{"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":75,"pdf_page":83,"physical_index":83,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"b6a56e094f3bb943af5f810b2ccaf3fbc30fabf91cb021cac38f91334dfec2d0"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"西方马克思主义的发展历史已经使实践哲学及其理性概念的基本困境昭然若揭。出现这些困境，几乎都是因为对规范性的批判基础缺乏清楚的认识。我在这里至少想列举出这些困境的三个方面内涵。\n\n（a）把社会劳动和创造性自我实现意义上的“自我活动”模式有机地结合起来，只有根据浪漫主义所美化的手工劳动原型才具有一定的可信度。比如，约翰·罗斯金和威廉·莫里斯所推动的当代改革运动，就是以此模式为取向的。他们大力推销手工艺品。然而，工业劳动的发展却在不断远离这种整体制作模式。即使马克思最终也放弃了这种把过去作为样板的手工实践模式。不过，马克思悄悄地把这种实践概念中尚有疑问的规范内涵纳入到他的劳动价值理论当中，做到了不露声色。这就解释清楚了在马克思主义传统中，劳动概念及其内在的目的合理性为何始终都是含混不清的。\n\n相应的，对生产力的评价也总是从一个极端走向另一个极端。有些人欢迎生产力的发展，特别是科学一技术的进步，认为这是社会合理化的动力。他们期待在生产力的合理化压力之下，社会制度会发生革命。这些社会制度调节着社会权力的分配以及对生产资料的不同占有。另一些人则怀疑支配自然的合理性，认为对自然的支配和不合理的阶级统治是联系在一起的。对马克思来说，科学和技术意味着解放的潜能，但到了卢卡奇、布洛赫和马尔库塞那里，科学和技术就变成了更加有效的社会压迫手段。之所以会出现如此不同的解释，是因为马克思没有阐明目的行为的合理性与自我活动的直觉合理性之间的关系。后者就是一种社会实践，只是隐约出现在自由生产者的联盟当中。\n\n75","previous_page":74,"next_page":76}