是科学的领域，恰好是技术的政治理论所需要的。\n\n第七章 抗争的逻辑\n\n237\n\n163\n\n①康德所指的践行公共理性的人是“学者”，但在我的用法中，公共理性的践行者指涉每一位参与公开辩论的人。应该注意的是，这种用法不同于罗尔斯对同一术语更严格的定义。Immanuel Kant,“What Is Enlightenment?,”Kant on History， ed. L.W. Beck, trans. L. W. Beck, R. Anchor, and E. Fackenheim (Indianapolis, IN:Bobbs-Merrill, 1963),5。","previous_page":252,"next_page":254}