{"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":231,"pdf_page":239,"physical_index":239,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"50413c1d30eb51f0a935594377d0c42a81cfe0a35d23d308c392c0915933a64e"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"语境作为变量可以改变意义，对于这个变量，我们既无法彻底遏止，也无法彻底控制，因为语境生生不息，即是说，要把握语境，在理论上我们无法做到毕其功于一役。卡勒明确指出，奥斯丁也无法通过求助于言语者和听众的意向而避免这一困境。不是新郎、新娘或牧师的思想决定仪式的有效性，而是其行为和行为语境在发挥决定性的作用：\n\n起作用的是场景描述的可信程度：被引证语境的特征是不是产生了一个改变以言行事力量的框架。①\n\n为了摆脱这个困境，塞尔做出了限定：一个命题的字面意义不能完全决定使用命题的言语行为的有效性条件，而是依赖于一种潜在的补充行为—用一系列关于一般世界状态的背景假设所做出的补充。这些前反思的背景确定性具有一种整体性特征，我们无法在有限的范围内把它们明确下来。因此，命题意义不管如何透彻，它们所涉及到的也只是对语言共同体生活世界具有构成意义的共同背景知识。不过，塞尔明确指出，进行限定，绝不会带来德里达试图克服的意义相对论。只要语言游戏发挥作用，构成生活世界的前理解未被破坏，参与者显然就会考虑到世界状况，而且，这些世界状况在其语言共同体中被认为是“规范的”。一旦单个的基本信念出了问题，他们还可假定他们可以达成一种具有合理动机的共识。这是两种高度理想化的立场。但是，这些理想化不是逻各斯中心论意义上的武断行为—理论家把它们应用于无法控制的语境，以便从外表上控制这些语境；相反，这些理想化是一些预设，如果交往行为在任何情况下都想成为可能的话，那么，参与者就必须做出这样的预设。\n\n① 《论解构》，第123页。\n\n231","previous_page":230,"next_page":232}