{"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":354,"pdf_page":362,"physical_index":362,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"bb2c71c1ae461d70006d2940f62aebc3f8a3990860eb12814c6f1a5ce5fb9461"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"现代性的反话语把康德哲学看作是对现代性的无意识表达，因而也把康德哲学作为自己的发端，目的是要揭示启蒙自身的狭隘性。新的理性批判否认与这种反话语有着连续性，尽管它仍然处于这种反话语之中：\n\n关键已不再是完成现代性设计(哈贝马斯)；而是修正现代性设计。启蒙并不是一直都处于未完成状态，而只是没有得到明确而已。①\n\n然而，用启蒙的手段来修正启蒙，从一开始就把康德的批判者团结到了一起——包括席勒与施莱格尔，费希特与图宾根神学院的学生。②我们继续往下看：\n\n康德哲学开始就是用来划分界限的，但它丝毫也没有告诉我们，划分界限是一个动态过程，理性凝聚成为一个稳定的领域，而把其他一切都排斥出去，因此，划界的过程就是明确自身和排除他者的过程。\n\n本章开始的时候已经指出，黑格尔以及谢林和荷尔德林是怎样把反思哲学的划界成就看作一种挑战的(反思哲学设定了许多二元对立：信仰与知识、无限与有限、精神与自然、知性与感性、职责与爱好等);他们又是如何把主体理性的异化足迹从内在自然和外在自然一直追溯到政治生活和日常生活中遭到破坏的伦理的“实证性”那里的。黑格尔认为，一体化力量从人类日常生活中消失了，也正因为如此，才会出现对哲学的客观需要。但是，黑格尔认为，以主体为中心的理性的划界不是一种排除，而是一种分裂，而且认为，哲学能够进入囊括理性和理性他者于一体的总体性。哈特穆特·伯麦和格尔诺特·伯麦对此却表示怀疑，他们认为：\n\n① H. 伯麦、G. 伯麦：《理性的他者》，第 11 页。\n\n②指黑格尔、谢林和荷尔德林。——译注\n\n354","previous_page":353,"next_page":355}