{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","title":"现代性的哲学话语","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787544715829","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","id":"296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","uuid":"296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","title":"现代性的哲学话语","normalized_title":"现代性的哲学话语","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787544715829","isbns":["9787544715829"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":463,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E7%8E%B0%E4%BB%A3%E6%80%A7%E7%9A%84%E5%93%B2%E5%AD%A6%E8%AF%9D%E8%AF%AD","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd/search"},"page":{"printed_page":124,"pdf_page":132,"physical_index":132,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"30e5dbdea77ff51cad35ca2edb9c2dcd3944a45f32f0879b0022bd36c75edefb"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"该书首先从语文学的角度提出反对意见，认为作者们选择晚期史诗对神话传统(在荷马看来已经有了距离)的加工作为例证，这样做实际上遵守的还是成文原则(petitio principii)。这种疑义显示出了方法论上的优势：\n\n在荷马史诗的不同叙述层次中，神话均有所表现。不过，荷马史诗为这些神话所提供的说明，以及用各种散乱的故事强行拼凑起来的统一性，也同样是对主体从神话力量中摆脱出来的描述。①\n\n奥德修斯在双重意义上处于流浪状态，他的冒险故事反映出了从神话力量当中摆脱出来的主体性的史前史。神话世界并非家园，而是人类为了自身认同必须逃出的迷宫：\n\n思乡病使得主体性摆脱了史前世界的束缚，开始了一段冒险的征途，因此，《奥德赛》所呈现的就是主体性的历史。所以说，史诗的典型悖论恰恰在于这样一个事实：家乡的观念是与神话相对立的，而法西斯主义则错误地把神话表现成了家乡。②\n\n可以肯定，神话叙述召唤个体经由族链回到源始。祭祀仪式本来应当消除与源始的疏远，并打消由此而带来的内疚，可它们同时也加深了这一裂痕。源始神话包含着“起源”的双重含义：对失去根基的恐惧和由于逃离而带来的舒心。因此，霍克海默和阿多诺把奥德修斯的狡诈还原为祭祀行为最内在的秘密。祭祀行为内部就存在着一种欺骗：人们怎样才能通过奉献象征性的替代品，而变赎掉复仇力量的诅咒。①神话的这一层含义标示出了一种意识立场的内在矛盾，对于这种意识立场而言，仪式行为既是现实，也是表象。通过仪式回到源始的再生力量，对于集体意识而言，是非常必要的。（正如涂尔于所说），源始保证了社会的统一。但是，纯粹在表象中回到源始，同样也是必要的，部落共同体中的成员为了形成自我，同时也必须远离源始。这样，同时被神圣化和智取的源始力量，在主体性的原始历史中已经处于启蒙的第一阶段。②\n\n①《启蒙辩证法》，第61页。\n\n②同上，第96页及下页。\n\n124","previous_page":123,"next_page":125}