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".
