{"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":300,"pdf_page":308,"physical_index":308,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"f9a4dd552bc73078bc32e7de43ff610d7cb123f5bc18c0ee499b06024589692a"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"出现的他者统治等。①\n\n到目前为止，先验意识的综合力量应该说一直是服务于惟一而一般的经验对象领域；然而现在，这种综合已经分解成无主体的意志，充斥在真正发挥作用的权力话语形态偶然而无序的起伏过程之中。\n\n4\n\n柏格森、狄尔泰和西美尔曾经把“生命”提升为哲学的先验概念(它还构成了海德格尔分析此在的背景)，同样，福科也把“权力”提升为从事理性批判的历史学的先验一历史主义概念。这一特征绝非微不足道，也肯定不能单纯用尼采的权威性来加以论证。我想把存在历史概念当作一个反衬的背景，首先来探讨一下这一混乱的基本概念在福科的理性批判中所承担的角色。\n\n海德格尔和德里达想沿着解构形而上学的思路把尼采的理性批判纲领推向前进，福科则想通过解构历史学来实现这一目的。海德格尔和德里达用一种超越哲学的回忆思想来超越哲学，而福科则用一种以反科学形式出现的历史学来超越人文科学。双方都使他们所探讨的哲学话语和科学话语提出的有效性要求失去了意义，为此，他们要么回到一种划时代的存在观念，要么回到一种话语的构成原则。双方首先应当使存在者的意义和命题的有效性在一种既定的世界视域或一个熟悉话语的视域内成为可能。双方也一致认为，世界视域或话语形态处于不断变化之中，但在变化过程中，对在它们所构成的范围内出现的一切仍然保持着一种先验的力量。这样就排除了本体事件甚至参照物的辩证效果或循环效果对本体论条件或话语构成条件的影响。先验历史和揭示世界的视域的变化，都要求一种不同于本体和历史的概念。正是在这一点上双方分道扬镳了。\n\n① 《论知识的颠覆》，第98页。\n\n300","previous_page":299,"next_page":301}