{"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":233,"pdf_page":241,"physical_index":241,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"cda9ed3b1cfe82daf5cb5b508c6242b61e164a4a7a491c53339ca389b09ebf8c"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"3\n\n上文对德里达的第三个观点(也是他的基本观点)进行了批判，具体方法在于：我反对卡勒对德里达的重建，坚决主张可以把常规形式的语言与派生形式的语言区分开来。但我还没有阐明如何才能把虚构言语与规范的(即日常的)语言运用区分出来。在德里达看来，这是至关重要的一点。如果“文学”和“书写”构成了一般文本语境的模式，而且，在这种语境当中，一切文类差别最后都消失不见了，那么，它们就不能作为一个自主的虚构王国而脱离其他的话语。上文提到过，对于德里达在美国文学批评界的追随者来说，主张语言艺术作品的自主性之所以难以接受，是因为他们想摆脱新批评和结构主义美学的形式主义。\n\n① 请参阅：《论解构》，第130页以下。\n\n233","previous_page":232,"next_page":234}