{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","title":"Marx and the Concept of Historical Time","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","id":"b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","uuid":"b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","title":"Marx and the Concept of Historical Time","normalized_title":"marxandtheconceptofhistoricaltime","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"isbns":[],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":200,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Marx%20and%20the%20Concept%20of%20Historical%20Time","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6/search"},"page":{"printed_page":87,"pdf_page":91,"physical_index":91,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"3978f688a992675587b9b7103c5bec0ac9703ce00fb22e53ec3c8631543ec5cf"},"chapter":"第二章总体性、时间化与历史:海德格尔与萨特","content":"客体化作为多重性相互关系的一个特征，只能通过对多重性本身的抑制来加以抑制。192也就是说，通过对总体化本身的压制，这就是对历史本身的压制。“这意味着，简单地说，去异化具有瞬间的时间维度。193.对萨特来说，如果个人“在客观世界中发现自己是他者”，如果通过个人作为他者的实践和他者的实践，物质对个人的统治构成了“对每个人来说异化的永久可能性”，很难想象，这种可能性怎么会不是一种永恒的必然性，一种“自由的外在性中的命运”。194《批判》核心的互惠性和客观性之间的根本不相容，似乎没有别的选择。对于Mészáros来说，这个问题的根源在于，《批判》“把突出的历史和社会超越范畴的稀缺性变成了一种麻痹性的非历史的和反历史的绝对，武断地宣称它是我们真实历史的不可逾越的持久性和总体决定性和视界。”，195这无疑是正确的。萨特在每一个转折点上都反对这样的观点，即稀缺的“人类事实”和(正如他所理解的)由此产生的异化是资本主义内部劳动分工和私有属性关系的具体经济表现。这种抵制一一这种历史的过度本体论——延伸到萨特的“紧急”(从实践惰性的角度来看，它的命令)及其子范畴“兴趣”，或“在事物中完全超越自我”的概念，因为它将实践作为一种绝对命令。196·认为资本主义私有属性是紧急和利益的历史渊源，这是萨特不断驳斥的观点。\n\n然而，关于《批判》的批判文献通常没有主题化(在大多数情况下，它不承认)萨特的需求概念构成了他对总体性和时间性之间关系的理解的支柱。直接地说，\n\n192 Chiodi, Sartre and Marxism, 93.\n\n193 Ibid. 95.\n\n194 Sartre, CDR 1, 227, 136, 227. Destiny, as Flynn describes it, is a future inscribed in the practico-inert.' Flynn, Sartre and Marxist Existentialism, 103. Destiny is an irresistible movement [that] draws or impels the ensemble towards a prefigured future which realises itself through it.' Sartre, CDR 1, 551.\n\n195 Mészáros, The Work of Sartre: Search for Freedom and the Challenge of History, 243. Mészáros is, bar none, the most forceful critic of Sartre'. s conception of scarçity. Again, this is not without irony. Mészáros continually faults the Critique for its ahistorical discourses' and its lack of historical specificity’, but he never considers the idea that Sartre provides the very means of rendering concepts such as the ahistorical' and expressions such ashistorical specificity’ intelligible, which, it seems, are for Mészáros self-sufficiently secured by Marx' s concept of mode of production' . This irony is exacerbated by the fact that Mészros accords to nature an impenetrable (ahistorical?)lawfulness' . Áccording to Mészáros, there is anabsolutely inescapable order of Nature’ whose'lawfulness…can be dynamically adapted but not violated' , dictating that there isineliminable natural substratum of human existence itself.' Ibid. 247- 49.\n\n196 Sartre, CDR 1, 197.\n\n87","previous_page":86,"next_page":88}