{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2","title":"什么是批判","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787303287741","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2","id":"dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2","uuid":"dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2","title":"什么是批判","normalized_title":"什么是批判","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787303287741","isbns":["9787303287741","0120214113"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":490,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E4%BB%80%E4%B9%88%E6%98%AF%E6%89%B9%E5%88%A4","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/dfe67541-4039-4f88-87ce-dbbadb056cb2/search"},"page":{"printed_page":69,"pdf_page":89,"physical_index":89,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"1e12477d5a21303990b90a982b148c0295e17162d06fd690eebdd0af38bf9b49"},"chapter":"什么是批判","content":"由于哈贝马斯把自己限制在言说行为之先验-最小前提上，这些前提总已实现，因此他未讨论下述疑问，即系统的侵犯在哪里会成为问题。①我这样说不仅是指话语行为不能抵抗实在暴力的使用(这是陈腐琐碎的，在个别情况下是残酷的)。毋宁说，我还指对真理的兴趣和对他人最起码的尊重在最有策略的谈话中也是被预设为前提的。换句话说，这也是以批判理论为名的所有的先验奠基论述的悖论：那些把自己限制在任何人都不能基于概念化之理由提出争议的地方的人，由此避免讨论任何社会冲突，充其量是对其他的(反对论证计划或)论证计划构成了挑战。确定什么东西存在和什么东西(不)应该存在之间的区别显然比重建那些没有人可以有意义地争论的准人类学基础更难。②这不仅对于从康德到哈贝马斯的更为理性主义的事业来说是如此(它将认知的或说话的人置于中心），而且对于替代的社会存在论和人类学来说也是如此，从海德格尔到霍耐特，它们都基于一个在情感和身体上有需要的存在。①\n\n① 参见霍耐特对哈贝马斯的批评。(Verdinglichung， Frankfurt/M.2005, S.67.)\n\n②那么，当霍耐特写到卢卡奇时，也许与其说是批评，不如说是揭示，卢卡奇在社会批判的基础方面是失败的，但对于让人们看到物化的痛苦和由此被预设前提的强大价值，卢卡奇是一个不可或缺的光源。(Die zerrissene Welt des Sozialen，Frank-furt/M. 1999, S. 21 f.)\n\n(意识形态)批判如何被规训\n\n69","previous_page":68,"next_page":70}