{"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":"274 / 189","pdf_page":290,"physical_index":290,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"d6ad4f2010a3fa737dfd442d3e4c817c5228381e6a7f4e6903a3316ad38af295"},"chapter":"第七章抗争的逻辑","content":"“关于规范有效性的元规范域境主义或域境主义包括两方面的主张：首先，对道德原则或规范性的理念的论证总是与一套域境中凸显的价值观、美好生活的观念以及规范的视野有关大抵而言，涉及生活形式或生活世界。其次，不存在超级域境、域境无关或超越的观点使我们能据此判定哪个域境在根本上是正确的。”①正是文明学习这个概念暗示了西方超越的优越性。她批判了她所称的将“回顾”(backward looking)当作过去“事实”的进步的理念，并继而为局部的、域境相关的未来进步观背书。因此，她拒斥了相对主义进步确实发生了且没有提出超越的观点，即使历史上出现过。\n\n规范的域境本质是合理性的一般域境本质的一个例子。福柯声称：“真理是这个世界的一个东西。”②如果不存在域境无关的普遍性，域境无关就不能作为一个有意义的有效标准，因此，不能达到这一标准，并非暗示走向相对主义，而是意味着以实用主义的开放原则进行修正以及同域境不同者展开对话。\n\n我无法在此评论艾伦的全部论点。尽管其竭力提出第三种立场，依然可以有效地显现批判理论陷入相对主义和基础主义的双重危险。而在阅读第一章时，令我感到诧异的是，她有意无视科技进步的问题。③她简要地提及布鲁诺·拉图尔的“我们从未现代过”的说法，以证明了这一省略是合理的。①但如果不提及科学技术，又如何讨论进步呢？规范性的进步观本身建立在科学技术进步的类比之上。只有在后者由艾伦认可的局部的面向未来的概念得以解释时，前者方能用这些概念有效地重新表述。\n\n274\n\n技术体系：理性的社会生活\n\n189\n\n① Amy Allen, The End of Progress (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 131.\n\n② Foucault, \"Truth and Power,\"131.\n\n③Allen, The End of Progress, 10 – 11.","previous_page":289,"next_page":291}