{"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":"287 / 198","pdf_page":303,"physical_index":303,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"9b1e378b698affeba1617be9d584dc4d7eade213760c6bf69bab153888843b04"},"chapter":"第七章抗争的逻辑","content":"规范与“事实”不可分，因为它们必须由现有的社会技术安排来证实其有效性。的确，我们只是在技术转变中学习它们的具体含义。事实也不能与规范分开，因为它们是按照规范构建的。黑格尔会将这称为实现了的“合理性”，即伦理性(Sittlichkeit)的特定的现代形式。对黑格尔用以克服康德的伦理形式主义的策略而言，这个概念是根本性的。艾伦和其他对哈贝马斯不满的批判理论家试图克服他在社会世界中没有类似具体基础的伦理形式主义。①\n\n大卫·英格拉姆(DavidIngram)在对哈贝马斯的研究中解释了这种准康德主义方法的局限性。英格拉姆反复谈到哈贝马斯遇到的问题，即将主导合理对话的程序化形式应用于实质的规范性议题。在堕胎、物质生存权或工作场所民主权利等案例中，证明这些形式本身不足以对伦理内涵作出判断。例如，哈贝马斯排斥了工作场所的民主权利，理由是它与劳动分工不相容。民主规范的应用受到一种可疑的“系统逻辑”的限制。在每种情况中，类似的实质性假设必须用以补充规范性框架。英格拉姆总结道：“哈贝马斯将自己的理论应用于技术领域(基因工程)、宗教与政治、多元文化主义、女性主义和移民等领域仅列举几个例子，他认为，哲学家只需要(而且只能)为批判性推理程序辩护，除了实质性的价值承诺之外，好像这些程序能够以某种方式被理解和应用。用黑格尔的话来说，所有的思想都是调节。”①\n\n结论：进步的问题\n\n287\n\n198\n\n①还可以参看此书案例：Seyla Benhabib，Critique,Norm， and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1986).","previous_page":302,"next_page":304}