{"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":343,"pdf_page":351,"physical_index":351,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"888417cd20178cbf1af2f55b915c2d2d81033ddab56d050228645822c4dd7d6e"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"在不太遥远的过去，对妇女来说有各种各样的贞操诫律，导致妇女产生性感缺失，对男人则存在双重标准，人们指责越轨性行为，同时贬斥弗洛伊德在其诊室里听到的各种各样的性爱生活。①\n\n福科反对弗洛伊德所提出的关于压制冲动与通过启发而获得解放的模式，表面上看，福科的意见是可信的；之所以可信，仅仅是因为，自由作为现代性的原则，的确不能用主体哲学的基本概念来加以把握。\n\n只要想用意识哲学的手段来把握自我决定和自我实现，即道德和审美意义上的自由，我们永远都会适得其反、南辕北辙。自我的压制是主客体关系中的自主性的反面；自我的丧失(以及对自我丧失的自恋式恐惧)，是用意识哲学概念把握的表现性的反面。道德主体自身必须使自己成为客体，表现主体必然会自我放弃，或者出于担心依附于客体，或者自我封闭；所有这些都与关于自由和解放的观念风马牛不相及，而只是揭示出主体哲学的思想强制。然而，福科把一个本来应当用“主体性”来加以概括的观念(和主体以及客体一道)抛到了一边。毫无疑问，只要我们想到的只是主体，想像和处理的只是客体，它们要么完全沦为客体，要么与作为客体的自身发生关涉，那么，我们就无法把社会化理解为个体化，无法从如下视角出发对现代性史加以描述：主观自然的内在化使得个体化成为可能。福科用意识哲学来消除意识哲学所无法处理的问题。他用一种零碎的权力化概念取代了一直没有得到充分把握的个体化的社会化，而他的这个权力化概念又不足以阐明现代性的矛盾现象。从这个角度来看，社会化的个体只能被看作是样品，是话语形态的标准产物——是一个模子制造出来的。盖伦和福科在政治动机上虽然截然对立，但他们的理论视角却是相似的，盖伦自己对此毫不隐讳：“人格：这是一种同一的制度。”①\n\n① 霍内格：《论福科的性史观念》(Überlgungen zu Michel Foucaults Entwurf einer Geschichte der Sexualität),手稿, Frankfurt am Main, 1982,第 20 页。\n\n343","previous_page":342,"next_page":344}