{"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":380,"pdf_page":388,"physical_index":388,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"fe19c9472413c61f06541493b783553e5257ae196400ddaf273f1edd4184fa5e"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"十二现代性的规范内容\n\n为了告别现代性，激进的理性批判付出了昂贵的代价。首先，这些话语无法也不想澄清它们各自的地位。否定辩证法也好，谱系学和解构也好，都用同样的手段来拒绝一些范畴：有了这些范畴，现代知识发生了分化，而且不是出于偶然；此外，这些范畴还决定了我们对文本的理解。它们不能简单地把自己划归哲学或科学、道德理论或法律理论、文学与艺术。同时，它们又反对回归宗教思想的企图，不管是独断论的宗教思想，还是异教徒的宗教思想。因此，虽然“理论”只是提出有效性要求，而目的正是为了否定它们，但在这些理论与它们在科学研究中的制度化之间还是出现了一种不协调。在这些话语为了获得理解而使用的修辞手法与它们在制度层面上(即在学院范围内)所受到的批判之间，也存在着一种不对称的关系。无论是阿多诺用一种充满悖论的方法要求真实的有效性，还是福科拒绝从明显的矛盾中得出结论，或是海德格尔和德里达通过逃向神秘或把修辞学和逻辑学混为一谈来回避论证的义务，最终形成的都是一种难以调和的混合物，在“规范的”科学分析内部都是自相矛盾。\n\n380","previous_page":379,"next_page":381}