{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8","title":"哈贝马斯著作集 包容他者","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787208153554","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8","id":"ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8","uuid":"ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8","title":"哈贝马斯著作集 包容他者","normalized_title":"哈贝马斯著作集包容他者","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787208153554","isbns":["9787208153554"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":389,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E5%93%88%E8%B4%9D%E9%A9%AC%E6%96%AF%E8%91%97%E4%BD%9C%E9%9B%86%20%E5%8C%85%E5%AE%B9%E4%BB%96%E8%80%85","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/ab07c774-3ed2-48d8-8672-5c17d147d9d8/search"},"page":{"printed_page":141,"pdf_page":150,"physical_index":150,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"a56e3afbd93f86fc1a4befae8f99cc72bf4274bc167905316fec7e4c94d2812f"},"chapter":"包容他者","content":"实践理性从对世界观道德的依附地位当中摆脱了出来，有了这种实践理性，大家就会认识到真理与理性之间的内在联系。这种内在联系必须一直保持透明，直到我们从各自的世界观出发就能了解到对于政治概念的论证过程。不过，如果政治价值的优先性一定要用一种实践理性来加以合法化，而且，只有这种实践理性可以确定哪些世界观堪称是合理的，那么，上述考察思路就会颠倒过来。\n\n6. 哲学家与公民\n\n政治概念的“合理性”对于所有具备理性世界观的公民来说都是可以接受的；而“真理”是个人从他的世界观的角度赋予政治概念的。这两者之间的张力一直都没有消除。一方面，政治概念的有效性最终要依赖于不同的理性世界观所提供的有效性资源；另一方面，理性的世界观反过来又必须依靠实践理性提供给它们的标准。衡量世界观合理性的标准，从各种世界观当中是无法抽取出来的。如果不回到《正义论》中的康德主义立场上去，罗尔斯难道可以从实践理性的角度对上述限制作出证明吗?或者说，他难道肯定要放弃政治与形而上学之间分工的自由主义意义?当然，在《政治自由主义》当中，罗尔斯也注意到了“公共理性”的界限问题：“一般的理论理性和实践理性”。不过，只有在“作为公平的正义”被公民接受以后，才会出现对“公共理性”的限制问题，由此才可以明确正义之于善的优先性33以及理性的公用模式34。\n\n第二部分 政治自由主义——与罗尔斯商榷\n\n141","previous_page":140,"next_page":142}