{"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":376,"pdf_page":384,"physical_index":384,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"cb905558a841e58e1c1dd12326d1865419b082dcfeb406a6d441eee5351acc5c"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"在第五讲结束时，我曾指出，证明语境与发现语境之间以及有效性与生成性之间有着一种从未彻底中断过的内在联系。论证的使命就在于从参与者的视角对有效性要求进行彻底的批判；但它最终不能脱离生成性的考察方式；生成性的考察方式就是从第三人称视角出发，对权力要求与有效性要求的混合现象作意识形态批判。自柏拉图和德谟克利特以来，哲学史一直为两种对立的观点所左右：一种观点坚决主张抽象理性的超越力量和理智的绝对解放力量，而另一种则试图从唯物主义的角度揭露理性纯粹主义的想像性。\n\n相比之下，辩证法思想利用唯物主义的颠覆力量打破了这些错误的选择。针对把一切经验从观念领域驱逐出去的做法，辩证法思想并没有简单地把有效性关系还原为节节获胜的权力。相反，交往行为理论认为，有知与无知之间的辩证关系，深深地扎根于沟通成功与沟通失败的辩证关系之中。\n\n交往理性在主体间的理解与相互承认过程中表现为一种约束的力量。同时，它又明确了一种普遍的共同生活方式。在这种生活方式中，我们不能像巴门尼德区分无知与知那样，把非理性和理性截然分开(按照巴门尼德的理解，知作为一种绝对的肯定力量，主宰着无知)。谢林继承了J.伯麦和卢里亚的观点，正确地坚持认为，错误、罪过和欺骗不是没有理性，而是理性走向反面的表现形式。对真实性、正确性和真诚性等有效性要求的破坏，直接影响到充满理性关系的总体性。掌握真理的少数人责无旁贷，他们与那些在黑暗中摸索的多数人不可同日而语。对所有人都要求的合理的共同生活结构的破坏，同样也要影响到每一个人自身。青年黑格尔所说的伦理总体性，其意义就在于此。罪犯的行为打破了伦理总体性，因此，只有深刻认识到异化所造成的痛苦是难以分享的，我们才能恢复这种伦理总体性。同样的想法也促使克劳斯·海因里希把巴门尼德与约拿①对照起来。\n\n376","previous_page":375,"next_page":377}