{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536","title":"[人文科学译丛]德勒兹概念  哲学,殖民与政治","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787564922757","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536","id":"938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536","uuid":"938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536","title":"[人文科学译丛]德勒兹概念  哲学,殖民与政治","normalized_title":"人文科学译丛德勒兹概念哲学殖民与政治","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787564922757","isbns":["9787564922757"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":413,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%5B%E4%BA%BA%E6%96%87%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6%E8%AF%91%E4%B8%9B%5D%E5%BE%B7%E5%8B%92%E5%85%B9%E6%A6%82%E5%BF%B5%20%20%E5%93%B2%E5%AD%A6%2C%E6%AE%96%E6%B0%91%E4%B8%8E%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/938ffece-6e9d-4ccb-a834-1221ead96536/search"},"page":{"printed_page":108,"pdf_page":122,"physical_index":122,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"55c4dcd5a957066244ade2a553a70bacbf95a3eb0599e48695ccfe24132fbf57"},"chapter":"第三章","content":"罗蒂对德勒兹的无知堪与德勒兹对罗蒂著作的草草关注媲美，后者表现在德勒兹偶尔对“西方普遍的民主哲学观”所做的讽刺评论中。《什么是哲学?》的导言唐突地宣称将哲学当作“朋友间的民主交谈”这一观点“并未产生出任何概念”(QP12，6)。②德勒兹后来提出这一哲学观只是为“罗蒂先生家令人愉快的或咄咄逼人的餐后交谈”提供了契机(QP138，144)，从而指出了这一哲学观最重要的拥护者。德勒兹和罗蒂之间存在着许多显著的不同，关于概念本质及其在哲学中发挥的作用的分歧便是其中之一。德勒兹强调哲学创造概念，罗蒂则强调并不存在概念，只有人们对特定词语多少有些系统的使用，他们二人的观点似乎背道而驰。因为对德勒兹而言，创造概念与利用新词汇和词语的新用法密不可分，因此我们并不清楚他们二人的这一分歧有多大。无论如何，他们的哲学方法具有足够多的意义深远的相似之处，因此只有不断地联系他们，才不会令人感到遗憾。可以说他们对彼此的误识是当代社会和政治哲学中一次非常不幸的错过（rendez-vousmanqué)。\n\n108\n\n德勒兹概念：哲学、殖民与政治\n\n① 比如，在“Habermas and Lyotard on Postmodernity”(Rorty 1991a,172-173)中。\n\n② 在随着《什么是哲学?》的出版进行的访谈中，德勒兹根据“共识’或罗蒂的民主交谈规则’都不足以产生出概念”(DRF354，382)拒绝下面这一观点，即可以将哲学理解为需要交流意见的交谈。","previous_page":null,"next_page":109}