{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","title":"理性的权威","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787532763450","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","id":"6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","uuid":"6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","title":"理性的权威","normalized_title":"理性的权威","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787532763450","isbns":["9787532763450"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":171,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E7%90%86%E6%80%A7%E7%9A%84%E6%9D%83%E5%A8%81","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d/search"},"page":{"printed_page":9,"pdf_page":17,"physical_index":17,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"cfc02faa0ce9b04fbb87a5228b3d2b2e28a98cf9aa1e2972f011eb8ec406acea"},"chapter":"The Last Word理性的权威","content":"但是这种诊断也能采取更普遍的形式，并能被用来形成一种哲学观点。在这个情况下，批评的目的或者是怀疑假定的以理性主义为基础的主张，或者仅仅是表明存在另外一些不同的东西，尽管其较少普遍性，却比理性主义的解释更可信。如果目的是要表明，对在讨论中所要达成或支持的结论来说，推理是一种错误的方法，那么人们将不会把恰当的替代方法的使用描绘成理性化，而将认定把它称为理性是一个误解。当目的不是批驳伦理学而是揭示它的真实基础时，后一种策略常常被用于对作为伦理学基础的组成部分的理性进行攻击。①\n\n另一方面(为包含所有的可能性)，这种诊断，有时既不是作为批判也不是作为一种替代物，而是作为理性究竟是什么的一种还原论解释，也即理性仅仅是一个特定文化或生活方式的偶然，但又是基本的特征。在此我们看到哲学中无处不在的实在论、怀疑论和还原论之间的变换：如果实在论(一种强的普遍主义立场)看上去太过于困难以致难以维持，还原论(一种主观主义或相对主义的对理性的重新阐释)就似乎为远离怀疑论提供了可能的庇护。①作为理性的实在论者，我把这些还原论的“拯救”等同于怀疑论；这也就是指，它们是关于我自己所认定理性的实在性的怀疑论方式。还原论的支持者们会以不同的方式描述它们作为对我关于理性本质是错误的这一理解的否定。\n\n一 引 言\n\n009\n\n① 此例可参见Philippa Foot,“Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives”(1972),载Virtues and Vices (Blackwell, 1978),或者 Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Harvard University Press, 1985)。","previous_page":8,"next_page":10}