{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da","title":"技术与时间：1.爱比米修斯的过失","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787544726863","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da","id":"9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da","uuid":"9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da","title":"技术与时间：1.爱比米修斯的过失","normalized_title":"技术与时间1爱比米修斯的过失","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787544726863","isbns":["9787544726863"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":329,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E4%B8%8E%E6%97%B6%E9%97%B4%EF%BC%9A1.%E7%88%B1%E6%AF%94%E7%B1%B3%E4%BF%AE%E6%96%AF%E7%9A%84%E8%BF%87%E5%A4%B1","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/9b88d2f2-8eab-4576-8a52-82d9265ef4da/search"},"page":{"printed_page":278,"pdf_page":292,"physical_index":292,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"200eb543ad6210d0e6ac14474a90e73eafb3af02443b0424165d72f233a9f820"},"chapter":"第三章“什么”的解脱","content":"这种“预先获取”的结构动摇了一切解释—比如本文解释。从此，“一切致力于理解的说明，都必然包含了需要说明的因素”—这恰恰是《美诺篇》中早就提出的两难推理。柏拉图否认死亡，并因此开辟了思想史上的形而上学时代，把这个两难推理从柏拉图的意图中摆脱出来，就意味着直面已经在此的问题：历史性就是循环;循环性又只有通过对程序的分析，也即通过对作为爱比米修斯原则载体的已经在此的实际性的分析，才可以理解；就这个意义而言，历史性属于后种系生成形式，因为，预先理解必须根据已经在此的某种载体的固有的可能性而变换。这些“什么”的可能性并不是那种简单地取决于海德格尔同“谁”的可能性区别开来的现实的可能性，特别是这种程序的特征是语言本身的构造因素，语言“每次总是自己已经包藏了既成的概念体系”。海德格尔在第五十三节中写道：“走向死亡这种可能性的存在的最近的近处，对于一个现实的东西说来，则是要多远就有多远。”这种论述描述了相关差异的结构。然而，这种可能性赖以构成的现实性的去远运动难道不也是同样明显地触及像本文之类的“什么”、或者说一切“世界历史”的纹迹吗？“什么”的可能性是“谁”的可能性本身的构造因素，换言之，“什么”的可能性不是，而且也不比“谁”更接近康德所说的实体，也不属于“现实的范畴”。\n\n技术与时间\n\n4着重号系作者加。\n\n《存在与时间》，第31节。\n\n278","previous_page":277,"next_page":279}