摘要
在本人所写的哈贝马斯传记中,我提出的两个问题:我用生存范畴去讨论他的理论与他力图恢复事实和规范的公共性的努力是相容的吗?我能把世俗地解读的"记忆式团结"(anamnestic solidarity)②概念赋予哈贝马斯,并以此去把握本雅明一克尔凯郭尔式的历史开放性吗?最好的答案是重印哈贝马斯在京都的令人惊异的生平自述(即他在2004年11月11日获京都奖(Kyoto Award)典礼上的答谢演讲)。其次是先把问题放到具体情境之中,然后根据哈贝马斯的自述来回答这两个问题。
Two questions were addressed to my existential biography of Habermas: is my use of existential categories to discuss his theory compatible with his recovery of publicity of fact and norms? Can I concede a secular reading anamnestic solidarity to Habermas and retain this conception to sustain a Bejaminian -Kierkegaadian openness of history? The best answer would be to reprint Habermas's astonishing autobiography fiom Kyoto(his thank you speech on the occasion of Keyto Adward on 11 November 2004).The second best is first to situate it and then take up the two questions in light of his self-presentation.
出处
《当代国外马克思主义评论》
CSSCI
2009年第1期27-43,359,共19页
Contemporary Marxism Review
基金
"哈贝马斯之后:社会批判理论的当代转型与发展"(项目批准号2007BZX007)资助
关键词
哈贝马斯
批判理论
内在性
后世俗化
Habermas
Critical Theory
Inwardness
Post-secular Turn
