The Romantic Realism of Michel Foucault Returning to Kant

Beatrice Han argues that the theories of subjection (determinism: structure) and subjectivation (freedom: agency) are the “the blind spot of Foucault's work:” to the very end of his life, in being transcendental and historical theories, respectively, they were in irresolvable conflict. In part I, I have argued that Foucault encourages us to situate the theories of the subject in an un‐thematized reach for a metaphysics of realism which, in effect, was to ground his uncertain complementary reach for a naturalist conduct of research. In part II I also argue that it is this fundamental feature of Foucault's Foucault that drives his returns to Kant, the purpose of which is to resolve the conflicting theories of the subject, and thus to solve his Giddensian problem of structure and creativity. Locating the returns and their purpose in my context of Science for Humanism and the recovery of human agency, I ultimately argue that Foucault's two special returns to Kant in order to solve his structure/agency problem led to two unfortunate solutions. The resort to Baudelair's aesthetic subject is a failed solution in so far as it regresses to being a pre‐noumenal conception of the subject. The subsequent mere reinstatement of Kant's subject as causally empowered, minus the noumenalism, is nothing more than a reclamation of Kant's conception. Only the reconstruction of Foucault's realism permits us to assert that he could have moved beyond the reclamation of human agency to its recovery.     

启蒙定界:康德启蒙观的革命性意义

康德的<答复这个问题:"什么是启蒙运动?">一直被奉为启蒙思想家对启蒙的经典定义.因此,后现代主义对启蒙的批判往往把矛头指向康德的这篇文章.事实上,康德的启蒙观必须在启蒙运动的问题情境中,并结合他的其他著述才能获得完整的理解.康德将启蒙置于人自身的理性自决的前提之下,强调理性实践运用的自由原则,从而使其启蒙定界获得了革命性的内涵,显示了植根现实的强烈的政治批判和宗教批判精神.     

The Romantic Realism of Michel Foucault The Scientific Temptation

Beatrice Han has argued that the theories of subjection (determinism: structure) and subjectivation (freedom: agency) are the “the blind spot[s] of Foucault's work.” Furthermore, she continues, as historical and transcendental theories, respectively, Foucault left them in a state of irresolvable conflict. In the Scientific Temptation I have shown that, as a practicing researcher, Foucault encourages us to situate the theories of the subject in the context of his un‐thematized search for a metaphysics of realism, the purpose of which was to ground his complementary reach for a possibility of naturalism. In Returning to Kant I now argue that it is this fundamental feature of “Foucault's Foucault” that drives his returns to Kant, the purpose of which was to resolve the conflicting theories of the subject and thereby solve his Giddensian problem of structure and creativity. Locating the returns and their purpose in the context of my own arguments for the recovery of human agency, I argue that Foucault's attempts to solve his Giddensian problem led to two unfortunate solutions. In the first return, his resort to Baudelaire's aesthetic subject is a regression to a pre‐noumenal conception of the Kantian subject. With the second return, the reinstatement of the Kantian subject as causally empowered, minus the noumenalism, is nothing more than a reclamation of Kant's conception. I argue that only a reconstruction of Foucault's scientific realism permits us to understand that he could have moved beyond mere reclamation to the actual recovery of human agency.     

康德责任论伦理学的基本问题——关于《道德形而上学原理》的倒序解读

如同人类历史上任何一位有系统理论体系的道德哲学家一样,关于人的基本看法是康德责任论伦理学的基本出发点,其理论的合理性在很大程度上就取决于康德关于人的基本看法的合理性。康德通过强调人是有理性的东西,从类的角度深刻合理地揭示了人有自主能动性这一本质属性。基于这一判断,康德将人的自主能动性,也即人的意志自由作为责任论伦理学的基础。     

自由在西方传统哲学发展中的逻辑进程

古希腊的自由观开启并规定了西方传统哲学中自由的两个路向:一个是苏格拉底、柏拉图的唯智主义的自由路向,一个是希腊晚期反知识论的自由路向。古希腊自由观的问题是本体的自由没能建立。中世纪基督教的自由走的是第二个路向,它试图把自由植根于信仰之上,但却出现了自主性自由与接受性自由的悖论。近代康德前的哲学家走的仍然是知识论的路向,它否定了把自由建基于信仰之上的可能性,但这种自由仍然不具有普遍性,因为普通人很难拥有自由。康德解决这个问题的方式是变知识论的路向为反知识论的路向,把自由引入道德领域,但由于其哲学的二分性,其自由仍具有消极性。黑格尔克服了康德的二元哲学,建立了积极的自由。     

Enlightenment Reason and Modernity: Marx’s Critical Reconstruction

Reflection on and criticism of enlightenment reason is an indispensable part of the Enlightenment itself. It is an important counterbalance to the Enlightenment myth and the crisis of modernity, as well as being a major theoretical subject for political philosophy in the age of globalization. This reflection and criticism must be grasped and examined from both the external perspective of socio-historical requirements and the internal perspective of intellectual history. While giving full credit to the achievements of Enlightenment reason and modernity, we need to review their inherent conflicts, reveal the resultant social crisis, and sort out, reflect on and reference postmodernism’s denunciation of Enlightenment reason and the crisis of modernity in order to provide a more far-reaching solution to these issues. Marx turned the critique of Enlightenment reason and modernity into a critical reconstruction of the logic of capital and the capitalist mode of production, seeing the resolution of these evils as lying in transcendence of capitalist private ownership. In this way, he brought the critique of Enlightenment reason to a climax and showed modern society a way to more advanced development.     

Harre's Social Philosophy and Political Philosophy: A Social Scientific Critique

In his article, “Saving Critical Realism,” Harre (2009 ) relates his revised philosophy of science to a social philosophy concerning the nature of society, and to a political philosophy regarding the nature of freedom and reform. I argue that his social philosophy and political philosophy rest upon an individualistic sense of society and freedom. I demonstrate that his individualism is factually and politically untenable. (I shall not comment on his philosophy of science, although the errors in his social and political philosophies make it suspect.) I counterpose an alternative social philosophy and political philosophy that are based on a structural model of society, freedom, and social change. My critique demonstrates how social science can adjudicate claims of structuralist vs. individualist social and political philosophy. It also argues that social science must constitute the basis for formulating political ideals of freedom and social organization if these are to be viable.     

“自由”与“实践”的哲学申辩与哲学观念的变革——以俞吾金教授的《实践与自由》为展开

传统的马克思主义研究认为,马克思哲学的思想来源在于黑格尔的辩证法和费尔巴哈的唯物主义.这种观点同时认为,历史唯物主义是辩证唯物主义在历史领域的推广.俞吾金教授的《实践与自由》一书则揭示了马克思哲学的真正来源——作为现代哲学典范的康德哲学.马克思从康德那里继承并推进了“实践”和“自由”两大主题,其哲学体系的本质就是历史唯物主义.     

“从无知到有罪”——福柯论“俄狄浦斯王”中的三重“知识-权力”交织

从福柯对戏剧《俄狄浦斯王》的阐释中可看到他对“知识-权力”框架所做的理论补充。福柯试图去除传统解释中知识和求知欲望之间看似自然的因果链关系,而代之以引入知识与权力的复杂关系,以此阐述现代真理话语系统机制的产生。福柯认为弗洛伊德精神分析学解释的俄狄浦斯确实打破了传统认知,但过分抬高了性欲望的理论地位;俄狄浦斯剧更能反映的,是知识话语中真理的发生以及权力机制的运行。在福柯看来,《俄狄浦斯王》不仅体现了自我知识的揭示,还展现了不同类型知识的冲突、权力与知识之间的复杂交织,并且反映了真理审判程序的应用。福柯对《俄狄浦斯王》的分析视角,也喻示着他从具体权力机构考察到古典时期诸权力思想研究的转变。     

Assisting the High Administrative Court in Restricting Too Broad a Concept of Academic Judgment

I have received substantial monetary compensation and a formal apology from my first doctoral school, and a Ph.D. from another university. This essay describes my personal view on discussing the boundaries of academic judgment and research supervision with the ombudsman agency for higher education, and at the High Administrative Court of England and Wales. The Court’s judicial doctrine addresses substantial research accountability matters. It clarifies that although the Court and ombudsman agency must not interfere with academic judgment, not everything done by an academic can be considered as academic judgment. A Ph.D. supervisor can seriously fail to perform his/her duties.     

SPECIAL ISSUE： THE ENLIGHTENMENT IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE The Third Sense of Enlightenment as Seen in the Critique of the Power of Judgment

对现代启蒙批判思潮的反批判,康德哲学固然能够在基本原则和方法方面提供富有成效的支持,但这应是现代人所面临的任务和解决的问题。理性在今天依然占据首要的地位,但相比于启蒙时代人们对它的展望和憧憬,理性非但没有形成内在一致的统一体系,反而更趋多样化,呈现更多的内在矛盾。康德《判断力批判》诠证了理性诸多领域与不同原理之间关联的可能性和途径,揭明了启蒙的第三要义：理性不仅展现为不同的能力、原理和层面,而且这些领域及其现象可以分别予以探讨;不同的理性原理之间和不同领域之间的关联在理论上或是不清楚的,但它们在现象之中却确实地建立了起来;关于现象的表述原本可以分为不同层次,除了构造自然对象知识和人类行为法则的能力和形式,理性亦有构造情绪现象与审美现象的能力和形式。因此,理性批判并不限于通过对现有各种形式的知识的分析,揭示既有的理性形式及其构造活动,而且还在于发现理性的新形式和构造的可能性,从而揭示具有新的形式和性质的知识的可能性条件,直至这种知识本身。     

卡西尔与文化哲学的进路

卡西尔是新康德主义的殿军,他的思想仍未偏离康德哲学的重心——人的问题,他通过创造性地思考和解答康德提出的问题,把＂回到康德去＂这一目标推进到了一个新层次。卡西尔把康德的先验图式转化为对符号的劳作,赋予先验图式以存在论的意义,从而把人类的自我认识看做理解和阐释人类＂创造物＂的构造原理,揭示人类的精神形式的过程。洞察神话、宗教、艺术、科学的思维和表达形式,探究其中隐藏着的人类精神得以统摄的法则是文化哲学的任务。

Abstract：

Cassirer is the last important philosopher of neo-Kantianism confronted with the problem of human,which is the core of Kant’s thoughts.His creative thinking of and answer to the question posed by Kant promotes the aim of ＂going back to Kant＂ to a higher level.Cassirer transforms Kant’s transcendental schema into the work of symbols and endows it with ontological sense,thus the self-knowing of man could be seen as the process of discovering the spiritual forms through understanding and explicating principles in the creatures of human being.The aim of philosophy of culture is to have insight into the modes,formulas and rules hidden in myth,religion,art and science.     

文化与启蒙——阿多诺的辩证文化观念

一般认为,阿多诺的文化工业批判就是其文化批判的全部,但事实上,阿多诺的文化批判还包括对德国古典唯心主义文化观的批判.康德以来的德国唯心主义往往将文化作为纯粹的、完全独立于物质世界的精神存在,认为文化是与物质相比具有真正自由属性的领域.马克思在认同文化的自由属性的同时,强调文化以物质生产为前提.阿多诺继承了马克思的这一文化观念,并将其运用于对当代文化工业的批判之中.     

马克思对康德自由观的继承和超越

人永远是哲学关注的中心,而自由恰恰是人的内在本性的体现。从某种意义上来说,一部哲学史就是有限的人不断追求无限、追求自由的历史。康德在人是目的的理论中,耗尽毕生精力致力于探索实现人的自由的可能性和现实性问题,马克思更是早在学生时代就确立了实现人类自由的理想。马克思与康德一样,将追求人的自由作为哲学的最高价值指向,将实践作为实现自由的根本途径,将自由王国的实现看作是历史的过程。但另一方面,马克思在哲学的出发点上,将哲学的阿基米德点从天国拉回尘世,在现实生活世界中理解人,实现了从抽象的人到现实的人的转变;在实践内涵上,将康德割断的生产实践和道德实践统一起来,实现了从道德实践到社会实践的扩展;在哲学的价值指向上,实现了从道德目的王国到人的自由全面发展的自由王国的转变,使哲学不再追求彼岸世界的乌托邦,而是在生产发展的基础上,将必然王国与自由王国连接了起来,为实现人的自由全面发展找到了现实途径。通过这种转变,马克思完成了从康德开始的新的哲学思维方式的革命。     

康德的实存问题与本体论批判——反驳当代几种典型的质疑

康德对上帝实存的本体论证明提出过一个著名的批判,他的一个主要论据是"实存"不是一个实在的谓词,因而从上帝的纯然概念中不能分析推导出他的实存.近50年来,以穆雷·凯特雷、J·威廉·福吉、艾伦·伍德为代表的许多学者,都对这个论据提出了质疑.但是,他们的理由和论证都包含着一些错误和混淆.同时,以塞西莉亚·魏与艾伦·伍德为代表的一些学者认为,康德的本体论批判不能一般地适用于任何形式的本体论证明,特别是笛卡尔与莱布尼茨的证明.这种观点割裂了康德的认识论批判和本体论批判,没有意识到前者构成了后者的一个基础,因此其结论也是完全不可靠的.     

浅析康德的责任思想

在《道德形而上学原理》中,康德通过善良意志、准则与道德规律、自由等几个概念,从三个命题对责任进行了阐述。仅就本书而言,康德在阐述其责任思想时,存在着从应然到实然的矛盾,也就是说,康德的责任在从先验世界过渡到经验世界中存在着推理的空白,即认为应该成为普遍规律的准则并非永远成为普遍规律。在此,康德实际上暗含了要做对包括自己在内的所有人都有利的事情这一功利主义的假定。但,尽管如此,康德"出于责任而责任"的形式主义伦理学,在时下仍具有重要的现实意义。     

试论费孝通的“乡寰视野”

本文根据费孝通的有关理论、观点提出“乡寰视野”、“劦业乡”两个概念，尝试以此来诠释费孝通关于中国城乡社会发展与世界经济之“休戚与共”的理论和实践活动。文章阐述了费孝通“乡寰视野”观的渊源、演进；从概念结构上解明“乡寰视野”中的“乡”和“寰”，以及“劦业乡”各自的内涵构成；通过对映衬费孝通“乡寰视野”历史意识的理论梳理，以及对费孝通晚年就“乡”“寰”关系问题所作阐述的把握，试图以更具综合性的视域对费孝通的这一重要思想作出较为系统的学理解释。文章最后指出，费孝通倡导“文化自觉”体现出了更为宽广、更为仁至的人文关怀的情愫。“乡寰视野”中的纯真的愿景，是“‘美好社会’的意念”。     

毛泽东创新思维及现实启示

毛泽东的创新思维形成有其特定的历史背景和深厚的马列主义理论基础。他的创新思维有独到的见解,并能将其广泛而灵活地运用于中国革命和建设实践。毛泽东思想是他创新思维的最大成果。毛泽东创新思维具有鲜明的特征,主要表现为:以实事求是为出发点,以独立思考和辩证思维为基本方法,以调查研究为基础,相信和依靠人民群众为重要来源。毛泽东创新思想和精神为我们提供了有益的启示。     

Karl Marx's sociological theory of democracy: Civil society and political rights

This essay reconstructs Marx's relationship to democracy and liberalism through an examination of his early work which was directly concerned with the issues of understanding democracy as a kind of society. Only with an analysis of the dynamics of civil society—a political economic, sociological, and historical understanding—could the true nature of citizenship be discerned. In contradistinction to liberal political theory, he would argue that political theory could not stand on its own if it analyzed only the state. Marx came to understand the contradiction between the liberal state and civil society as what he called a sophistry because it undermined the possibility of the democratic agency of workers. This was a sophistry, not because he opposed political democracy, but because the development of capitalism undermined the possibility of democratic agency. Citizenship could be nothing but a “lion's skin” of politics concealing the nature of civil society beneath it. This contradiction would drive Marx's thought forward as he moved from liberalism to democratic socialism with his developing understanding of the structure and dynamics of capitalism from 1843 until the end of his life. The essay illustrates two closely related claims about Marx's thought regarding liberalism and democracy. First, I argue that Marx engaged in a democratic critique of liberalism; second, and as a response to his democratic critique of liberalism, Marx developed a more sociological understanding of democracy, and hence believed that political democracy was a necessary condition of freedom, though not a sufficient condition.     

康德与《圣经》--以康德早年生活与晚期宗教思想为中心

《圣经》对康德的影响极为深远,几乎贯穿康德思想的始终。对于早年的康德而言,《圣经》教义及其律法主要是借由敬虔教派（ Pietism）通过家庭和学校这两个场合产生影响。康德虽说厌恶课堂上灌输的那种僵硬的敬虔理论,但对塑造着父母良好品性的宗教精神一直抱有好感,且终身念及此事。后期的康德宗教思想主要体现在《纯然理性界限内的宗教》一书中,在那里康德分别从“根本恶”、基督论（ Christology）、教会学（ Ecclesiology）以及末世论（ Eschatology）四个维度细致阐释了他对基督教核心教义的理解,并给予了极具创发性的改造。对此问题的梳理,有助于了解启蒙时代的思想家是如何理解《圣经》的,进而加深后世对理性与信仰关系的认知。