{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a","title":"哈贝马斯作品集 交往行为理论 第一卷 行为合理性与社会合理化","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787208153547","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a","id":"d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a","uuid":"d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a","title":"哈贝马斯作品集 交往行为理论 第一卷 行为合理性与社会合理化","normalized_title":"哈贝马斯作品集交往行为理论第一卷行为合理性与社会合理化","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787208153547","isbns":["9787208153547"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":560,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E5%93%88%E8%B4%9D%E9%A9%AC%E6%96%AF%E4%BD%9C%E5%93%81%E9%9B%86%20%E4%BA%A4%E5%BE%80%E8%A1%8C%E4%B8%BA%E7%90%86%E8%AE%BA%20%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E5%8D%B7%20%E8%A1%8C%E4%B8%BA%E5%90%88%E7%90%86%E6%80%A7%E4%B8%8E%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E5%90%88%E7%90%86%E5%8C%96","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/d6c14ac7-04dd-43ff-b8c8-f495a729ff0a/search"},"page":{"printed_page":57,"pdf_page":63,"physical_index":63,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"3113aabaf9958428e17dcfd0117f5d74c7c1e651653f87a11b3bec2e60361c8a"},"chapter":"交往行为理论","content":"图尔明并没有把论证逻辑再往前推进一步，使之进入辩证法和修辞学领域。他没有把论证的临时机制特征与由内在结构所决定的论证形式准确地区分开来。\n\n所谓准确区分，首先是指从形态学上把以导致冲突为趋向的论证结构和以达成共识为趋向的论证结构区分开来。在图尔明看来，法庭诉讼和达成妥协是具有冲突结构的论证的例证，是科学和道德的争论，而艺术批评则是具有共识结构的论证的例证。但在事实上，冲突模式和共识模式并不是平等的组织模式。严格意义上讲，达成妥协根本就不是对有效性要求的话语兑现，而是在权势和实力相当的前提下对没有普遍意义的利益取得一致。陈堂供证(同其他司法讨论，如法官们的商讨、教条主义的讨论以及法律解释等一样)，和一般的实践话语之间的区别，既在于与有效法律的联系，也在于对程序有着一定的限制，而通过这种程序，争论各方能够作出权威的决定，并达到预期的结果。63但是，陈堂供证的一些关键因素，只有用道德论证模式，也就是说，只有通过对规范陈述的正确性进行讨论，才能解释清楚。所以说，一切论证，无论它们涉及的是法律问题和道德问题，还是科学假设或艺术作品，都要求同一种相互寻求真实性的组织模式，其目的在于通过争论，凭着更好的论据使主体间相互信服。\n\n然而，从论证场域的划分当中，我们首先可以看出，图尔明并没有把不同论证形式的内在分化与不同合理行为的机制分化明确区分开来。在我看来，错误在于，图尔明没有把依赖于行为语境的常规要求和普遍有效性要求区分清楚。我们不妨来看一看他经常援引的一些例子：\n\n一、导论：对合理性问题的理解\n\n57","previous_page":56,"next_page":58}