This study explores the pivotal concept of “objective possibility” within Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness, a concept that has received less attention compared to more prominent ideas such as reification or totality. Lukács frequently refers to “objective possibility” and related terms in essays like “What Is Orthodox Marxism?” and “Class Consciousness,” emphasizing its importance in understanding class consciousness theoretically. The term’s roots for Lukács derive from Max Weber’s methodological writings, which drew from John Stuart Mill and Johannes von Kries and applied to historical and social causation. However, Lukács diverges from Weber’s use, focusing not on counterfactual historical events but on latent historical tensions in the present that can be actualized through collective action. The study argues that Lukács integrates Weberian objective possibility with Marxist and Hegelian language, utilizing it within a modal social ontology. This approach allows Lukács to theorize key questions of class consciousness, historical action, and revolution. By drawing on Hegel’s dialectics of possibility, actuality, and necessity, as well as Marxian contradictions in material conditions, Lukács reconfigures objective possibility from a heuristic tool for the writing of history to an ontologically significant element in the field of historical action.
亚里士多德确实有一种关于恶的理论.善在定义上优先于恶,这是由善所需要的本体论边界决定的.如果善实际上就是卓越的存在,那么恶必定是这种存在的缺乏.在实体范畴中,亚里士多德的善是一种活的存在,在对自身的沉思中,第一性的神获得了善并且是幸福的.由此类推,如果存在一种实体范畴上的恶,那么它必定是一种能对自身加以沉思的活的存在.然而在亚里士多德勾勒的事物体系中,这种观念是无法实现的.亚里士多德的善的理论排除了把一种恶(即实体性的巨大的恶)等同于善的可能性.这种理论认真对待伦理上的恶,把它当作心理学、政治学问题,而不是当作本体论问题.无条件的恶说的不是理性的神灵,而是心理变态之人或反社会之人,说的是一位恶人,尽管这个人处在一种特定的社会,即良好的社会之中.
New materialism is one of the most important emerging trends in the humanities and social sciences, but it is also one of the least understood. This is because, as a term of ongoing contestation, it currently has no single definition. The novel contribution of this article is to offer a critical introduction to new materialism that distinguishes between three commonly conflated strands and to argue for what we find to be the most promising and novel of the three directions. The paper unfolds in four parts: First, it illuminates more precisely just what is "new" about new materialism by contrasting it with "old" materialism. Second, it clarifies how failed materialism is an intermediary theory between old and new materialisms. Third, it untangles and compares three main directions in new materialism. Fourth, it ultimately argues in favor of the third direction.
康德的义务论和功利主义通常被看作处于道德哲学对立的两极.黑尔则认为这两种理论是可以相容的,由此,他主张康德本可以是一个功利主义者.黑尔的主要论证分为以下几个方面.首先,目的公式、普遍法则公式以及康德所使用的对于几个例子的论证(不应当虚假承诺;应当发展自己的才能;应当行善)都与功利主义相容,但康德天生的严格主义使得他以一种非功利主义的方式解释了不应当自杀的例子.其次,《德性论》中,对他人的义务(促进他人的幸福)与功利主义一致,而对自己的义务(促进自己的完善)推进一步也变成功利主义.再次,康德和功利主义的道德推理体系都包含一个纯粹的形式部分(以意愿或偏好作为普遍概念)和这一形式加以运用的具体情境部分(意愿或偏好的内容在具体情境中通过经验加以确定),就此而言,二者也是一致的.
In modern society,human's self-consciousness was awakening and at the same time losing itself in a new way,which reflected the crisis of the spirit of modem time brought by modernity.Modem thinkers such as Marx and Nietzsche have deeply studied the self and its interaction with the world,and explored the micro and macro mechanisms behind the phenomena from the whole social and cultural structure and its changes.By analyzing the spiritual structure of modem society,especially various pathological phenomena,they found the deep structure of the self and revealed the micro mechanism of the moral culture which shaped the self.By criticizing capital and power,they revealed the macro mechanism of human destiny.Losing oneself not only makes it difficult for people to form its identity,but also directly leads to people's pathologies.The reflection on the above questions constitutes a central clue of modernity critique,while the promotion of enlightenment is still the mission of philosophy which calls itself as"the knowledge of healing".
关于艺术意图问题,M.C.比尔兹利(Monroe C.Beardsley)有着独特的立场.一方面,他始终捍卫意图谬误论,认为对于艺术作品尤其是文学作品的解释与作者的意图无关;另一方面,他又主张审美意图论,认为正是制作者的审美意图构成了定义艺术作品的必要条件.比尔兹利这种看似明显对立的双重艺术意图观在当代艺术语境中不仅存在着可能的矛盾,而且遭到诸多质疑.不过,无论是他的意图谬误论还是审美意图论都构成了对当代艺术理论过于宽泛性的合理纠偏,这构成了该双重艺术意图观背后最大的理论价值.
逻辑实证主义在二战后才被引入日本哲学学术界.在此过程中,赴日参加"美国研究研讨会"的美国哲学家发挥了重要作用.日本第一代分析哲学家出生于20世纪20和30年代,20世纪60年代开始产生一定影响,其中一些人在20世纪70年代出版了高质量的原创著作.第二代分析哲学家出生于20世纪40和50年代,他们在20世纪70和80年代开始教学,并继续发表分析哲学方面的论文和著作.多年来,分析哲学一直被称为"科学哲学",大意是指科学的哲学.它经常被批评为"非哲学".然而,分析哲学改变了哲学讨论的风格,并使形成一种足以以可理解的方式表达哲学思想和论点的语言成为可能.
Lacan's ethics of psychoanalysis treats the"good"in traditional ethics as a"phony science",as a disguise for law and power relations,and this"good"is treated as a manufactured and continually reproduced commodity.The pursuit of the"good"leads to the form of perversion like"Kant with Sade",hindering the subject's own desires.Lacan attempts to bring back the missing dimension of desire in Kantian ethics through Sade's ethic of jouissance.This desire arises from the inherent division of the Law and manifests itself in the form of"evil".In this way,"evil"reveals the intrinsic lack of the ethical entity,which creates a repetitive drive in the subject interpellated by the Law,and takes an ontologically negative stance in order to take responsibility for the lack of the ethical entity.In the ethics of psychoanalysis,"good"and"evil"are situated in a dialectic of parallax,where the difference between good and evil is an ontological one,and where the mediation of good and evil calls for an ethically acting subject.The ethics of psychoanalysis,which ultimately confers a profound ethical responsibility on the subject,clearly demonstrates the negative function of the drive and its historical dimension,and through the element of the drive,intrinsically connects classical German philosophy with Marxism,providing a drive dimension to the historical threads of social struggles.
Brudney's interpretation of young Marx from the perspective of political philosophy and moral philosophy shows a kind of theoretical efforts to reconstruct Marx with Rawls resources and new theoretical trends,which has attracted more attention from scholars at home and abroad.His interpretation closely revolves around Marx's normative theory and the"proof problem",holding that Marx holds a normative theory about human nature and good life,but he cannot prove the correctness of his views under the current condition of capitalism because he rejects philosophy,so it is necessary to introduce the argumentation methods of moral philosophy and political philosophy.His interpretation is worthy of affirmation,but there are many theoretical errors due to wearing the colored glasses of Rawls's political philosophy.Intentionally or unintentionally,he elevated the young Marx and belittled the mature Marx,which in fact led to the rejection of historical materialism and the theory of surplus value,and its"proof problem"is not the key to understand Marx.On the whole,its interpretation belongs to the ranks of"bourgeois practical philosophy"and cannot be classified into the Marxist camp.To truly understand Marx,it is necessary to stand on the position of Marx himself and uphold the principle of integrity and development of thought.Moreover,it is necessary to adhere to the core theoretical achievements of historical materialism and scientific socialism.
亚里士多德哲学中,质料的持存有多个层次,既有类比意义上作为变化模式中质料的持存,也有在实体生灭中质料的持存,后者是同类的而非同一质料的持存.而讨论质料的持存离不开对质料与(υ)ποκε(ι)μενον关系的进一步澄清.既被用于逻辑学和形而上学中范畴理论背景下谓述的"主体",也被用于指涉作为所有生成变化基础的"基底".
作为法兰克福学派第四代学人中的重要代表,R.耶给(Rahel Jaeggi)承续法兰克福学派的异化批判理论传统,立足于日常生活的"小事情异化",重新考察和阐释了马克思的异化理论,探究自由生活如何可能.她拒绝任何美好生活应然状态的预设,在对"本质主义"进行批判和解构的基础上,创造性地提出了以"无关系的关系"(the Relation of Relationlessness)为核心表征的异化学说,建构了具有后形而上学色彩的异化理论.耶给的异化理论是对当代资本主义社会个体日常生活普遍异化感受的深刻揭示,深入到对当代资本主义的日常生活批判维度,推动了异化理论的当代发展.然而,耶给对马克思异化理论的阐释也存在诸多误读之处,需要仔细辨析,并厘清二者之间的边界和问题域.
Kant's critical philosophy has a deep metaphysical motivation,which is closely connected with the nihilism and meaning crisis caused by the process of rationalization.Rationalization implies that everything must be examined by reason.The consequence of this process is that each being was deconditioned,there is no longer reason in itself and end in itself.Therefore,the rationalization insured the certainty of scientific knowledge,and at the same time,caused the absence of the meaning of life.Kant was conscious of this predicament of rationalism earlier than Jacobi.While he insisted to overcome the nihilism caused by rationalization from the principles of reason itself.Through his critique of reason,Kant reshaped the notion of knowledge,limited knowledge in the sphere of phenomenon,and made a distinction between the practical using and theoretical using of reason,justified the reality of a world full of immoral values and meaning.
Some people believe that Hesiod's Works and Days aims to praise work,while others think that work in this poem is just a necessary evil.In this paper,I argue that neither is desirable,because work is duplicitous.Although Hesiod's real intention is to explain why men are subject to work and how they work,and even how they live,he also examines the question of"what kind of work".For this reason,Hesiod explains the necessity and justness of work by introducing the concept of δ(ι)κη,and,in a sense,sets an example of a just life.Although heavy labor,which is the result of vicious competition,is not worthy of admiration,bad works like war,strife,and the accompanying fatigue are even less admirable.Only genuine and positive work are necessary for a righteous way of life,ordained by God and required by humanity.Justice here is essentially a set of rational and moral principles,and genuine work is the fundamental way to practice it.
继亚里士多德将悲剧的本质视为悲剧人物的偶然过失之后,谢林首次将辩证法引入悲剧理论,他将悲剧的本质定义为"自由"和"必然"这一对最高哲学理念之间的冲突关系,以此回应人物过失说所带来的偶然性挑战.悲剧也得以从关注艺术形式完满性的"悲剧诗"转向呈现哲学理念的"悲剧哲学".黑格尔承接了谢林的这一讨论,将自身分裂、自我和解的辩证法思想与悲剧理论密切关联,并在此基础上引入了"伦理实体",悲剧所呈现的不再是最高的哲学理念,而是有限环节的伦理实体力量,这种转换使得进一步的超越成为可能,悲剧的和解也不再是谢林那里双方所达成的平衡状态,而是一个朝向更高理念的动态扬弃过程.悲剧同辩证思想的结合使得悲剧理论从"悲剧诗"走向"悲剧哲学",这种创造性的建构赋予悲剧以全新的生机和活力.
"传统"是麦金太尔"追寻美德筹划"中的核心观念.在《追寻美德》中,麦金太尔初步说明了何谓传统,它如何为理解美德提供背景.在《谁之正义?何种合理性?》中,麦金太尔论述了一种基于传统的认识论,引入了探究传统的观念,强调在进行道德探究的时候离不开其背后的传统;在《三种互竞的道德探究观》中,麦金太尔论述了托马斯主义的探究观,认为这一探究观是基于传统的道德探究观.麦金太尔的"传统"观念引起很多学者的异议,他们批评麦金太尔加剧了道德相对主义、用权威和信仰替换了理性、这一理论并无现实性等等.仔细思考麦金太尔传统观念的语境,这些批评都能得到相应的回应.麦金太尔对于"传统"的强调为伦理学探究提供了新的视野.
在2021年的最新对话中,霍耐特和巴特勒探讨了承认理论,两者在"赋属"是否应该被看作承认的一种特定形式这一问题上针锋相对.双方的思想交锋表明了两人在理解承认概念方面的元分歧,同时也映射出第二、三代法兰克福学派与后结构主义思潮在思考主体问题上的两种范式.霍耐特和巴特勒之争的根源在于他们分别以支配性权力和构成性权力的视角来理解人类的承认活动,这一差异在他们处理福柯的权力概念时表现得尤为明显.霍耐特的承认概念具有脱离现实的理想化倾向,这种理想化与一种将权力完全理解为外部支配的模式紧密相联,反映出"规范性转向"后的法兰克福学派的普遍缺陷.在这场对话中,霍耐特和巴特勒都忽视了承认和权力背后的社会经济结构.这场对话表明,后结构主义在激进地界定权力概念时,需要同时明确理论的规范性导向,而批判理论的进一步发展则需要吸收后结构主义的构成性的权力概念.
在《形而上学》Θ6的1048b18-35中，亚里士多德区分了运动和现实，认为同一项活动不可能既是运动又是“严格意义的现实”。本文旨在阐明这一区分的内涵。通过考察“观看”这一典型例子，可以发现一项活动是运动还是“严格意义的现实”，取决于我们所采取的视角。从动力的角度来看，所有的现实都是运动；而从形式的角度来看，只有一些运动，因其在形式上具有完备性，而成为“严格意义的现实”。因此，“观看”以及其他许多类似的活动可以同时被称为运动和“严格意义的现实”。
在国外左派学界,普殊同对《资本论》的重新解读颇具新意.他通过对传统马克思主义的批判来重释马克思政治经济学诸范畴,以此达到对资本主义的批判.不过,他在重释过程中放弃了社会历史过程性线索,而注重从价值与物质财富等范畴间的张力中寻求解放路径,导致他未达到历史唯物主义方法论的高度.他过于强调价值形式的辩证法,忽视阶级斗争和所有权等理论,其阐释方案缺乏革命主体而滑向了乌托邦.虽然普殊同的理论存在瑕疵,但其工作有助于深化对马克思政治经济学的研究,因而,对其进行批判性研究具有重要意义.
在古典泛非主义遭到失败之时,经典非洲马克思主义担负起了复兴非洲之大任.首先,经典非洲马克思主义正确地重构了非洲历史和社会地理的结构,确立非洲是由非洲人民所创造的;其次,经典非洲马克思主义应运而生,是为了对抗当时在非洲大陆迅速发展的新殖民主义;再次,经典非洲马克思主义与西方马克思主义不同在于:它是理论与实践的结合,其中心任务之一是实现一个民族文化的领导权,取代奴役的、虚假的和奴性的精英文化;最后,为了驱逐帝国主义和殖民主义者对非洲历史的侵略和渗透,经典非洲马克思主义不得不建构一种文明体系,这将成为人民意志的体现.
拉康的"对象a"在精神分析理论中主要指主体从完满的实在界进入象征界必须割离、失落之物,是一种原初缺失.进入象征界的主体始终致力于重获"对象a"以求回归完满,"对象a"通过凝视与能指滑动在象征界以失败现身成为主体的欲望动因与欲望对象.就运作的功能形式与深层逻辑而言,消费主义与拉康的"对象a"在资本运作场域中具有隐晦的异质同构性.在运作功能与形式上,消费主义中的商品与"对象a"都是欲望的凝结体,占据崇高位置;在视觉机制上,商品的景观化与拉康"对象a"的凝视契合一致;在语言逻辑中,消费主义的符号赋魅与"对象a"的能指滑动同构相通.在马克思主义对拜物教社会维度的分析与批判理论基础之上,运用拉康"对象a"这一异质性视角深层透视主体对消费的沉迷、拜恋,进一步洞悉消费主义意识形态的内在心理运作机制与外在资本操纵实质,破解出消费主义是主体对"空无"之物的迷恋、"无物"之"恋物"的幻象本质.
