摘要
海德格尔在1933年至1934年出任佛莱堡大学校长期间,曾加入德国纳粹党并公开支持希特勒政权。近10年来,西方学术界对这位本世纪哲学巨人的政治参予与他的思想的内在关系,再度展开了激烈的辩论;并於面对海德格尔哲学遗产时,显现出二分的态度。在德里达和拉古一拉巴特眼中,海氏之犯了误信纳粹主义之错失,在於他未能彻底地离开西方主体性形而上学、特别是其理性中心主义的思想陷阱;汲取海氏参政错误的教训,在哲学上应该采取的态度,便是在继承海德格尔哲学遗产的基础上,彻底地进行对西方传统哲学概念的解构。费利和雷诺则把前二者的做法视为虚无主义,因为他们认为海德格尔犯错的原因,正是离开了理性主义的康庄大道;因此,为免重蹈覆彻,就必须针对虚无主义的流弊,复张理性的旗帜。然而,在重建具普遍性意义的理性时,若只以西方内部的理性主义传统为参考,如何能避免欧洲中心主义的困境?第三条出路是否可能?
Recent reflections on the internal reationship between Heidegger's political participation during his rectorate at the University of Freiburg from 1933 - 34 and his own philosophical thought have produced diametrically opposite conclusions among Western scholars. For J. Derrida and P. Lacoue - Labarthe, Heidegger's political misconduct in supporting the Nazi regime can be traced back to elements of metaphysics of subjectivity, especially elements of Euro- logocentrism still present in Heidegger's thought. The lesson to be drawn consists then in critically reassessing Heidegger's philosophical legacy and to pursue radically the deconstruct ion of concepts of Western traditional philosophy. Criticizing the Derridian analysis as nihilistic, L. Ferry and A. Renaut attribute the reason for Heidegger's political misadventure to Heidegger's own deviation from Rationalism. For the latters the only resolve is a philosophical reconstruction of Universal Reason. But if the latter work is to be accomplished with no other frame of reference than that of Western Rationalism, how can one avoid the impasse of Eurocentrism? Is there a third way out?
出处
《开放时代》
1998年第1期96-105,共10页
Open Times
