走向他者之途
摘要
随着绝对化的主体理性的自我完成,理性主体成为了世界的中心和主人。理性主体在自身的封闭、孤独、独白式的抽象极端化中走到了尽头,从而力图消解和突破自身而进入到与他者的共在与对话之中。哲学家们分别从现象学、存在论、语言理解、语言交往等等不同的道路和途径去论说他者的存在,并在其中揭示了他者所具有的丰富内涵,彰显了他者在人类存在中所具有的重要价值和作用。尽管不同的哲学家在走向他者的道路上都有所建树,但是,他们往往都夸大了人类实践活动的某个侧面、某个环节,从而从绝对化的理性主体陷入到其他的绝对抽象的原则之中。只有马克思的实践论立场为他者现象指明了现实的前提和基础,为说明他者现象指明了正确的方向。因而,本文力图对各大哲学流派中的代表人物的他者理论进行系统的反思、研究和批判。通过比较和研究,揭示并梳理出现代西方欧陆人文哲学家在“他者”问题上的融合与分歧,建构与解构的发展理路;揭示并阐发他们在各自不同的理论基点上出发而建构起来的他者所具有的突破和局限;最后,从马克思主义哲学的实践论出发,说明他者现象的实践论基础,揭示并分析马克思的实践中的他者对于其他哲学流派的他者概念的奠基和超越。
Our times has entered the age of both globalization and diversity. In this big background, how we keep surviving and developing together with the Other has become a big problem of our age. In philosophy,what we should first answer is the possibility of the Other out of Self . This paper tries to research and compare, reflecte and criticize the philosophers of different schools for the exploration of their achievements,displaying the basic position of the Practice of Marxist philosophy on the problem of the Other .
In the principle of modern epistemology, the Rational Self has become the world's subject and the basic principle of interpreting the world. However, as establishing his own being, the Rational Self has caused his separation from the Other. This caused the difficulty that the true Other cannot gain his independent being in the principle of the Rational Self.Therefore, how to get out of egology, and to establish the independent Other, has became the philosophical theme of our age. Philosophers on the different theoretical basis have searched for and break through the weaknesses and shortcomings of the the Rational Self ,and developed different pathes leading to the Other.
To begin with ,This paper has systematically reflected and criticized and studied the theories about the Other. Through comparing and studing them it reveals and outlines the development of the distinction and disputation,the destruction and constitution on the problem of the Other.It opens out and explains the deflections and limens of their theories based on the different foundations.It shows and analyses the relation and differences between Marx’s practice and other philosophers’theories.
Husserl created phenomenological method, and turned to the pure consciousness through the phenomenological suspension.Beginning with the pure consciousness of self-evidence, Husserl began to prove the existence of the Other. Husserl finished the job through the body as an intermediary. First, he thought the self as the combination of body and consciousness, and thought the others as the similar combination of body and consciousness,and to prove the being of inter- subjectivity.This Other still lives in the area of consciousness, and still is a other self but not the Other. Thus, despite Husserl has established the basis of phenomenology,he was criticized form the inside and outside of phenomenology because of the egology.
Along with the path of Husserl's phenomenology,his successors Sartre absorbed the nourishment of phenomenology and ontology,and displayed the Other from the structure of the being of in-itself and the being of for-itself;The being of in-itself is revealed from the gaze of others.In the gaze of other,the relationship of the being of in-itself and for-itself is conflicting, and others has become the astriction of the self’s freedom. Therefore, Sartre considered the relationship between the Self and others as a conflict, in his own words,"Hell is other people."Away from Sartre, Merleau-Ponty’s theory is based on the body and goes beyond solipsism to meet otherness. He believed that mind and body are not separated,and the body is the world's noumenon, the body and mind are united and integrated.The body is a differentiated being in essence, the same time, there is mutual coordination and unity between the body organs,and this relationship between body organs can also be extended to inter-subjectivity. So Merleau-Ponty believes that the body is the being that contains the presence of the Other and has a connotation of inter-subjectivity. He believes that the relationship between the Self and the Other is not the conflict as Sartre said, but is co-being within the body, and constitutes the spiritual body. In the phenomenological way, Merleau-Ponty is a real person who pushed ahead the theory of the Other. Levinas is the one who established the most thorough theory of the Other,his theory is from phenomenology and phenomenology, has matured in existentialism and transcends existentialism. He proved the absolute and infinite Other from the metaphysical“original difference”,and show the different state of the Other through "face".In Levinas, he constitutes a existence beyond the reach of rational identity, or an absolute Other beyond rationality.
Heidegger also seeked to break through the limit of Husserl’s solipsism, his theory was based on the ontology of metaphysics in order to reveal the“co-being”from the“Dasein”.“Dasein”is the provisions of man, and the basic structure of“Dasein”is“co-being-world”. Heidegger thought, as the integrity of“Dasein”,the trouble, fear and death revealed“Dasein”as“co-being”.So,“co-being”was not an mantter of nothing but a fundamental prescriptive. Meanwhile, the timing of“Dasein”also revealed the Other .Heidegger also revealed the“ontological difference”by the timing of“Dasein”to illustrate the existence of alterity, which demonstrated the necessity of the existence of otherness in the metaphysical sense. This was the devastating blows to the self-evident and self-sufficiency of the Rational Self, and really found the ontological foundation of the Other. Therefore, Heidegger’s theory about the Other transcend beyond the solipsism of Husserl's phenomenology from the perspective of ontology ,and broke through the limitations of dualism, revealing the living structure of“co-being”. However, Heidegger's theory of the Other also has inherent deficiencies.first of all, because his aim was clarity of Dasein,the Other only was the supplementary category of self-revealing .Second, he ignored the real encounter between the Self and the Other. Finally, Heidegger's approach to the Other still was the appearance of“Dasein”, so he basically did not materialize out of position from the self-centered.
Gadamer struke out in another direction, from the perspective of ontology language to break through the monologue of the rational subject and reveal the linguistic Other .Gadamer believed that language was not only objects and tools of human cognition, but also was a world view and possessing the ontological significance. Because of the innate dialogic nature of the language, language provided in a fundamental meaning the“co-being”of the Self and the Other.The dialogic nature of language was displayed in the no-subject nature of language.Only if I really entered the dialogue with the Other,and were not in accordance with the my will, we would really enter into the language. Like the concept of the game, only if we entered the game, rather than as an outsider of the game, the game became the game itself, and we were the really player of games. Second, The dialogic nature of language was displayed also in the language of self-forgetting. Language does not explain itself in nature, but rather show what it has to say. In this“original”language, the language necessarily reveals itself as a“dialogue”.Gadamer also explained the being of the Other from the concept of understanding. First, the“fusion of horizons”was the premise to understand. The Other and the Self constituted the“meaning of horizons”together, and made real understanding. Secondly, as a prerequisite for understanding the concept of effective-history inherently contained the structure of the Self and the Other. In short, Gadamer explained the being of the Other from the ontological perspective of language, and explained the specific shape and characteristics of the Other in language, thereby further destroyed the bastion of rational monologue. However, because he thought of the language as the abstract ontology to the world,he lose the real basis for the philosophical theory of practice.therefore, fundamentally, he can not really establish the existence of the Other.
The difference between Habermas and other philosophers is that he would regulate the Other and restrict the infinite spread of otherness from the communicative rationality.Therefore, Habermas’first task was to learn the main lesson of Husserl's construction of inte-subjectivity, and to break the shackle of solipsism, with the inter-subjectivity to accommodate the being of the Other. Secondly, he regulated the social interaction behavior and discourse behavior in order to achieve equality freedom and reason between subjects from the communicative rationality,therefore, he would construct a normative theory of communicative theory of activities from the communication and language.
Finally, only from the basis of Marx’s pratice theory, we can really find realistic and reasonable argument for the Other. First, the practice provides a realistic basis to consciousness, survival, language and communication, so that only Marx's theory of practice can reasonably describe the reasonable and realistic nature of the phenomenology, existentialism, language and communicative rationality. Second, Marx reveals the Other through practice. First, the production relations in practice is the basis of relation among people and between the Self and the Other. Practice reveal humanbeing as social people and people in the relation with the Other. Social practice also reveals humanbeiing as historical people, he is a“co-being”person with the Other in his history. Thus, the social practice of man reveal themselves as a“group”existence, not a isolated self beyond society and history. Secondly, to show the Other from the alienation of social practice. Human’s material production activities promote the continuous development of productive forces, and put humans into different social division of labor, and the deepening social division of labor has caused the growing antagonism and strangeness between the Self and the Other. Therefore, the specific social and historical reality determines the relationship between the Self and Other. Thirdly, to reveal the existence of the Other from the nature of linguistic practice, respectively, reveal the existence of the Other from the sociality and historicity of language. Marxist philosophy has laid the practical basis of the Other’s theory which provided a reasonable explanation of the Other from the practice theory.
This paper has no intention to show various theories of the Other on a simple list, and is not trying to use Marxist philosophy to integrate those various theories of the Other, but through the analysis and exploration of the logical premise and the thought thread about the Other, to reflect and critize the successes and failures of theory of the Other, and to strive to answer the question why the Other’s existence is possible and necessary, and to reveal forms and characteristics of the Other, and the tendency and purport of the theory of the Other.
Our times has entered the age of both globalization and diversity. In this big background, how we keep surviving and developing together with the Other has become a big problem of our age. In philosophy,what we should first answer is the possibility of the Other out of Self . This paper tries to research and compare, reflecte and criticize the philosophers of different schools for the exploration of their achievements,displaying the basic position of the Practice of Marxist philosophy on the problem of the Other .
In the principle of modern epistemology, the Rational Self has become the world's subject and the basic principle of interpreting the world. However, as establishing his own being, the Rational Self has caused his separation from the Other. This caused the difficulty that the true Other cannot gain his independent being in the principle of the Rational Self.Therefore, how to get out of egology, and to establish the independent Other, has became the philosophical theme of our age. Philosophers on the different theoretical basis have searched for and break through the weaknesses and shortcomings of the the Rational Self ,and developed different pathes leading to the Other.
To begin with ,This paper has systematically reflected and criticized and studied the theories about the Other. Through comparing and studing them it reveals and outlines the development of the distinction and disputation,the destruction and constitution on the problem of the Other.It opens out and explains the deflections and limens of their theories based on the different foundations.It shows and analyses the relation and differences between Marx’s practice and other philosophers’theories.
Husserl created phenomenological method, and turned to the pure consciousness through the phenomenological suspension.Beginning with the pure consciousness of self-evidence, Husserl began to prove the existence of the Other. Husserl finished the job through the body as an intermediary. First, he thought the self as the combination of body and consciousness, and thought the others as the similar combination of body and consciousness,and to prove the being of inter- subjectivity.This Other still lives in the area of consciousness, and still is a other self but not the Other. Thus, despite Husserl has established the basis of phenomenology,he was criticized form the inside and outside of phenomenology because of the egology.
Along with the path of Husserl's phenomenology,his successors Sartre absorbed the nourishment of phenomenology and ontology,and displayed the Other from the structure of the being of in-itself and the being of for-itself;The being of in-itself is revealed from the gaze of others.In the gaze of other,the relationship of the being of in-itself and for-itself is conflicting, and others has become the astriction of the self’s freedom. Therefore, Sartre considered the relationship between the Self and others as a conflict, in his own words,"Hell is other people."Away from Sartre, Merleau-Ponty’s theory is based on the body and goes beyond solipsism to meet otherness. He believed that mind and body are not separated,and the body is the world's noumenon, the body and mind are united and integrated.The body is a differentiated being in essence, the same time, there is mutual coordination and unity between the body organs,and this relationship between body organs can also be extended to inter-subjectivity. So Merleau-Ponty believes that the body is the being that contains the presence of the Other and has a connotation of inter-subjectivity. He believes that the relationship between the Self and the Other is not the conflict as Sartre said, but is co-being within the body, and constitutes the spiritual body. In the phenomenological way, Merleau-Ponty is a real person who pushed ahead the theory of the Other. Levinas is the one who established the most thorough theory of the Other,his theory is from phenomenology and phenomenology, has matured in existentialism and transcends existentialism. He proved the absolute and infinite Other from the metaphysical“original difference”,and show the different state of the Other through "face".In Levinas, he constitutes a existence beyond the reach of rational identity, or an absolute Other beyond rationality.
Heidegger also seeked to break through the limit of Husserl’s solipsism, his theory was based on the ontology of metaphysics in order to reveal the“co-being”from the“Dasein”.“Dasein”is the provisions of man, and the basic structure of“Dasein”is“co-being-world”. Heidegger thought, as the integrity of“Dasein”,the trouble, fear and death revealed“Dasein”as“co-being”.So,“co-being”was not an mantter of nothing but a fundamental prescriptive. Meanwhile, the timing of“Dasein”also revealed the Other .Heidegger also revealed the“ontological difference”by the timing of“Dasein”to illustrate the existence of alterity, which demonstrated the necessity of the existence of otherness in the metaphysical sense. This was the devastating blows to the self-evident and self-sufficiency of the Rational Self, and really found the ontological foundation of the Other. Therefore, Heidegger’s theory about the Other transcend beyond the solipsism of Husserl's phenomenology from the perspective of ontology ,and broke through the limitations of dualism, revealing the living structure of“co-being”. However, Heidegger's theory of the Other also has inherent deficiencies.first of all, because his aim was clarity of Dasein,the Other only was the supplementary category of self-revealing .Second, he ignored the real encounter between the Self and the Other. Finally, Heidegger's approach to the Other still was the appearance of“Dasein”, so he basically did not materialize out of position from the self-centered.
Gadamer struke out in another direction, from the perspective of ontology language to break through the monologue of the rational subject and reveal the linguistic Other .Gadamer believed that language was not only objects and tools of human cognition, but also was a world view and possessing the ontological significance. Because of the innate dialogic nature of the language, language provided in a fundamental meaning the“co-being”of the Self and the Other.The dialogic nature of language was displayed in the no-subject nature of language.Only if I really entered the dialogue with the Other,and were not in accordance with the my will, we would really enter into the language. Like the concept of the game, only if we entered the game, rather than as an outsider of the game, the game became the game itself, and we were the really player of games. Second, The dialogic nature of language was displayed also in the language of self-forgetting. Language does not explain itself in nature, but rather show what it has to say. In this“original”language, the language necessarily reveals itself as a“dialogue”.Gadamer also explained the being of the Other from the concept of understanding. First, the“fusion of horizons”was the premise to understand. The Other and the Self constituted the“meaning of horizons”together, and made real understanding. Secondly, as a prerequisite for understanding the concept of effective-history inherently contained the structure of the Self and the Other. In short, Gadamer explained the being of the Other from the ontological perspective of language, and explained the specific shape and characteristics of the Other in language, thereby further destroyed the bastion of rational monologue. However, because he thought of the language as the abstract ontology to the world,he lose the real basis for the philosophical theory of practice.therefore, fundamentally, he can not really establish the existence of the Other.
The difference between Habermas and other philosophers is that he would regulate the Other and restrict the infinite spread of otherness from the communicative rationality.Therefore, Habermas’first task was to learn the main lesson of Husserl's construction of inte-subjectivity, and to break the shackle of solipsism, with the inter-subjectivity to accommodate the being of the Other. Secondly, he regulated the social interaction behavior and discourse behavior in order to achieve equality freedom and reason between subjects from the communicative rationality,therefore, he would construct a normative theory of communicative theory of activities from the communication and language.
Finally, only from the basis of Marx’s pratice theory, we can really find realistic and reasonable argument for the Other. First, the practice provides a realistic basis to consciousness, survival, language and communication, so that only Marx's theory of practice can reasonably describe the reasonable and realistic nature of the phenomenology, existentialism, language and communicative rationality. Second, Marx reveals the Other through practice. First, the production relations in practice is the basis of relation among people and between the Self and the Other. Practice reveal humanbeing as social people and people in the relation with the Other. Social practice also reveals humanbeiing as historical people, he is a“co-being”person with the Other in his history. Thus, the social practice of man reveal themselves as a“group”existence, not a isolated self beyond society and history. Secondly, to show the Other from the alienation of social practice. Human’s material production activities promote the continuous development of productive forces, and put humans into different social division of labor, and the deepening social division of labor has caused the growing antagonism and strangeness between the Self and the Other. Therefore, the specific social and historical reality determines the relationship between the Self and Other. Thirdly, to reveal the existence of the Other from the nature of linguistic practice, respectively, reveal the existence of the Other from the sociality and historicity of language. Marxist philosophy has laid the practical basis of the Other’s theory which provided a reasonable explanation of the Other from the practice theory.
This paper has no intention to show various theories of the Other on a simple list, and is not trying to use Marxist philosophy to integrate those various theories of the Other, but through the analysis and exploration of the logical premise and the thought thread about the Other, to reflect and critize the successes and failures of theory of the Other, and to strive to answer the question why the Other’s existence is possible and necessary, and to reveal forms and characteristics of the Other, and the tendency and purport of the theory of the Other.
引文
[1]马克思.资本论(第一卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1975.
[2]马克思.马克思恩格斯全集第42卷[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[3]马克思.马克思恩格斯全集第46卷[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[4]马克思.马克思恩格斯选集第一卷[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
[5][法]笛卡尔.第一哲学沉思集[M].北京:商务印书馆,1986.
[6][德]康德.纯粹理性批判[M].北京:人民出版社,2004.
[7][德]康德.实践理性批判[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
[8][德]康德.判断力批判[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
[9][德]黑格尔.精神现象学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1979.
[10][德]黑格尔.小逻辑[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[11][德]黑格尔.逻辑学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1976年版.
[12][德]胡塞尔.现象学的观念[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2005年版.
[13][德]胡塞尔.欧洲科学的危机和超验现象学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[14][德]胡塞尔.胡塞尔选集(上下卷)[M].上海:上海三联书店,1997.
[15][德]胡塞尔.纯粹现象学通论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995.
[16][德]胡塞尔.生活世界现象学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2002年.
[17][德]海德格尔.存在与时间[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.
[18][德]海德格尔.海德格尔选集[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1996.
[19][德]海德格尔.林中路[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1997.
[20][德]海德格尔.时间概念史导论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2009.
[21][德]海德格尔.在通向语言的途中[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[22][德]海德格尔.演讲与论文集[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,2005.
[23][德]海德格尔.形而上学导论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
[24][法]萨特.自我的超越性[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[25][法]萨特.存在与虚无[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.
[26][法]梅洛庞蒂.知觉现象学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[27][法]梅洛庞蒂.可见的与不可见的[M].北京:商务印书馆,2008.
[28][法]梅洛庞蒂.哲学赞词[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[29][法]列维纳斯.从存在到存在者[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,2006.
[30][德]卡西尔.人论[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
[31][德]阿尔多诺.否定的辩证法[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.
[32][德]霍克海默、阿尔多诺.启蒙辩证法[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1990.
[33][德]伽达默尔.哲学解释学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1994.
[34][德]伽达默尔.真理与方法[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
[35][法]福柯.词与物[M].上海:上海三联书店,2001.
[36][法]福柯.知识考古学[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1998.
[37][德]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1989.
[38][德]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1994.
[39][德]哈贝马斯.认识与兴趣[M].上海:学林出版社,1999.
[40][德]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[41][德]哈贝马斯.现代性的话语[M].北京:译林出版社,2003.
[42][法]德里达.论文字学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1999.
[43][德]威廉·冯·洪堡特.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[44][美]弗莱德·R·多尔迈.主体性的黄昏[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1992.
[45][美]赫伯特·施皮格伯格.现象学运动[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995.
[46][荷]泰奥多·德布尔.胡塞尔的思想发展[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1995.
[47]倪良康.现象学及其效应[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1994.
[48]孙正聿.哲学通论[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1998.
[49]莫伟民、姜宇辉、王礼平.二十世纪法国哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,2008.
[50]孙向晨.面对他者[M].上海:上海三联书店,2008.
[51]佘碧平.梅罗庞蒂历史现象学研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[52]杨大春.语言·身体·他者——当代法国哲学的三大主题[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,2007.
[53]王恒.时间性:自身与他者[M].江苏人民出版社,2008.
[1][德]H·博德尔.在场的特权?[J].世界哲学,2006(1):13-20.
[2]张廷国、梅景辉.语言的边界与理解的张力[J].湖北社会科学,2008(6):105-107.
[3]朱进东.“他者”抑或“他人”——从来维纳斯的“第一哲学”意义上看[J].南京社会科学,2004(6):16-18.
[4]颜岩.拉康“他者”理论及其现代启示[J].重庆社会科学,2007(2):22-25.
[5]王昌树.从意向现象学到生存现象学[J].求实学刊,2007(3):32-36.
[6]钱捷.本体的诠释——析海洛·庞蒂现象学的“肉体”概念[J].哲学研究,2001(6):53-61.
[7]杨泽树.同调与异趣——评哈贝马斯与伽达默尔的诠释学对话[J].哲学研究,2008(12):7-9.
[8]彭启福.对话中的他者——伽达默尔诠释学对话的理论批判[J].哲学动态,2007(3):60-64.
[9].李荣.马克思实践观的他者向度及其当代超越性解读[J].齐鲁学刊,2006(2):124-127.
[10]孙向晨.萨特、莱维纳及他者问题[J].江苏社会科学,2006(1):26-32.
[11]金惠敏.从主体性到主体间性——对西方哲学发展史的一个后现代性考察[J].陕西师范大学学报,2005(1):47-59.
[12]赵卫国.伽达默尔诠释学理论的困境分析[J].2005(3):15-19.
[13]臧配洪.肉身的现象学呈现之途——从胡塞尔到海德格尔再到梅洛·庞蒂[J].南京社会科学,2005(12):5-11.
[14]臧配洪.从时间到他者——论梅洛·庞蒂历史观的现象学逻辑[J].南京大学学报,2004(1):11-17.
[15]臧配洪.作为阴影的他者——梅洛·庞蒂他者理论的本体论意义》,江苏社会科学,2004(3):9-10.
[16]王小章.从韦伯的价值中立到哈贝马斯的交往理性[J].哲学研究,2008(6):78-84.
[17]杨国荣.他者的理解:庄子的思考——从濠梁之辩说起[J].学术月刊,2006(8):48-55.
[18]何中华.关于理解的理解[J].东岳论丛,2007(2):22-29.
[19]陈波.现代性的自我确证与批判理论的规范基础[J].四川大学学报,2006(5):41-50.
[20]孟彦文.勒维纳斯的言说形而上学[J].哲学动态,2004(4):30-35.
[21]黄作.从他人到他者——拉康与他人问题[J].哲学研究,2004(9):64-70.
[22]吴启文.试评伽达默尔的“视域融合”[J].南京社会科学,1991(4):26-31.
[23]何卫平.简评伽达默尔的解释学辩证法[J].哲学动态,1997(9):37-40.
[24]何卫平.现象学和辩证法在语言中的契合──析伽达默尔“游戏—对话”论的双重意义[J].湖北大学学报,1999(5):50-54.
[25]欧力同.论哈贝马斯的“批判的解释学”[J].探索与争鸣,1993(2):17-23.
[26]周国平.伽达默尔作为世界经验的理解和语言[J].哲学研究,1995(8):48-54.
[27]刘峰.语言与人类的交往理性——哈贝马斯的普遍语用学[J].北京大学学报,1992(2):78-85.
[28]潘德荣.理解、解释与实践[J].中国社会科学,1994(1):119-134.
[29]张云龙.交往与共识何以可能——论哈贝马斯与后现代主义的争论[J].江苏社会科学,2009(6):45-49.
[30]孙庆斌.为他者与主体的责任——列维纳斯他者理论的伦理诉求[J].江海学刊,2009(4):63-68.
[31]金惠敏.无限的他者——对列维纳斯一个核心概念的阅读[J].外国文学,2003(3):46-53.
[32]彭启福.对话中的他者——伽达默尔诠释学对话的理论批判[J].哲学动态,2007(3):60-64.
[33]陈鹏.实践为镜像和他者去魅[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报,2007(5):47-50.
[34]胡大平.他者:意识形态批判理论的一个新的支点[J].江苏社会科学,2004(3):14-16.
[35]尚杰.悖谬之路——从克尔凯郭尔到勒维那斯[J].浙江学刊,2008(3):29-37.
[36]关群德.梅洛——庞蒂的身体概念[J].世界哲学,2010(1):26-31.
[37]叶秀山.列维纳斯面对康德.黑格尔.海德格尔——当代哲学关于“存在论”的争论[J].文史哲,2007(1):61-70.
[38]张文喜.他者问题:切入人的社会性的通道[J].广西社会科学,2003(4):29-31.
[39]杨大春.意识哲学解体的身体间性之维——梅洛·庞蒂对胡塞尔他人意识问题的创造性读解与展开[J].哲学研究,2003(11):69-75.
[40]杨大春.20世纪法国哲学的现象学之旅[J].哲学动态,2005(6):38-46.
[41]周濂.沟通行动具备独立性与优先性吗?——试论哈贝马斯言语行为理论[J].求是学刊,2005(2):26-31.
[42]郭贵春.哈贝马斯的规范语用学[J].哲学研究,2001(5):36-43.
[43]王凤才.哈贝马斯交往行为理论述评[J].理论学刊,2003(5):9-14.
[44]郑召利.交往理性:寻找现代性困境的出路——哈贝马斯重建现代性的思想路径[J].求是学刊,2004(4):28-31.
[1]孙庆斌.他者视域中的主体向度[N].光明日报,2009-8-28(12).
①黑格尔:《精神现象学》,贺麟、王玖兴译,商务印书馆,1979年版,第10页8
①黑格尔:《精神现象学》,贺麟、王玖兴译,商务印书馆,1979年版,第13页
②马克思:《神圣家族》,马克思恩格斯全集第2卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第75页
③马克思:《神圣家族》,马克思恩格斯全集第2卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第177页
④黑格尔:《精神现象学》,贺麟、王玖兴译,商务印书馆,1979年版,第11页
①黑格尔:《精神现象学》,贺麟、王玖兴译,商务印书馆,1979年版,第12页
①多尔迈:主体性的黄昏,上海人民出版社,2004年版,第48页
①《中国现象学与哲学评论》第一辑,上海译文出版社,1995年版,第86-87页
②《中国现象学与哲学评论》第一辑,上海译文出版社,1995年版,第88页
①胡塞尔:《欧洲科学的危机与超越论的现象学》,王炳文译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第226页
①转引自:金惠敏:《从主体性到主体间性》,陕西师范大学学报,2005年第1期,第57页
②倪良康:《现象学及其效应》,生活读书新知三联书店,1994年版,第153-154页
③倪良康:《现象学及其效应》,生活读书新知三联书店,1994年版,第152-153页
①萨特:《存在与虚无》,陈宣良等译,生活·读书·新知三联书店,1987年版,第307页
①萨特:《存在与虚无》,陈宣良等译,生活·读书·新知三联书店,1987年版,第259页
②萨特:《存在与虚无》,陈宣良等译,生活·读书·新知三联书店,1987年版,第551-552页
①转引自:杨大春:《语言·身体·他者》,生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年版,第260页
①转引自:莫伟民等:《二十世纪法国哲学》,人民出版社,2008年版,第174页
①梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉现象学》,姜志辉译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第521页
②转引自:莫伟民等:《二十世纪法国哲学》,人民出版社,2008年版,第181页
③梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉现象学》,姜志辉译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第443页
①梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉现象学》,姜志辉译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第460页
②梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉现象学》,姜志辉译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第455页
③梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉首要地位及其哲学结论》,王东亮译,北京三联书店,2002年版,第36页
④梅洛·庞蒂:《可见的与不可见的》,罗国祥译,商务印书馆,2008年版,第142页
①梅洛·庞蒂:《可见的与不可见的》,罗国祥译,商务印书馆,2008年版,第180页
②梅洛·庞蒂:《世界的散文》,杨大春译,商务印书馆,2005年版,第190页
③梅洛·庞蒂:《哲学赞词》,杨大春译,商务印书馆,2003年版,第214页
①梅洛·庞蒂:《可见的与不可见的》,罗国祥译,商务印书馆,2008年版,第187-188页
②施皮伯格伯:《现象学运动》,商务印书馆,1995年版,第739页
①列维纳斯:《从存在到存在者》,吴蕙仪译,江苏教育出版社,2006年版,第85页
②转引自:杨大春:《语言·身体·他者》,生活?读书?新知三联书店,2007年版,第286页
①转引自:孙向晨:《面对他者》,上海三联书店,2008年版,第92页
①转引自:金惠敏:《无限的他者》,外国文学,2003年第3期,第49页
②转引自:金惠敏:《无限的他者》,外国文学,2003年第3期,第50页
①转引自:孙向晨:《面对他者》,上海三联书店,2008年版,第87页
①转引自:孙向晨:《面对他者》,上海三联书店,2008年版,第89页
②转引自:杨大春:《他者与他性——一个问题的谱系》,浙江学刊,2001年第2期,第183页
①转引自:杨大春:《语言·身体·他者》,生活?读书?新知三联书店,2007年版,第297页
①多尔迈:《主体性的黄昏》,上海人民出版社,2004年版,第43页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第143页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第70-71页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第73页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第154页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第145页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第145页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第145页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P144
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第14页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第44页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第149页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P210页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第233页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P222
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P222
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P234
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P287
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第288-289页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第281页
②海德格尔《时间概念史导论》,商务印书馆,2009年版,第431页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第273页
④海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第431页
⑤海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第281页
⑥海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第294页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第297页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1999年版,第302页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第319页
①海德格尔《时间概念史导论》,商务印书馆,2009年版,第447页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第371页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第375页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第152页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第137页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第138页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第146页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第146页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第149页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第149页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第152页
④海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第152页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第147页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第156页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第157页
④海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第156页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第160页
①转引自:孙向晨:《萨特、莱维纳及他者问题》,江苏社会科学,2006年第1期,第29页
②马丁·布伯:《人与人》,作家出版社,1992年版,第230页
①伽达默尔:《摧毁与解构》,哲学译丛,1991年第5期,第23页
①《当代西方著名思想家评传》,第1卷,山东人民出版社,1996年版,第418页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第579页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第581页
①海德格尔:《在通向语言的途中》,商务印书馆,1997年版,第128页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第593页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第401页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第432页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第446-447页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第405页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第579页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第574页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第570页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第13页
①伽达默尔:《哲学解释学》,夏振平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年版,第49页
②伽达默尔:《哲学解释学》,夏振平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年版,第66页
①伽达默尔:《哲学解释学》,夏振平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年版,第128页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第570页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第570页
②伽达默尔:《哲学解释学》,夏振平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年版,第22页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第489页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第387页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第189页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第399页
③伽达默尔:《科学时代的理性》,国际文化出版公司,1988年版,第40页
④伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第301-302页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第582页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第578页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第366页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第391页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第307页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第305页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第441页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第438页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第238页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第441页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第469页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第469页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第469-470页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第342、438页
①倪良康:《现象学及其效应》,生活?读书?新知三联书店,1994年版,第340页
①倪良康:《现象学及其效应》,生活?读书?新知三联书店,1994年版,第357页
①哈贝马斯:《交往行动理论》,洪配郁、蔺青译,重庆出版社,1994年版,第40页
②莱利斯·豪:《哈贝马斯》,陈志刚译,中华书局,2002年版,第29页
①莱利斯·豪:《哈贝马斯》,陈志刚译,中华书局,2002年版,第29页
②莱利斯·豪:《哈贝马斯》,陈志刚译,中华书局,2002年版,第38页
①莱利斯·豪:《哈贝马斯》,陈志刚译,中华书局,2002年版,第38页
②龚群:《道德乌托邦的重建———哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究》,商务出版社,2003年版,第141页
①哈贝马斯:《认识与兴趣》,郭官义、李黎译,学林出版社,1999年版,第275页
①转引自:刘峰:《语言与人类的交往理性》,北京大学学报,1992年英语语言文学专刊(二),第81页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第32页
②马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,马克思恩格尔全集第42卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第96页
③马克思:《资本论》第1卷,人民出版社,1975年版,第202页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第30页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第35页
②马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第40页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第30页
①马克思恩格斯:《费尔巴哈》,人民出版社1988年版,第24页
②马克思:《神圣家族》,马克思恩格斯全集第2卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第25页
①马克思:《神圣家族》,马克思恩格斯全集第2卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第25页
②马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第90页
③马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第56页
①马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第83页
②张一兵:《大写他者的发生学逻辑》,《学海》,2004年第4期
③马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第60页
①马克思:《路易波拿巴的雾月十八日》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第603页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第43页
①马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第59页
②马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第60页
③马克思:《资本论》第1卷,马克思恩格斯全集第23卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第67页
④拉康:《拉康选集》,上海译文出版社,2001年版,第220页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第35页
②马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第35页
①阿佩尔:《哲学的改造》,孙周兴等译,上海译文出版社,2005年版,第158页
[2]马克思.马克思恩格斯全集第42卷[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[3]马克思.马克思恩格斯全集第46卷[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[4]马克思.马克思恩格斯选集第一卷[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
[5][法]笛卡尔.第一哲学沉思集[M].北京:商务印书馆,1986.
[6][德]康德.纯粹理性批判[M].北京:人民出版社,2004.
[7][德]康德.实践理性批判[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
[8][德]康德.判断力批判[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
[9][德]黑格尔.精神现象学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1979.
[10][德]黑格尔.小逻辑[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[11][德]黑格尔.逻辑学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1976年版.
[12][德]胡塞尔.现象学的观念[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2005年版.
[13][德]胡塞尔.欧洲科学的危机和超验现象学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[14][德]胡塞尔.胡塞尔选集(上下卷)[M].上海:上海三联书店,1997.
[15][德]胡塞尔.纯粹现象学通论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995.
[16][德]胡塞尔.生活世界现象学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2002年.
[17][德]海德格尔.存在与时间[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.
[18][德]海德格尔.海德格尔选集[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1996.
[19][德]海德格尔.林中路[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1997.
[20][德]海德格尔.时间概念史导论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2009.
[21][德]海德格尔.在通向语言的途中[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[22][德]海德格尔.演讲与论文集[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,2005.
[23][德]海德格尔.形而上学导论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
[24][法]萨特.自我的超越性[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[25][法]萨特.存在与虚无[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.
[26][法]梅洛庞蒂.知觉现象学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[27][法]梅洛庞蒂.可见的与不可见的[M].北京:商务印书馆,2008.
[28][法]梅洛庞蒂.哲学赞词[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[29][法]列维纳斯.从存在到存在者[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,2006.
[30][德]卡西尔.人论[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
[31][德]阿尔多诺.否定的辩证法[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.
[32][德]霍克海默、阿尔多诺.启蒙辩证法[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1990.
[33][德]伽达默尔.哲学解释学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1994.
[34][德]伽达默尔.真理与方法[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
[35][法]福柯.词与物[M].上海:上海三联书店,2001.
[36][法]福柯.知识考古学[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1998.
[37][德]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1989.
[38][德]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1994.
[39][德]哈贝马斯.认识与兴趣[M].上海:学林出版社,1999.
[40][德]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[41][德]哈贝马斯.现代性的话语[M].北京:译林出版社,2003.
[42][法]德里达.论文字学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1999.
[43][德]威廉·冯·洪堡特.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[44][美]弗莱德·R·多尔迈.主体性的黄昏[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1992.
[45][美]赫伯特·施皮格伯格.现象学运动[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995.
[46][荷]泰奥多·德布尔.胡塞尔的思想发展[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1995.
[47]倪良康.现象学及其效应[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1994.
[48]孙正聿.哲学通论[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1998.
[49]莫伟民、姜宇辉、王礼平.二十世纪法国哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,2008.
[50]孙向晨.面对他者[M].上海:上海三联书店,2008.
[51]佘碧平.梅罗庞蒂历史现象学研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[52]杨大春.语言·身体·他者——当代法国哲学的三大主题[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,2007.
[53]王恒.时间性:自身与他者[M].江苏人民出版社,2008.
[1][德]H·博德尔.在场的特权?[J].世界哲学,2006(1):13-20.
[2]张廷国、梅景辉.语言的边界与理解的张力[J].湖北社会科学,2008(6):105-107.
[3]朱进东.“他者”抑或“他人”——从来维纳斯的“第一哲学”意义上看[J].南京社会科学,2004(6):16-18.
[4]颜岩.拉康“他者”理论及其现代启示[J].重庆社会科学,2007(2):22-25.
[5]王昌树.从意向现象学到生存现象学[J].求实学刊,2007(3):32-36.
[6]钱捷.本体的诠释——析海洛·庞蒂现象学的“肉体”概念[J].哲学研究,2001(6):53-61.
[7]杨泽树.同调与异趣——评哈贝马斯与伽达默尔的诠释学对话[J].哲学研究,2008(12):7-9.
[8]彭启福.对话中的他者——伽达默尔诠释学对话的理论批判[J].哲学动态,2007(3):60-64.
[9].李荣.马克思实践观的他者向度及其当代超越性解读[J].齐鲁学刊,2006(2):124-127.
[10]孙向晨.萨特、莱维纳及他者问题[J].江苏社会科学,2006(1):26-32.
[11]金惠敏.从主体性到主体间性——对西方哲学发展史的一个后现代性考察[J].陕西师范大学学报,2005(1):47-59.
[12]赵卫国.伽达默尔诠释学理论的困境分析[J].2005(3):15-19.
[13]臧配洪.肉身的现象学呈现之途——从胡塞尔到海德格尔再到梅洛·庞蒂[J].南京社会科学,2005(12):5-11.
[14]臧配洪.从时间到他者——论梅洛·庞蒂历史观的现象学逻辑[J].南京大学学报,2004(1):11-17.
[15]臧配洪.作为阴影的他者——梅洛·庞蒂他者理论的本体论意义》,江苏社会科学,2004(3):9-10.
[16]王小章.从韦伯的价值中立到哈贝马斯的交往理性[J].哲学研究,2008(6):78-84.
[17]杨国荣.他者的理解:庄子的思考——从濠梁之辩说起[J].学术月刊,2006(8):48-55.
[18]何中华.关于理解的理解[J].东岳论丛,2007(2):22-29.
[19]陈波.现代性的自我确证与批判理论的规范基础[J].四川大学学报,2006(5):41-50.
[20]孟彦文.勒维纳斯的言说形而上学[J].哲学动态,2004(4):30-35.
[21]黄作.从他人到他者——拉康与他人问题[J].哲学研究,2004(9):64-70.
[22]吴启文.试评伽达默尔的“视域融合”[J].南京社会科学,1991(4):26-31.
[23]何卫平.简评伽达默尔的解释学辩证法[J].哲学动态,1997(9):37-40.
[24]何卫平.现象学和辩证法在语言中的契合──析伽达默尔“游戏—对话”论的双重意义[J].湖北大学学报,1999(5):50-54.
[25]欧力同.论哈贝马斯的“批判的解释学”[J].探索与争鸣,1993(2):17-23.
[26]周国平.伽达默尔作为世界经验的理解和语言[J].哲学研究,1995(8):48-54.
[27]刘峰.语言与人类的交往理性——哈贝马斯的普遍语用学[J].北京大学学报,1992(2):78-85.
[28]潘德荣.理解、解释与实践[J].中国社会科学,1994(1):119-134.
[29]张云龙.交往与共识何以可能——论哈贝马斯与后现代主义的争论[J].江苏社会科学,2009(6):45-49.
[30]孙庆斌.为他者与主体的责任——列维纳斯他者理论的伦理诉求[J].江海学刊,2009(4):63-68.
[31]金惠敏.无限的他者——对列维纳斯一个核心概念的阅读[J].外国文学,2003(3):46-53.
[32]彭启福.对话中的他者——伽达默尔诠释学对话的理论批判[J].哲学动态,2007(3):60-64.
[33]陈鹏.实践为镜像和他者去魅[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报,2007(5):47-50.
[34]胡大平.他者:意识形态批判理论的一个新的支点[J].江苏社会科学,2004(3):14-16.
[35]尚杰.悖谬之路——从克尔凯郭尔到勒维那斯[J].浙江学刊,2008(3):29-37.
[36]关群德.梅洛——庞蒂的身体概念[J].世界哲学,2010(1):26-31.
[37]叶秀山.列维纳斯面对康德.黑格尔.海德格尔——当代哲学关于“存在论”的争论[J].文史哲,2007(1):61-70.
[38]张文喜.他者问题:切入人的社会性的通道[J].广西社会科学,2003(4):29-31.
[39]杨大春.意识哲学解体的身体间性之维——梅洛·庞蒂对胡塞尔他人意识问题的创造性读解与展开[J].哲学研究,2003(11):69-75.
[40]杨大春.20世纪法国哲学的现象学之旅[J].哲学动态,2005(6):38-46.
[41]周濂.沟通行动具备独立性与优先性吗?——试论哈贝马斯言语行为理论[J].求是学刊,2005(2):26-31.
[42]郭贵春.哈贝马斯的规范语用学[J].哲学研究,2001(5):36-43.
[43]王凤才.哈贝马斯交往行为理论述评[J].理论学刊,2003(5):9-14.
[44]郑召利.交往理性:寻找现代性困境的出路——哈贝马斯重建现代性的思想路径[J].求是学刊,2004(4):28-31.
[1]孙庆斌.他者视域中的主体向度[N].光明日报,2009-8-28(12).
①黑格尔:《精神现象学》,贺麟、王玖兴译,商务印书馆,1979年版,第10页8
①黑格尔:《精神现象学》,贺麟、王玖兴译,商务印书馆,1979年版,第13页
②马克思:《神圣家族》,马克思恩格斯全集第2卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第75页
③马克思:《神圣家族》,马克思恩格斯全集第2卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第177页
④黑格尔:《精神现象学》,贺麟、王玖兴译,商务印书馆,1979年版,第11页
①黑格尔:《精神现象学》,贺麟、王玖兴译,商务印书馆,1979年版,第12页
①多尔迈:主体性的黄昏,上海人民出版社,2004年版,第48页
①《中国现象学与哲学评论》第一辑,上海译文出版社,1995年版,第86-87页
②《中国现象学与哲学评论》第一辑,上海译文出版社,1995年版,第88页
①胡塞尔:《欧洲科学的危机与超越论的现象学》,王炳文译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第226页
①转引自:金惠敏:《从主体性到主体间性》,陕西师范大学学报,2005年第1期,第57页
②倪良康:《现象学及其效应》,生活读书新知三联书店,1994年版,第153-154页
③倪良康:《现象学及其效应》,生活读书新知三联书店,1994年版,第152-153页
①萨特:《存在与虚无》,陈宣良等译,生活·读书·新知三联书店,1987年版,第307页
①萨特:《存在与虚无》,陈宣良等译,生活·读书·新知三联书店,1987年版,第259页
②萨特:《存在与虚无》,陈宣良等译,生活·读书·新知三联书店,1987年版,第551-552页
①转引自:杨大春:《语言·身体·他者》,生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年版,第260页
①转引自:莫伟民等:《二十世纪法国哲学》,人民出版社,2008年版,第174页
①梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉现象学》,姜志辉译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第521页
②转引自:莫伟民等:《二十世纪法国哲学》,人民出版社,2008年版,第181页
③梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉现象学》,姜志辉译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第443页
①梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉现象学》,姜志辉译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第460页
②梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉现象学》,姜志辉译,商务印书馆,2001年版,第455页
③梅洛·庞蒂:《知觉首要地位及其哲学结论》,王东亮译,北京三联书店,2002年版,第36页
④梅洛·庞蒂:《可见的与不可见的》,罗国祥译,商务印书馆,2008年版,第142页
①梅洛·庞蒂:《可见的与不可见的》,罗国祥译,商务印书馆,2008年版,第180页
②梅洛·庞蒂:《世界的散文》,杨大春译,商务印书馆,2005年版,第190页
③梅洛·庞蒂:《哲学赞词》,杨大春译,商务印书馆,2003年版,第214页
①梅洛·庞蒂:《可见的与不可见的》,罗国祥译,商务印书馆,2008年版,第187-188页
②施皮伯格伯:《现象学运动》,商务印书馆,1995年版,第739页
①列维纳斯:《从存在到存在者》,吴蕙仪译,江苏教育出版社,2006年版,第85页
②转引自:杨大春:《语言·身体·他者》,生活?读书?新知三联书店,2007年版,第286页
①转引自:孙向晨:《面对他者》,上海三联书店,2008年版,第92页
①转引自:金惠敏:《无限的他者》,外国文学,2003年第3期,第49页
②转引自:金惠敏:《无限的他者》,外国文学,2003年第3期,第50页
①转引自:孙向晨:《面对他者》,上海三联书店,2008年版,第87页
①转引自:孙向晨:《面对他者》,上海三联书店,2008年版,第89页
②转引自:杨大春:《他者与他性——一个问题的谱系》,浙江学刊,2001年第2期,第183页
①转引自:杨大春:《语言·身体·他者》,生活?读书?新知三联书店,2007年版,第297页
①多尔迈:《主体性的黄昏》,上海人民出版社,2004年版,第43页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第143页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第70-71页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第73页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第154页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第145页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第145页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第145页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P144
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第14页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第44页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第149页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P210页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第233页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P222
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P222
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P234
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,P287
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第288-289页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第281页
②海德格尔《时间概念史导论》,商务印书馆,2009年版,第431页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第273页
④海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第431页
⑤海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第281页
⑥海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第294页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第297页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1999年版,第302页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第319页
①海德格尔《时间概念史导论》,商务印书馆,2009年版,第447页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第371页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第375页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第152页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第137页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第138页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第146页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第146页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第149页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第149页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第152页
④海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第152页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第147页
②海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第156页
③海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第157页
④海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第156页
①海德格尔:《存在与时间》,生活读书新知三联书店,1987年版,第160页
①转引自:孙向晨:《萨特、莱维纳及他者问题》,江苏社会科学,2006年第1期,第29页
②马丁·布伯:《人与人》,作家出版社,1992年版,第230页
①伽达默尔:《摧毁与解构》,哲学译丛,1991年第5期,第23页
①《当代西方著名思想家评传》,第1卷,山东人民出版社,1996年版,第418页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第579页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第581页
①海德格尔:《在通向语言的途中》,商务印书馆,1997年版,第128页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第593页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第401页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第432页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第446-447页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第405页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第579页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第574页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第570页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第13页
①伽达默尔:《哲学解释学》,夏振平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年版,第49页
②伽达默尔:《哲学解释学》,夏振平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年版,第66页
①伽达默尔:《哲学解释学》,夏振平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年版,第128页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第570页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第570页
②伽达默尔:《哲学解释学》,夏振平、宋建平译,上海译文出版社,1994年版,第22页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第489页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第387页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第189页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第399页
③伽达默尔:《科学时代的理性》,国际文化出版公司,1988年版,第40页
④伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第301-302页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第582页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第578页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第366页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第391页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第307页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第305页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第441页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第438页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第238页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第441页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第469页
①伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第469页
②伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第469-470页
③伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海译文出版社,1999年版,第342、438页
①倪良康:《现象学及其效应》,生活?读书?新知三联书店,1994年版,第340页
①倪良康:《现象学及其效应》,生活?读书?新知三联书店,1994年版,第357页
①哈贝马斯:《交往行动理论》,洪配郁、蔺青译,重庆出版社,1994年版,第40页
②莱利斯·豪:《哈贝马斯》,陈志刚译,中华书局,2002年版,第29页
①莱利斯·豪:《哈贝马斯》,陈志刚译,中华书局,2002年版,第29页
②莱利斯·豪:《哈贝马斯》,陈志刚译,中华书局,2002年版,第38页
①莱利斯·豪:《哈贝马斯》,陈志刚译,中华书局,2002年版,第38页
②龚群:《道德乌托邦的重建———哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究》,商务出版社,2003年版,第141页
①哈贝马斯:《认识与兴趣》,郭官义、李黎译,学林出版社,1999年版,第275页
①转引自:刘峰:《语言与人类的交往理性》,北京大学学报,1992年英语语言文学专刊(二),第81页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第32页
②马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,马克思恩格尔全集第42卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第96页
③马克思:《资本论》第1卷,人民出版社,1975年版,第202页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第30页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第35页
②马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第40页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第30页
①马克思恩格斯:《费尔巴哈》,人民出版社1988年版,第24页
②马克思:《神圣家族》,马克思恩格斯全集第2卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第25页
①马克思:《神圣家族》,马克思恩格斯全集第2卷,人民出版社,1979年版,第25页
②马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第90页
③马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第56页
①马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第83页
②张一兵:《大写他者的发生学逻辑》,《学海》,2004年第4期
③马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第60页
①马克思:《路易波拿巴的雾月十八日》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第603页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第43页
①马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第59页
②马克思:《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,人民出版社,2000年版,第60页
③马克思:《资本论》第1卷,马克思恩格斯全集第23卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第67页
④拉康:《拉康选集》,上海译文出版社,2001年版,第220页
①马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第35页
②马克思恩格斯:《德意志意识形态》,马克思恩格斯选集第1卷,人民出版社,1972年版,第35页
①阿佩尔:《哲学的改造》,孙周兴等译,上海译文出版社,2005年版,第158页