{"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":223,"pdf_page":231,"physical_index":231,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"213343ef930e7a319b1d12f1f433c0aa0584a5e3c57e370b2258477b78deb53c"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"2\n\n“分解”转变为“解构”，在哲学传统上起初并不显眼，但这种转变让激进的理性批判渗透到了修辞学领域，由此指出了一条走出自我指涉困境的路径：转型之后，谁如果还想解释清楚形而上学批判的困境，他就会从科学主义的角度误解形而上学批判。只有当下列命题为真时，这种论证才会具有说服力：\n\n(1）文学批评并非从来都是一种科学研究，而是同文学对象一样，遵守修辞学标准。\n\n(2)哲学与文学之间几乎没有文类差别，因此，我们可以用文学批评的手法来揭示哲学文本的本质内涵。\n\n(3)修辞学优先于逻辑学，意味着修辞学要对无所不包的文本语境的一般性质承担全部的责任——在这个语境中，所有的文类差别都彻底消失了：哲学与科学无法构成自足的空间，同样，艺术与文学也无法成为虚构的王国，并像普遍文本那样要求具有自主性。\n\n命题(3)消除了“文学批评”的专业化特征，并由此对命题(2)和命题(1)进行了阐述。文学批评是一种解释模式，有着悠久的传统。虽然如此，文学批评也可以作为一种普遍的模式，或者说，一种适用于日常话语及非日常话语的修辞性质的批评模式。解构方法把这种普遍化的批评用于自己的目的：针对哲学文本和科学文本的表层意义，揭示其中遭到压抑的修辞学意义。德里达要求“解构”成为一种手段，用于把尼采的激进理性批判带出其充满悖论的自我指涉性的死胡同，所以，德里达的观点和命题(3)是一致的。\n\n223","previous_page":222,"next_page":224}