{"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":138,"pdf_page":146,"physical_index":146,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"e2d56b51d93e92a9e9bc82f3ebf41d69b75d443f024d9df56c04902c159dbf9b"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"阿多诺的《否定辩证法》读起来像是在继续解释，为什么我们必须坚持思考这一内在矛盾，为什么只有这种矛盾的持续展开才提供了一种视角，让我们认识到主体对自然几乎带有魔幻色彩的铭记，而“一切文化当中未被认识的真理都包含在主体对自然的铭记当中”。①《启蒙辩证法》完成之后的二十年里，阿多诺依然保持着这样一种哲学冲动，从未回避总体化批判思维的悖论结构。这样始终如一实在了不起，堪与尼采相媲美，因为尼采的《论道德的谱系》是启蒙第二次反思的伟大范例。尼采把悖论结构推到了一边，用一种权力理论解释了现代性当中理性与权力的混同，而这种权力理论将自身再神话化，以审美断片的修辞要求代替了真理要求。尼采示范了如何把批判总体化的过程。不过，他最终却发现有效性与权力的结合是可耻的，因为它妨碍了一种被美化的权力意志，而这种权力意志充满了艺术创造力。通过与尼采进行比较，可以看出，总体化的批判没有固定的发展路线。在坚定的反启蒙的理论家当中，正是尼采把反启蒙推向了极端。②\n\n霍克海默和阿多诺对尼采的态度是很矛盾的。一方面，他们承认，尼采是“黑格尔之后少数几个能发现启蒙辩证法的人之一”③。他们自然也接受了“关于统治与理性同一性的无情学说”①，即关于意识形态批判通过总体化而达到自我克服的学说。另一方面，他们又不能忽略这样一点：黑格尔是尼采的杰出对立面。尼采如此坚定不移地反对理性批判，以至于否定一由于理性自身变得不可靠，因而霍克海默和阿多诺想作为惟一可靠的标准而保留下来的程序—也都失去了尖锐性。尼采的批判耗尽了批判自身的冲动：\n\n① 《启蒙辩证法》，第55页。\n\n②和他的新保守主义传人一样，尼采也把自己打扮成“反社会学家”，请参阅H. 拜尔：《社会：死去上帝的悠长阴影》(Die Gesellschaft-ein langer Schatten destoten Gottes'),载：《尼采研究》,第 10/11 卷，Berlin,1982,第6 页以下。\n\n③《启蒙辩证法》，第59页。\n\n138","previous_page":137,"next_page":139}