{"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":294,"pdf_page":302,"physical_index":302,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"cb845cedf609d7fb0a9e4e4c8ab7530395a655e8de660e38924884671a932684"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"福科的这种博学-实证主义史学概念以反科学的形式出现，而且接受的是尼采的观念，这在《知识考古学》(1969)导言和《尼采、谱系学、历史》(1971)一文中有所反映。从哲学角度看，这一概念似乎提供了一种前途广阔的替代方案，取代海德格尔和德里达的理性批判，因为他们的理性批判表现为一种时间化的源始哲学。当然，关键还在于权力这一基本概念，因为有了这个概念，考古学的挖掘工作和谱系学的阐释研究才有了一种现代性批判的维度。权力作为一个彻底的非社会学概念，依靠的就是尼采的权威性，但尼采的权威性显然不足以支持其系统运用。福科接受尼采的政治语境，对1968年学生运动的失望，使得人文科学具有理性批判意义的历史学概念虽然能够得到人们的直观理解，但无法为福科在其充满悖论的思想活动中对权力概念的独特运用提供论证。相反，当福科在《事物的秩序》中仅仅采用话语分析的手段来揭示人文科学的时候，他转向权力理论也就必然会被认为是对所面对问题的一种内在解决。但我们还是先来看看福科是如何吸收“谱系学”这一概念的。\n\n谱系学的历史写作只有在走出以历史为取向的人学视野之后，才能承担起一种反科学的理性批判功能，而福科就是要用权力理论来揭露这种人学所具有的虚伪的人文主义。新的历史学必须彻底否定十八世纪以来建构起现代历史意识、历史哲学思想以及历史启蒙的一切前提。由此我们也就不难理解，尼采的《不合时宜的思考》对福科而言为何会成一个宝藏。因为尼采出于相似的目的，无情地批判了当时的历史主义。\n\n3\n\n刃而解了。\n\n294","previous_page":293,"next_page":295}