{"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":"4 / 147","pdf_page":155,"physical_index":155,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"18fd4a3dc3f014f8d6f33e254594d24a03d9fea76b724ed4a17144cf6d276ae4"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"上面我们追溯了自我关涉的总体化批判的两种不同形式。霍克海默、阿多诺与尼采一样身陷尴尬：如果他们不想放弃揭露的终极性，仍想继续进行批判，他们就必须保留一种标准，用来解释一切理性标准的堕落。面对这一悖论，批判在自我兜圈子过程中迷失了方向。它有两种不同的选择。\n\n尼采一直都试图在权力理论中寻求出路，因为批判所暴露出来的理性与权力的混合，已经把世界抛入不可调和的权力斗争当中，如同神话世界一样。经由德勒兹的解释，尼采在法国结构主义那里被认为是权力理论家，这是有道理的。福科在他新近著作中用权力策略的多样性来代替(马克思和弗洛伊德在启蒙传统中发展起来的)关于统治的压抑模式。这些权力策略相互交织，前后接续，不同之处只是在于话语形态和紧张程序。但它们不能以其有效性来加以判断，这和用有意识的处理冲突来应对无意识的处理冲突是不一样的。①\n\n不过，关于主动力量与纯粹反动力量的学说，依然不能为批判走出困境指明出路，因为批判攻击到了其自身的有效性前提。这种学说最多只能为超越现代性的视野打开通道。如果权力要求和有效性要求之间的绝对区分构成了任何一种理论工作的基础，那么，这种学说就还缺乏根基。因此，揭露作用自身也在不断变化：不是对威胁同一性的混乱局面的洞察引起震惊，就像在开玩笑的时候，一旦把握住要点就会引起捧腹大笑。引起震惊的是对解分化的肯定，是对打倒范畴的肯定，因为这些范畴可能会引起误解、遗忘或口误，从而导致威胁同一性的范畴错误，或导致艺术的表象。这一倒退依然用解放力量为反启蒙提供服务。\n\n4\n\n① H. 芬克-艾特尔：《福科的权力分析》(Michel Foucaults Analyse derMacht'),载 F. A. 基特勒(编):《精神在精神科学中的缺席》(Austreibung desGeistes aus den Geisteswissenschaften)，Paderborn，1980，第38页以下;A. 霍耐特、H. 约阿斯：《社会行为与人的本性》(Soziales Handeln und menschliche Natur)，Frankfurt am Main, 1980,第 123 页以下。\n\n147","previous_page":154,"next_page":156}