通向解放的乌托邦之路——哈贝马斯交往思想研究
|
摘要
综观哈贝马斯的整个思想体系,我们发现:贯穿于其理论体系始终的是这样一条主线:交往行为理论及其交往合理性思想;而构成其整个理论体系内在逻辑的则是对人类解放之路的孜孜以求。从上述认识出发,本文站在普遍交往的全球化时代背景下,通过对哈贝马斯整个思想体系脉络的梳理,力图发现隐藏在其后的“解放”旨趣,并对哈贝马斯的解放乌托邦与马克思的解放理想加以比较研究,看能否从中找到“乌托邦之后”人类解放的新思路。
为了达到上述研究目标,本文采用了历史与逻辑相统一的研究方法,站在马克思主义的立场上对哈贝马斯的相关思想进行辩证研究和批判,对哈贝马斯学说与马克思思想的关联加以适当点评。通过比较,我们得出如下结论:哈贝马斯的社会理想固然美妙,可以在很多方面给予我们启迪,但由于他忽视“生产力”(生产实践)发展这一社会解放的现实物质基础,只能流于空想和幻想。他一方面坚持马克思主义的当代意义,坚持马克思主义的批判精神和人的解放的旨趣,认为马克思主义没有过时;另一方面,他又以“重建”之名行否定之实,要求用时代发展的目光审视包括历史唯物主义在内的既成理论,并通过对道德意识、道德规范的强化促进社会进化。这是唯心主义的道德决定论。尽管哈贝马斯思想中有合理之处,但他并没有真正地适应时代发展需要去重建追求人类自由解放的历史唯物论。相反,在他极力想“重建”的历史唯物主义那里,马克思所设想的通过(阶级的)政治解放实现(经济的)社会解放、进而实现人类自身解放的共产主义却是一条通向自由、解放的“现实之路”。
As the representative of Frankfurt School in its second stage and the leader of currently western academia, Jürgen Habermas constructs a high-level system of social critical theory which aims at liberation. In such a theory, there is a constant theme, that is, the theory of communicative action and communicative rationality. And the inner logic of the theory is Harbermas’assiduous pursuit of human liberation. In this paper, I do a research on the skeleton of Habermas’whole-life thought in the background of contemporary globalization, hoping to find its inner aim at liberation, and to compare Habermas’theory on liberating utopia and Marx’s theory of emancipation. My ultimate aim is to get a new way in understanding human liberation in time of post-utopia. This paper entails three sections.
In the preface, I introduce the background in which Habermas proposed his theory and his research method. I also recapitulate the research status on this topic in both domestic and foreign academia.
There are four chapters in the main section of this paper, in which I focus on Habermas’analysis on the new change of later capitalism and his diagnosis on the crisis that caused by capitalism. In Habermas’idea, there are two characters in later capitalism, which are enhancing of state participation and ideologizing of scientific technology. It is the paradoxical development of the aforementioned characters that caused the legitimate crisis of later capitalism and the augmentation of human alienation. It also caused Marx’s theory of class struggle and surplus value being out of time and historical materialism being necessary to be reconstructed.
Why did such crisis happen? Habermas believes that it is a necessary result of instrumental reason, technological reason and development of scientific technology. It is also the logical necessity that happened when end rationality which should have played its role in systems entered the domain of life world. In order to get rid of such irrational phenomena, we need to use the theory of inter-subjectivity in the world of life, and construct the life world into a world being filled with inter-subjectivity and communicative rationality. Scholars of the Frankfurt School in its first stage also think that the modern crisis was caused by the dominant position of instrumental reason in society. However, Habermas insists that critique of these scholars still stays in the level of conscious philosophy, and that reason in their idea is still priori reason. That is, Habermas thinks that there scholars do not grasp the real significance of reason. That is why they can not get a way to solve the problem except to have recourse to instrumental reason. Therefore, in order to escape from their pessimism and theoretic plight, Habermas tried to reconstruct a theory, which is theory of communicative reason. In a deeper sense, he hopes to explore the significance of communicative reason to human liberation in modern time, and to show the inner potential of currently social development.
Relying on the theory of communicative reason, Habermas analyzes the symptoms of later capitalist society. In his eyes, the pathogeny of capitalist society lies in the problem happened in the two social structures between systems and life world. Systems which have been out of life world come back and dominate both private domain and public domain with money and power. This causes the distortion of communicative activities and colonization of life world. The original aims of communicative action such as inter-understanding, inter-admitting and freedom are changed into functional means for successful ends, value rationality into instrumental reason, and harmonious human relation into an alienated, meaningless world less of freedom and cultural elements. In order to heal the disease of capitalist society, we need to begin with the rationalization of life world, and to harmonize the relation of systems and life world again. In such an endeavor, language is the necessary media. Actually, the most important thing is discourse on the basis of lingual communication. Hence, Habermas appeals to the change from conscious paradigm to paradigm of language philosophy. The theory of communicative action is just the embodiment of such a change.
In Habermas’opinion, communication is language communication and discourse. There are at least two or more subjects who have ability of discoursing and acting reach an agreement in action and inter-understanding via the media of language. The main function of language is to make human beings understand each other and to unite the social members together. In this sense, there is inner communicative reason in discourse. Human liberation can come into reality by discourse between subjects. Therefore, there must be an analysis and reconstruction on pragmatics in the theory of communicative action. This is what Habermas calls general pragmatics. However, what he cares is not lingual capability but communicative capability. He proposes that a successful lingual action concerns not only fluent sentences, but also the agreement that subjects reach, the harmonious communication under the ideal conditions and the fair relation between subjects. It is for sure that we need to recognize and permit on the existence of the others and obey the common social norms in a rational communication. Hence, Habermas’theory is enlarged into the domain of moral philosophy and discourse ethics is built up.
The proposition of discourse ethics is a necessary step in development of communicative theory. Habermas believes that in order to reunite the rational structure of life world and to get a stable basis of democratic institution in western society, we have to reconstruct communicative reason. Moreover, we need to rely on the force of discourse to make communication play its role in social development. Discourse is based on the sincerity and justness of lingual actions in inter-communication and it also need to be enhanced into a level of social ethics, which should be obeyed by each social member. In this course, each participant has an equal right and freedom. Thus, Habermas gets a way of escaping from colonization of life world and human alienation by discourse in the guiding of communicative theory and its discourse principle (D) and moral principle (U). We need to build up a fair and democratic discourse order in order to ensure that there is no illegal power being abused and the aforementioned road is feasible. Then, discourse ethics is transited into discourse theory of law and politics.
Discourse democracy and negotiating politic is the necessary step in institution which ensures a fain and just discourse. Although Habermas believes that the modern crisis is caused by system’s intrusion in life world, he does not exclude system from the rational structure of society. What discourse ethics builds up is the rationalization of life world by discoursing, and the rationalization of system relies on the same means. In the procedure of fair discourse, people can express their willing and ideas to social problem by just negotiation and free talking, and then reach universal consensus and collective identity. Certainly, if we are applying to the theory of discoursing democracy in reality, legal protection is indispensable. Consequently, there is also legal element in Habermas’political theory. That is to say, Habermas asserts that social rationalization is achievable with the help of discourse ethics and democracy.
However, the aforementioned is not the ultimate end of Habermas. He applauds to Marx’s ideal of human emancipation, though he does not totally agree Marx’s materialist conception of history and even wants to reconstruct it. Habermas’whole-life object is to find a new road to social and human liberation. The proposal of cosmopolitan society is just the embodiment of his endeavor.
The cosmopolitan society is an ideal society in which human freedom and liberation can be achieved. In such a society, people live justly, democratically and harmoniously. There is no violent collision. People can solve the problems by discoursing when they have different ideas. In a word, Habermas builds up a utopia of human liberation with his communicative theory.
In the last section, I propose that there is a need of utopia for the future of human beings in the position of a Marxist, but that Habermas’road to liberation is less of realistic basis. Hence, only Marx’s communist theory is a real way to real emancipation.
The methodology of this paper is united usage of history and logic. I make a dialectic research and critique on Harbermas’communicative theory in the position of a Marxist. And I also make a comparison on Marx and Habermas. It is a research on its way to maturity and I will focus on it in the future.
为了达到上述研究目标,本文采用了历史与逻辑相统一的研究方法,站在马克思主义的立场上对哈贝马斯的相关思想进行辩证研究和批判,对哈贝马斯学说与马克思思想的关联加以适当点评。通过比较,我们得出如下结论:哈贝马斯的社会理想固然美妙,可以在很多方面给予我们启迪,但由于他忽视“生产力”(生产实践)发展这一社会解放的现实物质基础,只能流于空想和幻想。他一方面坚持马克思主义的当代意义,坚持马克思主义的批判精神和人的解放的旨趣,认为马克思主义没有过时;另一方面,他又以“重建”之名行否定之实,要求用时代发展的目光审视包括历史唯物主义在内的既成理论,并通过对道德意识、道德规范的强化促进社会进化。这是唯心主义的道德决定论。尽管哈贝马斯思想中有合理之处,但他并没有真正地适应时代发展需要去重建追求人类自由解放的历史唯物论。相反,在他极力想“重建”的历史唯物主义那里,马克思所设想的通过(阶级的)政治解放实现(经济的)社会解放、进而实现人类自身解放的共产主义却是一条通向自由、解放的“现实之路”。
As the representative of Frankfurt School in its second stage and the leader of currently western academia, Jürgen Habermas constructs a high-level system of social critical theory which aims at liberation. In such a theory, there is a constant theme, that is, the theory of communicative action and communicative rationality. And the inner logic of the theory is Harbermas’assiduous pursuit of human liberation. In this paper, I do a research on the skeleton of Habermas’whole-life thought in the background of contemporary globalization, hoping to find its inner aim at liberation, and to compare Habermas’theory on liberating utopia and Marx’s theory of emancipation. My ultimate aim is to get a new way in understanding human liberation in time of post-utopia. This paper entails three sections.
In the preface, I introduce the background in which Habermas proposed his theory and his research method. I also recapitulate the research status on this topic in both domestic and foreign academia.
There are four chapters in the main section of this paper, in which I focus on Habermas’analysis on the new change of later capitalism and his diagnosis on the crisis that caused by capitalism. In Habermas’idea, there are two characters in later capitalism, which are enhancing of state participation and ideologizing of scientific technology. It is the paradoxical development of the aforementioned characters that caused the legitimate crisis of later capitalism and the augmentation of human alienation. It also caused Marx’s theory of class struggle and surplus value being out of time and historical materialism being necessary to be reconstructed.
Why did such crisis happen? Habermas believes that it is a necessary result of instrumental reason, technological reason and development of scientific technology. It is also the logical necessity that happened when end rationality which should have played its role in systems entered the domain of life world. In order to get rid of such irrational phenomena, we need to use the theory of inter-subjectivity in the world of life, and construct the life world into a world being filled with inter-subjectivity and communicative rationality. Scholars of the Frankfurt School in its first stage also think that the modern crisis was caused by the dominant position of instrumental reason in society. However, Habermas insists that critique of these scholars still stays in the level of conscious philosophy, and that reason in their idea is still priori reason. That is, Habermas thinks that there scholars do not grasp the real significance of reason. That is why they can not get a way to solve the problem except to have recourse to instrumental reason. Therefore, in order to escape from their pessimism and theoretic plight, Habermas tried to reconstruct a theory, which is theory of communicative reason. In a deeper sense, he hopes to explore the significance of communicative reason to human liberation in modern time, and to show the inner potential of currently social development.
Relying on the theory of communicative reason, Habermas analyzes the symptoms of later capitalist society. In his eyes, the pathogeny of capitalist society lies in the problem happened in the two social structures between systems and life world. Systems which have been out of life world come back and dominate both private domain and public domain with money and power. This causes the distortion of communicative activities and colonization of life world. The original aims of communicative action such as inter-understanding, inter-admitting and freedom are changed into functional means for successful ends, value rationality into instrumental reason, and harmonious human relation into an alienated, meaningless world less of freedom and cultural elements. In order to heal the disease of capitalist society, we need to begin with the rationalization of life world, and to harmonize the relation of systems and life world again. In such an endeavor, language is the necessary media. Actually, the most important thing is discourse on the basis of lingual communication. Hence, Habermas appeals to the change from conscious paradigm to paradigm of language philosophy. The theory of communicative action is just the embodiment of such a change.
In Habermas’opinion, communication is language communication and discourse. There are at least two or more subjects who have ability of discoursing and acting reach an agreement in action and inter-understanding via the media of language. The main function of language is to make human beings understand each other and to unite the social members together. In this sense, there is inner communicative reason in discourse. Human liberation can come into reality by discourse between subjects. Therefore, there must be an analysis and reconstruction on pragmatics in the theory of communicative action. This is what Habermas calls general pragmatics. However, what he cares is not lingual capability but communicative capability. He proposes that a successful lingual action concerns not only fluent sentences, but also the agreement that subjects reach, the harmonious communication under the ideal conditions and the fair relation between subjects. It is for sure that we need to recognize and permit on the existence of the others and obey the common social norms in a rational communication. Hence, Habermas’theory is enlarged into the domain of moral philosophy and discourse ethics is built up.
The proposition of discourse ethics is a necessary step in development of communicative theory. Habermas believes that in order to reunite the rational structure of life world and to get a stable basis of democratic institution in western society, we have to reconstruct communicative reason. Moreover, we need to rely on the force of discourse to make communication play its role in social development. Discourse is based on the sincerity and justness of lingual actions in inter-communication and it also need to be enhanced into a level of social ethics, which should be obeyed by each social member. In this course, each participant has an equal right and freedom. Thus, Habermas gets a way of escaping from colonization of life world and human alienation by discourse in the guiding of communicative theory and its discourse principle (D) and moral principle (U). We need to build up a fair and democratic discourse order in order to ensure that there is no illegal power being abused and the aforementioned road is feasible. Then, discourse ethics is transited into discourse theory of law and politics.
Discourse democracy and negotiating politic is the necessary step in institution which ensures a fain and just discourse. Although Habermas believes that the modern crisis is caused by system’s intrusion in life world, he does not exclude system from the rational structure of society. What discourse ethics builds up is the rationalization of life world by discoursing, and the rationalization of system relies on the same means. In the procedure of fair discourse, people can express their willing and ideas to social problem by just negotiation and free talking, and then reach universal consensus and collective identity. Certainly, if we are applying to the theory of discoursing democracy in reality, legal protection is indispensable. Consequently, there is also legal element in Habermas’political theory. That is to say, Habermas asserts that social rationalization is achievable with the help of discourse ethics and democracy.
However, the aforementioned is not the ultimate end of Habermas. He applauds to Marx’s ideal of human emancipation, though he does not totally agree Marx’s materialist conception of history and even wants to reconstruct it. Habermas’whole-life object is to find a new road to social and human liberation. The proposal of cosmopolitan society is just the embodiment of his endeavor.
The cosmopolitan society is an ideal society in which human freedom and liberation can be achieved. In such a society, people live justly, democratically and harmoniously. There is no violent collision. People can solve the problems by discoursing when they have different ideas. In a word, Habermas builds up a utopia of human liberation with his communicative theory.
In the last section, I propose that there is a need of utopia for the future of human beings in the position of a Marxist, but that Habermas’road to liberation is less of realistic basis. Hence, only Marx’s communist theory is a real way to real emancipation.
The methodology of this paper is united usage of history and logic. I make a dialectic research and critique on Harbermas’communicative theory in the position of a Marxist. And I also make a comparison on Marx and Habermas. It is a research on its way to maturity and I will focus on it in the future.
引文
[1]孙利天.作为思想的形而上学[J] .学习与探索,2003,(6).
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社,1995.114,276,86,108,89.
[7] [15] [25]转引自,龚群.道德乌托邦的重构——哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究[M] .商务印书馆,2003 .4,26,前言,1.
[8]米夏埃尔·兰德曼.哲学人类学[M].上海译文出版社,1988.
[9]哈贝马斯.认识与兴趣[M].译者前言.学林出版社,1999.1.
[10] [19]福柯.交往的大师[J].Esprit杂志,1982,(3).316.
[11]豪克·勃伦克霍尔斯特.交往理性与报复的权利[J] .转引自,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].山东人民出版社,2001. 18.
[12]哈贝马斯.文化与批判.法兰克福.1971.224.转引自,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2001.序言,6.
[13]最初哈贝马斯关注的是精神病人本能压抑的释放及其后如何恢复原本的社会生活,后来则推广到对整个当代资本主义社会中人性异化现象的批判性研究。
[14]参见,哈贝马斯.生产力与交往[J].哲学译丛,1992,(6).
[16] [30]参见,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2001.序言,3,62.
[17] Habermas, Jürgen. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Eds. Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998.vii.
[18]参见哈贝马斯.迟到的革命[M].法兰克福,1990. 198.
[20] [29]哈贝马斯.章国锋.哈贝马斯访谈录[J].外国文学评论,2000,(1).28.
[21]哈贝马斯.作为未来的过去[M].苏黎世,1990.94.转引自,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2001.序言,22.
[22]赵汀阳.乌托邦还是乌托邦[DB/OL]http://59.67.74.3/tszz/thinker/habermas/habermas020.doc.html
[23]关桂芹.重建语境下的历史唯物主义——兼论哈贝马斯与马克思在历史观上的分歧[J].内蒙古民族大学学报,2007,(5).
[24]马克思恩格斯全集.第24卷[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.368.
[26]刘福森.西方文明的危机与发展伦理学[M].江西教育出版社,2005.总序.
[27]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].第一卷.曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2004,1.
[28] [德]H·鲍克纳.论哈贝马斯对进步、理性和民主的选择[J].哲学译丛,1992,(4).
[1] [25] [27] [28] [29] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [37] [38] [40] [47] [49] [51] [54]哈贝马斯.作为“意识形态”的技术与科学[M].李黎、郭官义译.上海.学林出版社,1999. 84,7, 69,69,42,80,60,61,61,61,63,63,42,65,66-67,67,62.
[2] [4] [5]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东(等)译.上海:学林出版社,1999.234,332,178,234.
[3] [6] [7] [8] [13] [48] [50] [52]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].郭官义译.社会科学文献出版社,2000.306,178,298,297,305,302,275,320.
[9] [10] [11] [12] [16] [17] [19] [21] [22] [23] [24] [61] [64]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].刘北成、曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2000.4,5,5,5, 45,50,74,74,74-75,72,93,45,242.
[14] J·柏尔格就曾一针见血地指出:“哈贝马斯从杜克海姆传统意义上把资本主义社会的危机现象说成是‘病态’;而不是从马克思传统意义上把这些现象说成是‘危机’,并非偶然。危机或者导致衰亡,或者导致净化,净化是‘自我净化’,衰亡是‘自我衰亡’,病态可以继续存在,或者被外在所阻止,病态作为发展中的错误,本身是可以更正的。”
[15]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[J].现代外国哲学社会科学文摘.1991,(9).4.
[18]根据韦伯,欧美国家统治的合法性来自民众赞同,它让民众相信现有制度合理、正当。哈氏按,“失去合法性将导致革命。”
[20]根据帕森斯,合法性危机亦是一种动因危机(Motivation Crisis )。
[26] [44] Habermas, Jürgen. Toward a Rational Society. Trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press,1970.105,105-106.
[30] [36]傅永军.哈贝马斯晚期资本主义危机理论述评[J].哲学研究,1999,(2).41.
[39]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].上海人民出版社,2000.198,74.
[41]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第3卷.513-516.
[42]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社,1995. 43-44
[43] [46]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第二卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994.232,441.
[45]此说出自哈氏答记者问.见德国学者霍尔斯特(Detlef Horster)哈贝马斯导引(1988 ).
[53]哈贝马斯.文化与批判[M].法兰克福,1973.71.
[55]哈贝马斯.认识与兴趣[M].郭官义.等.译.上海.学林出版社,1999.72.
[56]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第19卷.人民出版社1963.372.
[57]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第47卷.人民出版社1979.427
[58] [59]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社1995.142,774.
[60]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第42卷.140.
[62] [63] Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1975.1,1.
[1]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].郭官义译.社会科学文献出版社,2000.3.
[2] [14] [15] [16] [19] [20] [21] [22] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [38] [41] [51] [52]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].第一卷.曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2004.1,8,8,9,86,89,93-94,94,95,95,100,273,266,397,281,84-85,101.
[3] [30] [62]哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].曹卫东,付德根.译.译林出版社,2001.13,53,161.
[4] Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. VolumeⅠ:Reason and the Rationalization of society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1984.15.
[5] [6] [7] [9]哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].法兰克福,42,36,36,21.
[8]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].山东人民出版社,2001.7.
[10]这并不妨碍康德同样把理性看成是先天的,只不过他的理性不是一般形而上学的理性,而是科学形而上学的理性。康德认为,人类的理性基本是反映人类意识的结构,因为人类的意识结构是相同和共通的,因此理性也是普遍的(universal)和共通的。
[11]工具理性的要害在于:“它把问题本身的合理性变成了解决问题的程序、方法和手段的合理性。把一件事在内容上是否正确的判断变成了对一种解决方法是否正确的判断。”(哈贝马斯:交往行为理论(第1卷),第272页。)
[12]哈贝马斯:《迟到的革命》,第84页。
[13]哈贝马斯相信,只有交往理性才能治愈生活世界的病症,才能冲破那个工具理性编织成的铁笼。
[17]转引自,[德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.米夏埃尔·哈勒.作为未来的过去.与著名哲学家哈贝马斯的对话[M].章国锋译.浙江.浙江人民出版社,2001.184.
[18]哈贝马斯.我和法兰克福学派[J].哲学译丛.1984,(1).
[23] [42] [43] [44] [45]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第一卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994.135,364,371,365,365.
[29]哈贝马斯.作为意识形态的技术和科学[M].李黎、郭官义译.学林出版社,1999.
[31]在语言学转向的背景下,语言不再被认为是知识的一种中立的载体,也不再是我们用来描述和解码这个世界的一种工具,语言塑造了我们关于自身的知识和关于我们生活在其中的这个世界的知识。
[32]陈学明.哈贝马斯的“晚期资本主义论”述评[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.410.
[33]汪行福.通向话语民主之路——与哈贝马斯对话[M].成都:四川人民出版社,2002.72.
[34]曾庆豹.哈贝马斯.当代西方著名哲学家评传(社会哲学卷)[C].济南:山东人民出版社,1996.466.
[35] Habermas, Jürgen. Knowledge and Human Interests. Trans. Thomas McCarthy.Boston: Beacon Press,1971.44.
[36]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].上海人民出版社,2000.1,3.
[37]哈贝马斯提出普遍语用学(universal pragmatics)的概念,用“普遍的”一词表明它的语言学研究与其它语用分析的不同。同时,他又特别倾向于用语用的特殊语境分析去把握语言的语用途径,试图重构语用的普遍性特征。但是后来,他不满足于以“普遍的”一词来修饰语用学的特征,而提出了“规范语用学”(formal pragmatics)的概念。这种术语上的变换既表明了他在语用学研究中所使用的语形、语义和语用分析方法逐渐趋于整合的洞察,又展示了他的“语用学转向”的彻底性。
[39]张再林.中西哲学比较论[M].西安.西北大学出版社,1998.173.
[40]曹卫东.社会行为、目的行为和交往[DB/OL]. http://philo.ruc.edu.cn/pol04/Article/western/w_germany/200407/599.html
[46]哈贝马斯.解释说要求普通适用[J].哲学译丛,1986,(3).
[47]盛晓明.哈贝马斯的重构理论及其方法[J].哲学研究,1999,(10).
[48] [美]理查德·伯恩斯坦.现代性/后现代性的比喻:哈贝马斯与德里达[J].马克思主义与现实.2005(6)
[49] [53]赵汀阳.理解与接受[DB/OL].数字中国,http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=12
[50] [54]赵汀阳.理解与接受[DB/OL]..数字中国, http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=13
[55]赵汀阳:乌托邦还是乌托邦[DB/OL]. http://59.67.74.3/tszz/thinker/habermas/habermas020.doc.html
[56]马克思,恩格斯.费尔巴哈[M].人民出版社,1988.25.
[57]余灵灵.哈贝马斯传[M].河北人民出版社,1998.199.
[58]参见张博树.现代性与制度现代化[M].学林出版社,1998.90.
[59]胡塞尔.欧洲科学危机和超验现象学[M].上海译文出版社,1988.58.
[60]胡塞尔.现象学与哲学的危机. [M]国际文化出版公司,1988.138.
[61]傅永军,张志平.“生活世界”学说:哈贝马斯的批判与改造[J].山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1997,(4).
[63] [67]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第二卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994. 174,228.
[64]唐涛.哈贝马斯后形而上学伦理思想研究[D].南京师范大学,2005.前言,4.
[65]形而上学新解[DB/OL]. http://www.studa.net/sixiang/060111/14010532-2.html
[66]殷杰郭贵春.论哈贝马斯“语用学转向”的实质[J].自然辩证法研究,2002,(3).
[68]事实上,国家出现以后,系统的发展已经逐渐不再以生活世界的符号意义为基础,特别是到了现代社会以后,权力和货币逐渐成为系统发展的主宰,并不断向生活世界渗透,力图宰制生活世界。
[1] Martin Heidegger and the Question of Literature. Indiana University Press,1979,9-10.
[2]旧约·创世纪[M]第1章.第26节.
[3]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M] .山东人民出版社,2001.30.
[4] [5]海德格尔选集(下)[M].上海三联书店.1996.882,899.
[6] [21] [69]转引自,汪行福.走出时代的困境[M].上海社会科学院出版社,2000.43,256-257,214.
[7]罗蒂.后哲学文化[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1992.174
[8]哈贝马斯:交往行为理论[M],曹卫东译,三联书店
[9]费耶阿本德.自由社会中的科学[M],上海译文出版社,1990.3.
[10]哈贝马斯.关于现代性的哲学演讲[M],剑桥政治出版社,1987.242.
[11] [14] [英]威廉姆·奥斯维特.哈贝马斯[M].沈亚生译.黑龙江人民出版社,1999.137,138-141.
[12] [16]王晓东.西方哲学主体间性理论批判[M].中国社会科学出版社,2004.22,177.
[13] [美]莱斯利·A·豪.哈贝马斯[M].陈志刚译.北京:中华书局,2002.87-88.
[15]赵汀阳.理解与接受.数字中国, http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=13
[17] [18] [19] [20] [25]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].第一卷.曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2004. 126,69,69,126,26.
[22] [23] [31] [32] [35] [43] [48] [55] [57] [60] [70] [71] [82] [87] [88] [89]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第二卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994.244,208,227-229,207,137,326-327,160.,137,195,241,201,137,174,438,437,442.
[24] [26] Habermas, Jürgen. Toward a Rational Society. Trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press,1970. 100,114.
[27]参见福柯.规则与惩罚.转引自,福柯与哈贝马斯之争[DB/OL].中华硕博网, http://lw.china-b.com/zxlw/lwzx_109450_3.html
[28]转引自The Passion of Michel Foucault, p.336.
[29]福柯,罗尔斯及其他——哈贝马斯“读书座谈会”纪要.读书,
[30]马克思.1844经济学—哲学手稿[M].人民出版社,1979.103.
[33] [67]转引自.张向阳.哈贝马斯的生活世界理论评述[D].苏州大学2004年硕士论文,27,2.
[34]汪行福.通向话语民主之路——与哈贝马斯对话[M].成都.四川人民出版社,2002.146.
[36] [52] [54]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第一卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994.67,67—68,137.
[37] [47]转引自.刘福森.西方工业文明的危机与发展伦理学[M].江西教育出版社,2005.总序.1,217.
[38] [39] [42]贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].33,37,26.
[40] [41]曹卫东.文化的剩余价值——哈贝马斯的大众文化批评[J].文学评论,2002.5.
[44]霍克海默.阿多尔诺.启蒙辩证法[M].第241.重庆:重庆出版社,1990.
[45] [46]宾克莱.理想的冲突[M].商务印书馆,1983. 13,12.
[49]后来,哈贝马斯将“私人经济领域”排除于“私人自主领域”之外.划入系统。
[50]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型.曹卫东(等).译.上海:学林出版社,171.
[51] [81]哈贝马斯.我和法兰克福学派[J].载于哲学译丛.1984,(1).76,22.
[53]哈贝马斯.现实与对话伦理学[J].载于哲学译丛1994,(2).36.
[56]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].张博树.译.重庆出版社,1989.109.
[58]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].郭官义译.社会科学文献出版社,2000.53.
[59]哈贝马斯.道德与美德[J].《水星》杂志,1985,(12).转引自,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].山东人民出版社,2001.41.
[61]哈贝马斯.民主法治国家的承认斗争[J].载汪晖、陈燕谷主编.文化与公共性三联书店,1998.343.
[62]哈贝马斯.对话伦理学与真理的问题[M].沈清楷译.中国人民大学出版社,2005.9.
[63]哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].曹卫东、付德根.译.译林出版社,2001.213.
[64] [65] [83] [84]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷. .北京:人民出版社,9,66,56,73.
[66]英]吉登斯.现代性与自我认同—现代晚.的自我与社会北京.三联书店1998.3.
[68] Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. VolumeⅠ:Reason and the Rationalization of society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1984.318.
[72]唐涛.哈贝马斯后形而上学伦理思想研究[D].南京师范大学2005年硕士学位论文.30.
[73]哈贝马斯.解释学要求普通适用[J].哲学译丛1986,(3).32.
[74] [75]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].刘北成、曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2000. 6-7,19.
[76]帕森斯认为,社会行动系统是由各要素协调一致的行动、相互关联的功能组成的一个统一整体。更进一步说,它象一个自我调节维持其均衡的有机体,这个有机体要得以生存必需具备适应(A)、目标实现(G)、整合(I)和模式维持(L)四个基本必要功能,在社会行动系统中,执行这四项必要功能的分别是行为系统、人格系统、社会系统和文化系统。
[77]参看,任皑.哈贝马斯“生活世界”学说管窥[M].马克思主义研究.2002,(4).
[78]中国社会科学院哲学研究所编.哈贝马斯在华演讲集[M].北京.人民出版社,2002.37.
[79]哈贝马斯.有根据的节制——对“正确生活”问题存在后形而上学的回答吗?[J].薛华译.安徽师大学报.2001,(11).
[80] Habermas, Jürgen. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1990.65.
[85]马克思.1844经济学哲学手稿[M].北京:人民出版社1985.53.
[86]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第2卷.北京:人民出版社1995.32.
[1]哈贝马斯.我和法兰克福学派[J].转引自哲学译丛.1984,(1).76.
[2]郑璐.商谈与和谐——哈贝马斯商谈伦理的现代意蕴[J].中共南京市委党校南京市行政学院学报.2004,(6).
[3] [4] [5] [6] [9] [11]哈贝马斯.对话伦理学与真理的问题[M].沈清楷译.中国人民大学出版社,2005.7-8,9-10,10,12,11-12,16.
[7] [21] [40]哈贝马斯·重建历史唯物主义[M].北京.社会科学文献出版社,2000.271—272,174,271-272.
[8]哈贝马斯.道德共识与交往行为[M].MIT出版社,1993.89.
[10] [18]艾四林..哈贝马斯[M].长沙.湖南教育出版社,1999.177,177.
[12][英]威廉姆·奥斯维特.哈贝马斯[M].沈亚生译.哈尔滨.黑龙江人民出版社,1999.60.
[13]转引自.薛华.哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学[M].辽宁教育出版社,1988.2.
[14]康德的绝对命令是指,“你一定要这样行动,使得你能够立定意志要你行为的准则成为普遍规则”。它所要求的,是规则、准则、规范的普遍化能力。
[15]康德承认,道德(Moral)即普遍性,道德行为并非简单的是个人的私事,一个从道德立场出发的善的事情必须对每一个在同样前提下的人来说是善的。
[16] [23] [24] [27]王振林.两种相悖的伦理话语.罗蒂与哈贝马斯[J].长白学刊.2003,(2).
[17]陆玉胜.哈贝马斯的商谈理论及其应用[J].华东师范大学2005硕士论文.14.
[19] [26] [31] [41] [59] [61] [70] [78] [79] [80] [87]汪行福.通向话语民主之路——与哈贝马斯对话[M].成都.四川人民出版社,2002.176,163,21-22,99,209,29,29,148,156,28-29,147.
[20]赵一凡.哈贝马斯与交往理性(下)[J].中国图书评论,2008,(6).
[22]刘放桐.新编现代西方哲学[M].人民出版社,2000.485
[25] [95] [108]哈贝马斯.包容他者[M].曹卫东.译.上海.上海人民出版社,2002.2,173,173.
[28]哈贝马斯.对话语伦理学的解说[M].法兰克福/美因.1991. 27.
[29][30]赵汀阳.理解与接受.数字中国, http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=13
[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [42] [45] [52] [55]哈贝马斯.哈贝马斯精粹[M].曹卫东译.南京大学出版社,2004.235,236,236,236,240,240,241,242,244-247,247-248,247,245-246.
[43] [57] [69]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东(等)译.上海.学林出版社,1999.23,26,21.
[44] [48] [60] [72] [76]李远行.哈贝马斯程序主义民主观述评[J].政治学研究.2000,(3).
[46] [53] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [75] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [89] [90]哈贝马斯.在事实与规范之间.关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M].童世骏译.北京.三联书店.2003.445-446,前言.6-7,446,445-446,448,449,449,452,448,475,455,457,457-458,472,472-473,461,455,456.
[47] [50] [51] [58] [74] Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans.William Rehg. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,1996.438,363,534,493,137.
[49] [71] [77]李佃来.话语民主:哈贝马斯政治哲学的关键词[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2005,(11).
[54] [56]哈贝马斯.事实与有效性[M].法兰克福.1992.187,188.
[73]现实与对话伦理学———哈贝马斯答郭官义问[J].哲学译丛,1994,(4).
[88] [91]哈贝马斯访谈录[J].外国文学评论,2000,(1).
[92] [94] [104] Habermas, Jürgen. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Eds. Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998.116,141,26.
[93] [96] [101]哈贝马斯.超越民族国家?[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2000.73-74,82,78.
[97]哈贝马斯.在全球化压力下的欧洲的民族国家[J].复旦学报,2001,(3).
[98] [99]程晓燕.哈贝马斯的国际政治观[J].国际关系学院学报,2006,(3).
[100] [102]曹卫东.走向一种没有世界政府的世界内政——哈贝马斯话语政治的历史背景与现实意义[J].社会学研究.2003,(6).
[103]哈贝马斯.迟到的革命.法兰克福,1990.198.
[105]李颖川.哈贝马斯的文化理论解读[J].中共杭州市委党校学报.2005,(2).
[106]哈贝马斯认为,把人权道德化,等于把它降低为一部分人的道德价值取向,从而否认了其普适性,而人权问题的意识形态化则经常导致不同国家间的对立、冲突。
[107] [110] [119]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].山东人民出版社,2001.197,201-202,209.
[109]哈贝马斯.后民族结构[M].曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2002.118.
[111]哈贝马斯.作为意识形态的技术和科学[M].李黎、郭官义译..学林出版社,1999.84.
[112] [113] [114] [115] [118]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第3卷.人民出版社,1995.633-634,455-456,23,31,633-634.
[116]关桂芹.重建语境下的历史唯物主义——兼论哈贝马斯与马克思在历史观上的分歧[J].内蒙古民族大学学报.2007,(5).
[117]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社,1995.294.
[1] [2] [3] [7] [12] [13] [14] [15]贺来.现实生活世界——乌托邦精神的真实根基[M].吉林教育出版社,1998.序.1,序.2,序.2,4-6,188,80,85,85.
[4] [美]刘易斯·芒福德.马克思主义、毛泽东主义与乌托邦主义[M].中国人民大学出版社,2005.1.
[5]韦氏标准词典[M].北京.辞书出版社,1990.
[6]乔·奥·赫茨勒.乌托邦思想史[M].北京.商务印书馆.1990.252.
[8]麦茜特讲“自然之死”,福柯则说.人也死了。
[9]龚群.道德乌托邦的重构——哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究[M].商务印书馆.2005.前言.3-4.
[10] Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion, Boston: Beacon press, 1963, 144.
[11]杨适.重读马克思[M].四川人民出版社,1996.48.
[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]刘福森.西方文明的危机与发展伦理学——发展的合理性研究[M].江西教育出版社,2005.218,230,238,243,262,275,275,286,276.
[25]孙正聿.思想中的时代[M].北京师范大学出版社,2004.184.
[26] [47]马克恩恩格斯选集[M].第3卷.人民出版社1995.720,455.
[27] [32]孙正聿.思想中的时代[M].北京师范大学出版社,2004.179,179.
[28] [29] [30] [31] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社,1995. 87,75,86,86,9—10,41,47-48,43,287,124,83,119,294.
[42]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第42卷.人民出版社,1979.120.
[43] [44]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第1卷.人民出版社, 1956.443,467.
[45]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第23卷.人民出版社,1972.649.
[46]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第25卷.人民出版社,1974.926-927.
[1]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1-4卷.北京:人民出版社,1995.
[2]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1956.
[3]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第19卷.北京:人民出版社,1963.
[4]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第23卷.北京:人民出版社,1972.
[5]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第25卷.北京:人民出版社,1974.
[6]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第42卷.北京:人民出版社,1979.
[7]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第47卷.北京:人民出版社,1979.
[8]马克思.1844经济学哲学手稿[M].北京:人民出版社,2000.
[9]马克思.资本论[M].第2卷(上).北京:人民出版社,1975.
[10]马克思,恩格斯.费尔巴哈[M].人民出版社,1988.
[11] Habermas, Jürgen. Toward a Rational Society. Trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press,1970.
[12] Habermas, Jürgen. Knowledge and Human Interests. Trans. Thomas McCarthy.Boston: Beacon Press,1971.
[13] Habermas, Jürgen. Theory and Practice. Trans. John Viertel. Boston: Beacon Press,1973.
[14] Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1975.
[15] Habermas, Jürgen. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1979.
[16] Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. VolumeⅠ:Reason and the Rationalization of society. VolumeⅡ: Lifeworld and System: A Critique ofFunctionalist Reason. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1984.
[17] Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Trans. Frederick G. Lawrence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1987.
[18] Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1989.
[19] Habermas, Jürgen. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1990.
[20] Habermas, Jürgen. Postmetaphysical Thinking. Trans. William Mark Hohengarten. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1992.
[21] Habermas, Jürgen. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Trans. Ciaran P. Cronin. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1993.
[22] Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans.William Rehg. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996.
[23] Habermas, Jürgen. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Eds. Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998.
[24] [德]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第一卷.洪佩郁、蔺青.译.重庆出版社,1994.
[25] [德]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第二卷.洪佩郁、蔺青.译.重庆出版社,1994.
[26] [德]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].第一卷.曹卫东.译.上海人民出版社,2004.
[27] [德]哈贝马斯.认识与兴趣[M].郭官义.等.译.上海.学林出版社,1999.
[28] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯,[德]米夏埃尔·哈勒.作为未来的过去.与著名哲学家哈贝马斯的对话[M].章国锋.译.浙江:浙江人民出版社,2001.
[29] [德]哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].曹卫东、付德根.译.译林出版社,2001.
[30] [德]哈贝马斯.包容他者[M].曹卫东.译.上海人民出版社,2002.
[31] [德]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东(等).译.上海:学林出版社,1999.
[32] [德]哈贝马斯.作为意识形态的技术和科学[M].李黎、郭官义.译.学林出版社,1999.
[33] [德]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].上海人民出版社,2000.
[34] [德]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].郭官义.译.社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[35] [德]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].刘北成、曹卫东.译.上海人民出版社,2000.
[36] [德]哈贝马斯.哈贝马斯精粹[M].曹卫东.译.南京大学出版社,2004.
[37] [德]哈贝马斯.在事实与规范之间.关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M].童世骏.译.北京:三联书店.2003.
[38] [德]哈贝马斯.超越民族国家[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
[39] [德]哈贝马斯.后民族结构[M].曹卫东.译.上海人民出版社,2002.
[40] [德]哈贝马斯.对话伦理学与真理的问题[M].沈清楷.译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[41] [德]于尔根·哈贝马斯.现代性的哲学话语[M].曹卫东等.译.南京:译林出版社,2004.
[42] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.理论与实践[M].郭官义,李黎.译.北京:社会科学文献出版社.2004.
[43]中国社会科学院哲学研究所编.哈贝马斯在华演讲集[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
[44] [德]弗兰克.理解的界限——利奥塔和哈贝马斯的精神对话[M].先刚.译.北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[45] [英]威廉姆·奥斯维特.哈贝马斯[M].沈亚生.译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1999.
[46] [美]莱斯利·A·豪.哈贝马斯[M].陈志刚.译.北京:中华书局,2002.
[47]余灵灵.哈贝马斯传[M].河北人民出版社,1998.
[48]艾四林.哈贝马斯[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1999.
[49]薛华.哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学[M].辽宁教育出版社,1988.
[50]陈学明.哈贝马斯的“晚期资本主义论”述评[M].重庆出版社,1993.
[51]张博树.现代性与制度现代化[M].学林出版社,1998.
[52]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M] .山东人民出版社,2001.
[53]汪行福.通向话语民主之路——与哈贝马斯对话[M].成都:四川人民出版社,2002.
[54]龚群.道德乌托邦的重构——哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究[M] .商务印书馆,2003.
[55]陈学明,吴松,远东,编.通向理解之路——哈贝马斯论交往[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,1998.
[56]曹卫东.曹卫东讲哈贝马斯[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[57]曹卫东.权力的他者[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2004.
[58]韩红.交往的合理化与现代性的重建——哈贝马斯交往行动理论的深层解读[M].北京:人民出版社, 2005.
[59] [德]马克思·韦伯.社会学的基本概念.顾忠华(译).桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005.
[60]戴维·弗里斯比.现代性的碎片[M].卢晖临.周怡.李林艳(译).商务印书馆.2003.
[61]齐格蒙·鲍曼.生活在碎片之中——论后现代道德[M].郁建兴.周俊.周莹(译).上海:学林出版社,2002.
[62]齐格蒙特·鲍曼.现代性与矛盾性[M].邵迎生(译).商务印书馆.2003.
[63]大卫·雷·格里芬.后现代精神[M].王成兵(译).中央编译出版社,1998.
[64]道格拉斯·凯尔纳.斯蒂文·贝斯特.后现代理论——批判性的质疑[M].张志斌(译).中央编译出版社,2004.
[65]丹尼尔·贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].赵一凡.蒲隆.任晓晋(译).三联书店.1989.
[66]罗尔斯.政治自由主义.批评与辩护[M].万俊人.等(译).广东人民出版社,2003.
[67]赫伯特·马尔库塞.单向度的人——发达工业社会意识形态研究[M].张峰.吕世平(译).重庆:重庆出版社,1998.
[68]约翰·奈斯比特.等.高科技高思维[M].新华出版社,2000.
[69]安东尼·吉登斯.失控的世界[M].江西人民出版社,200l.
[70]霍克海默.阿多尔诺.启蒙辩证法[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1990.
[71] [英]吉登斯.现代性与自我认同——现代晚期的自我与社会.北京:三联书店1998.
[72] [美]刘易斯·芒福德.马克思主义、毛泽东主义与乌托邦主义[M].中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[73]乔·奥·赫茨勒.乌托邦思想史[M].北京:商务印书馆.1990.
[74]海德格尔.海德格尔选集[M].上海三联书店.1996.
[75]费耶阿本德.自由社会中的科学[M].上海译文出版社,1990.
[76]宾克莱.理想的冲突[M].商务印书馆,1983. 13.
[77]高清海.高清海哲学文存(1—6卷)[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,1997.
[78]高清海.高清海哲学文存·续编(1—3卷)[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,2004.
[79]高清海,胡海波.贺来.人的“类生命”与“类哲学”——走向未来的当代哲学精神[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,1998.
[80]刘福森.西方文明的危机与发展伦理学——发展的合理性研究[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,2005.
[81]孙正聿.思想中的时代[M].北京师范大学出版社,2004.
[82]陈嘉明.现代性与后现代性[M].人民出版社,2001.
[83]贺来.现实生活世界——乌托邦精神的真实根基[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1998.
[84]任平.走向交往实践的唯物主义——马克思交往实践观的历史视域与当代意义[M].北京:人民出版社,2003.
[85]杨适.重读马克思[M].四川人民出版社,1996.
[86]张再林.中西哲学比较论[M].西安:西北大学出版社,1998.
[87]王晓东.西方哲学主体间性理论批判[M].中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[88]范宝舟.论马克思交往理论及其当代意义[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005. D.学位论文
[1]罗骞.论马克思的现代性批判及其当代意义[D].复旦大学哲学系,2005.
[2]胡振江.从马克思的劳动实践到哈贝马斯的交往实践[D].黑龙江大学,2006.
[3]唐涛.哈贝马斯后形而上学伦理思想研究[D].南京师范大学,2005.
[4]马珂.论哈贝马斯的国际政治哲学[D].华东师范大学人文学院哲学系,2004.
[5]陆玉胜.哈贝马斯的商谈理论及其应用[D].华东师范大学人文学院哲学系,2005.
[6]余波.哈贝马斯晚期资本主义合法化危机思想述评[D].苏州大学,2003.
[7]李宏勇.从交往理性看全球问题的出路[D].山西大学,2005.
[8]陆燕虹.哈贝马斯话语民主理论述评[D].华东师范大学,2004. G.期刊中析出的文献
[1]孙利天.作为思想的形而上学[J].学习与探索,2003,(6).
[2]王振林.两种相悖的伦理话语.罗蒂与哈贝马斯[J].长白学刊,2003,(2).
[3]哈贝马斯.生产力与交往[J].哲学译丛,1992,(6).
[4]哈贝马斯.解释说要求普通适用[J].哲学译丛,1986,(3).
[5] [德]H·鲍克纳.论哈贝马斯对进步、理性和民主的选择[J].哲学译丛,1992,(4).
[6]哈贝马斯,章国锋.哈贝马斯访谈录[J].外国文学评论,2000,(1).
[7]哈贝马斯.我和法兰克福学派[J].哲学译丛,1984,(1).
[8]现实与对话伦理学——哈贝马斯答郭官义问[J].哲学译丛,1994,(4).
[9]哈贝马斯.在全球化压力下的欧洲的民族国家[J].复旦学报,2001,(3).
[10]哈贝马斯.有根据的节制——对“正确生活”问题存在后形而上学的回答吗?[J].薛华译.安徽师大学报,2001,(11).
[11]曹卫东.走向一种没有世界政府的世界内政——哈贝马斯话语政治的历史背景与现实意义[J].社会学研究,2003,(6).
[12] [美]理查德·伯恩斯坦.现代性/后现代性的比喻:哈贝马斯与德里达[J].马克思主义与现实,2005,(6)
[13]关桂芹.重建语境下的历史唯物主义——兼论哈贝马斯与马克思在历史观上的分歧[J].内蒙古民族大学学报,2007,(5).
[14]殷杰,郭贵春.论哈贝马斯“语用学转向”的实质[J].自然辩证法研究,2002,(3).
[15]曹卫东.文化的剩余价值——哈贝马斯的大众文化批评[J].文学评论,2002.5.
[16]哈贝马斯.民主法治国家的承认斗争[J].载汪晖、陈燕谷主编.文化与公共性[M].三联书店,1998.343.
[17]任皑.哈贝马斯“生活世界”学说管窥[J].马克思主义研究.2002,(4).
[18]郑璐.商谈与和谐——哈贝马斯商谈伦理的现代意蕴[J].中共南京市委党校南京市行政学院学报,2004,(6).
[19]赵一凡.哈贝马斯与交往理性(上、下)[J].中国图书评论,2008,(5),(6).
[20]李远行.哈贝马斯程序主义民主观述评[J].政治学研究,2000,(3).
[21]李佃来.话语民主:哈贝马斯政治哲学的关键词[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2005,(11).
[22]程晓燕.哈贝马斯的国际政治观[J].国际关系学院学报,2006,(3).
[23]傅永军.哈贝马斯晚期资本主义危机理论述评[J].哲学研究,1999,(2).
[24]阳海因.论哈贝马斯对早.法兰克福学派合理性理论的改造[J].兰州学刊,2006,(1).
[25]陈振明.当代资本主义社会及其合法化危机——评哈贝马斯的“晚期资本主义理论”[J].岭南学刊,1996,(2).
[26]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,(7).
[27]吴开明.现代性哲学基础的反思——哈贝马斯对意识哲学范式的拒斥[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2001,(3).
[28]徐军.社会批判理论内部的对话—哈贝马斯与法兰克福学派理论关系新探[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2002,(6).
[29]李佃来.哈贝马斯与交往理性[J].湖北行政学院学报,2002,(5).
[30]金高品.论哈贝马斯的合理性概念[J].马克思主义与现实,2000,(4).
[31]陈学明.西方人士眼中的当代资本主义制度(上)[J].思想理论教育导刊,2007,(8).
[32]陈咸瑜.生活世界理论与马克思的哲学观[J].江汉论坛,2007,(11).
[33]潘西华.协商民主与意识形态的合法性——从哈贝马斯的“商谈论”谈起[J].中国人民政协理论研究会会刊,2007,(3).
[34]陈卓.“生活世界”与现实生活:两种生活的抗拮——从现实生活中阻碍交往的诸多因素反思哈贝马斯的交往行为理论[J].云南电大学报,2008,(3).
[35]胡军良.当代西方哲学的“对话范式”及其对马克思主义哲学探究的启示[J].内蒙古社会科学(汉文版),2007,(9).
[36]陈雄辉,关锋.交往的乌托邦:哈贝马斯人类解放思想评析[J].华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(3).
[37]张炳勇.重提人的解放[J].新疆社科论坛,2004,(6).
[38]仰海峰.超越市民社会与国家:从政治解放到社会解放——马克思的国家与市民社会理论探析[J].东岳论丛,2005(3).
[39]伏涤修.从批判人的异化到寻求人的自由与解放——论马克思的人文关怀思想[J].人文杂志,2002,(2).
[40]郝孚逸.从人性复归到人类解放[J].湖北社会科学,2008,(3).
[41]杨建毅.共产主义是人类追求的最高目标——对马克思主义自由观的理解与探讨[J].甘肃理论学刊,2002,(7).
[42]章国锋.未来世界向何处去?——[德]哈贝马斯论海湾战争对全球化的影响[J].马克思主义与现实(双月刊),2001,(6).
[43]张汝伦.评哈贝马斯对全球化政治的思考[J].哲学研究2001,(7).
[44]蓝江.后民族时代的世界政治——哈贝马斯的全球政治观[J].新视野,2002,(5).
[45]贺翠香,张翼星.从交往观看哈贝马斯与马克思的全球化理路[J].北京行政学院学报,2002,(1).
[46]李宏勇.全球性问题与交往理性[J].理论探索,2005,(1).
[47]杨秀香.康德与哈贝马斯普遍性道德原则比较研究[J].辽宁师范大学学报(社科版), 1998,(4).
[48]赵前苗.论哈贝马斯对道德规范的建构[J].道德与文明,2005,(5).
[49]刘日明.哈贝马斯的主体性理论及其现实意义[J].上海社会科学院学术季刊,2001,(3).
[50]李曙新.哈贝马斯的社会进化理论评析[J].社会科学研究,2004,(4).
[51]陈映霞.历史唯物主义和哈贝马斯的社会进化观[J].天津社会科学,2003,(5).
[52]盛晓明.从公共性到主体间性——哈贝马斯的普遍语用学转向[J],浙江学刊,1999,(5).
[53]唐涛.交往的家园—论哈贝马斯的生活世界理论[J].淮南师范学院学报,2004,(6).
[54]周春霞.生活世界的殖民化与合理化—评哈贝马斯的双层社会解释架构[J],安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000,(3).
[55]赵汀阳.关于自由的一种存在论观点[J].世界哲学,2004,(6)
[56]赵汀阳.认同与文化自身认同[J].原道辑刊.第九辑(暨新原道第二辑).大象出版社,2004.
[57]赵汀阳.再论“自由的困境”——同时回复王贵明先生[J].学术月刊,2006,(3).
[1]赵汀阳.乌托邦还是乌托邦[DB/OL]. http://59.67.74.3/tszz/thinker/habermas/habermas020.doc.html
[2]赵汀阳文,方杰译.理解与接受[DB/OL].数字中国, http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=13 http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=12
[3]再谈马克思主义是人的解放学[DB/OL].京报网,www.bjd.com.cn
[4] (比)欧内斯特.曼德尔.共产主义的前途[DB/OL]. http.//www.marxists.org/chinese/13/marxist.org-chinese-mandel-1990.htm
[5] [美]莫里斯·迈斯纳.马克思主义与乌托邦主义[DB/OL].人民网, http://theory.people.com.cn/GB/49157/49164/4520243.html, 2006-06-23.
[6]哈贝马斯.论人权的文化间性——假想的问题与现实的问题(访华讲演录之一)[DB/OL].中国社会科学院哲学研究所,http://philosophy.cass.cn/jiaoliu/habeimasi/yjlu.htm
[7]童世骏.没有“主体间性”就没有“规则”--论哈贝马斯的规则观[DB/OL].当代文化研究网,http://www.cul-studies.com/community/tongshijun/200505/1573.html
[8]童世骏.政治文化和现代社会的集体认同--读哈贝马斯近著两种[DB/OL].当代文化研究网,http://www.cul-studies.com/community/tongshijun/200505/1568.html
[9]童世骏.非理性主义时代的理性主义——波普尔和哈贝马斯的合理性观比较[DB/OL].当代文化研究网,http://www.cul-studies.com/community/tongshijun/200505/1570.html
[10]哈贝马斯.现代性:一个未完成的方案[DB/OL].学术中华,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=5114
[11]哈贝马斯.超越民族国家?——论经济全球化的后果问题[DB/OL].柴方国译.学术中华,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=10288
[12]哈贝马斯.欧洲的民族国家--关于主权和公民资格的过去与未来[DB/OL].曹卫东.译.学术中华,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=10286
[13]哈贝马斯.不必要的妥协——评罗尔斯的《政治自由主义》[DB/OL].江绪林.译.学术中华,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=10291
[14]哈贝马斯专题[DB/OL]. http://www.gongfa.com/habeimasizhuanti.htm
[15]哈贝马斯.社会行为、目的行为和交往[DB/OL].曹卫东译. http://philo.ruc.edu.cn/pol04/Article/western/w_germany/200407/599.html
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社,1995.114,276,86,108,89.
[7] [15] [25]转引自,龚群.道德乌托邦的重构——哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究[M] .商务印书馆,2003 .4,26,前言,1.
[8]米夏埃尔·兰德曼.哲学人类学[M].上海译文出版社,1988.
[9]哈贝马斯.认识与兴趣[M].译者前言.学林出版社,1999.1.
[10] [19]福柯.交往的大师[J].Esprit杂志,1982,(3).316.
[11]豪克·勃伦克霍尔斯特.交往理性与报复的权利[J] .转引自,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].山东人民出版社,2001. 18.
[12]哈贝马斯.文化与批判.法兰克福.1971.224.转引自,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2001.序言,6.
[13]最初哈贝马斯关注的是精神病人本能压抑的释放及其后如何恢复原本的社会生活,后来则推广到对整个当代资本主义社会中人性异化现象的批判性研究。
[14]参见,哈贝马斯.生产力与交往[J].哲学译丛,1992,(6).
[16] [30]参见,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2001.序言,3,62.
[17] Habermas, Jürgen. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Eds. Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998.vii.
[18]参见哈贝马斯.迟到的革命[M].法兰克福,1990. 198.
[20] [29]哈贝马斯.章国锋.哈贝马斯访谈录[J].外国文学评论,2000,(1).28.
[21]哈贝马斯.作为未来的过去[M].苏黎世,1990.94.转引自,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2001.序言,22.
[22]赵汀阳.乌托邦还是乌托邦[DB/OL]http://59.67.74.3/tszz/thinker/habermas/habermas020.doc.html
[23]关桂芹.重建语境下的历史唯物主义——兼论哈贝马斯与马克思在历史观上的分歧[J].内蒙古民族大学学报,2007,(5).
[24]马克思恩格斯全集.第24卷[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.368.
[26]刘福森.西方文明的危机与发展伦理学[M].江西教育出版社,2005.总序.
[27]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].第一卷.曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2004,1.
[28] [德]H·鲍克纳.论哈贝马斯对进步、理性和民主的选择[J].哲学译丛,1992,(4).
[1] [25] [27] [28] [29] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [37] [38] [40] [47] [49] [51] [54]哈贝马斯.作为“意识形态”的技术与科学[M].李黎、郭官义译.上海.学林出版社,1999. 84,7, 69,69,42,80,60,61,61,61,63,63,42,65,66-67,67,62.
[2] [4] [5]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东(等)译.上海:学林出版社,1999.234,332,178,234.
[3] [6] [7] [8] [13] [48] [50] [52]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].郭官义译.社会科学文献出版社,2000.306,178,298,297,305,302,275,320.
[9] [10] [11] [12] [16] [17] [19] [21] [22] [23] [24] [61] [64]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].刘北成、曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2000.4,5,5,5, 45,50,74,74,74-75,72,93,45,242.
[14] J·柏尔格就曾一针见血地指出:“哈贝马斯从杜克海姆传统意义上把资本主义社会的危机现象说成是‘病态’;而不是从马克思传统意义上把这些现象说成是‘危机’,并非偶然。危机或者导致衰亡,或者导致净化,净化是‘自我净化’,衰亡是‘自我衰亡’,病态可以继续存在,或者被外在所阻止,病态作为发展中的错误,本身是可以更正的。”
[15]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[J].现代外国哲学社会科学文摘.1991,(9).4.
[18]根据韦伯,欧美国家统治的合法性来自民众赞同,它让民众相信现有制度合理、正当。哈氏按,“失去合法性将导致革命。”
[20]根据帕森斯,合法性危机亦是一种动因危机(Motivation Crisis )。
[26] [44] Habermas, Jürgen. Toward a Rational Society. Trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press,1970.105,105-106.
[30] [36]傅永军.哈贝马斯晚期资本主义危机理论述评[J].哲学研究,1999,(2).41.
[39]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].上海人民出版社,2000.198,74.
[41]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第3卷.513-516.
[42]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社,1995. 43-44
[43] [46]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第二卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994.232,441.
[45]此说出自哈氏答记者问.见德国学者霍尔斯特(Detlef Horster)哈贝马斯导引(1988 ).
[53]哈贝马斯.文化与批判[M].法兰克福,1973.71.
[55]哈贝马斯.认识与兴趣[M].郭官义.等.译.上海.学林出版社,1999.72.
[56]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第19卷.人民出版社1963.372.
[57]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第47卷.人民出版社1979.427
[58] [59]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社1995.142,774.
[60]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第42卷.140.
[62] [63] Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1975.1,1.
[1]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].郭官义译.社会科学文献出版社,2000.3.
[2] [14] [15] [16] [19] [20] [21] [22] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [38] [41] [51] [52]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].第一卷.曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2004.1,8,8,9,86,89,93-94,94,95,95,100,273,266,397,281,84-85,101.
[3] [30] [62]哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].曹卫东,付德根.译.译林出版社,2001.13,53,161.
[4] Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. VolumeⅠ:Reason and the Rationalization of society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1984.15.
[5] [6] [7] [9]哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].法兰克福,42,36,36,21.
[8]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].山东人民出版社,2001.7.
[10]这并不妨碍康德同样把理性看成是先天的,只不过他的理性不是一般形而上学的理性,而是科学形而上学的理性。康德认为,人类的理性基本是反映人类意识的结构,因为人类的意识结构是相同和共通的,因此理性也是普遍的(universal)和共通的。
[11]工具理性的要害在于:“它把问题本身的合理性变成了解决问题的程序、方法和手段的合理性。把一件事在内容上是否正确的判断变成了对一种解决方法是否正确的判断。”(哈贝马斯:交往行为理论(第1卷),第272页。)
[12]哈贝马斯:《迟到的革命》,第84页。
[13]哈贝马斯相信,只有交往理性才能治愈生活世界的病症,才能冲破那个工具理性编织成的铁笼。
[17]转引自,[德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.米夏埃尔·哈勒.作为未来的过去.与著名哲学家哈贝马斯的对话[M].章国锋译.浙江.浙江人民出版社,2001.184.
[18]哈贝马斯.我和法兰克福学派[J].哲学译丛.1984,(1).
[23] [42] [43] [44] [45]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第一卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994.135,364,371,365,365.
[29]哈贝马斯.作为意识形态的技术和科学[M].李黎、郭官义译.学林出版社,1999.
[31]在语言学转向的背景下,语言不再被认为是知识的一种中立的载体,也不再是我们用来描述和解码这个世界的一种工具,语言塑造了我们关于自身的知识和关于我们生活在其中的这个世界的知识。
[32]陈学明.哈贝马斯的“晚期资本主义论”述评[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.410.
[33]汪行福.通向话语民主之路——与哈贝马斯对话[M].成都:四川人民出版社,2002.72.
[34]曾庆豹.哈贝马斯.当代西方著名哲学家评传(社会哲学卷)[C].济南:山东人民出版社,1996.466.
[35] Habermas, Jürgen. Knowledge and Human Interests. Trans. Thomas McCarthy.Boston: Beacon Press,1971.44.
[36]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].上海人民出版社,2000.1,3.
[37]哈贝马斯提出普遍语用学(universal pragmatics)的概念,用“普遍的”一词表明它的语言学研究与其它语用分析的不同。同时,他又特别倾向于用语用的特殊语境分析去把握语言的语用途径,试图重构语用的普遍性特征。但是后来,他不满足于以“普遍的”一词来修饰语用学的特征,而提出了“规范语用学”(formal pragmatics)的概念。这种术语上的变换既表明了他在语用学研究中所使用的语形、语义和语用分析方法逐渐趋于整合的洞察,又展示了他的“语用学转向”的彻底性。
[39]张再林.中西哲学比较论[M].西安.西北大学出版社,1998.173.
[40]曹卫东.社会行为、目的行为和交往[DB/OL]. http://philo.ruc.edu.cn/pol04/Article/western/w_germany/200407/599.html
[46]哈贝马斯.解释说要求普通适用[J].哲学译丛,1986,(3).
[47]盛晓明.哈贝马斯的重构理论及其方法[J].哲学研究,1999,(10).
[48] [美]理查德·伯恩斯坦.现代性/后现代性的比喻:哈贝马斯与德里达[J].马克思主义与现实.2005(6)
[49] [53]赵汀阳.理解与接受[DB/OL].数字中国,http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=12
[50] [54]赵汀阳.理解与接受[DB/OL]..数字中国, http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=13
[55]赵汀阳:乌托邦还是乌托邦[DB/OL]. http://59.67.74.3/tszz/thinker/habermas/habermas020.doc.html
[56]马克思,恩格斯.费尔巴哈[M].人民出版社,1988.25.
[57]余灵灵.哈贝马斯传[M].河北人民出版社,1998.199.
[58]参见张博树.现代性与制度现代化[M].学林出版社,1998.90.
[59]胡塞尔.欧洲科学危机和超验现象学[M].上海译文出版社,1988.58.
[60]胡塞尔.现象学与哲学的危机. [M]国际文化出版公司,1988.138.
[61]傅永军,张志平.“生活世界”学说:哈贝马斯的批判与改造[J].山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1997,(4).
[63] [67]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第二卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994. 174,228.
[64]唐涛.哈贝马斯后形而上学伦理思想研究[D].南京师范大学,2005.前言,4.
[65]形而上学新解[DB/OL]. http://www.studa.net/sixiang/060111/14010532-2.html
[66]殷杰郭贵春.论哈贝马斯“语用学转向”的实质[J].自然辩证法研究,2002,(3).
[68]事实上,国家出现以后,系统的发展已经逐渐不再以生活世界的符号意义为基础,特别是到了现代社会以后,权力和货币逐渐成为系统发展的主宰,并不断向生活世界渗透,力图宰制生活世界。
[1] Martin Heidegger and the Question of Literature. Indiana University Press,1979,9-10.
[2]旧约·创世纪[M]第1章.第26节.
[3]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M] .山东人民出版社,2001.30.
[4] [5]海德格尔选集(下)[M].上海三联书店.1996.882,899.
[6] [21] [69]转引自,汪行福.走出时代的困境[M].上海社会科学院出版社,2000.43,256-257,214.
[7]罗蒂.后哲学文化[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1992.174
[8]哈贝马斯:交往行为理论[M],曹卫东译,三联书店
[9]费耶阿本德.自由社会中的科学[M],上海译文出版社,1990.3.
[10]哈贝马斯.关于现代性的哲学演讲[M],剑桥政治出版社,1987.242.
[11] [14] [英]威廉姆·奥斯维特.哈贝马斯[M].沈亚生译.黑龙江人民出版社,1999.137,138-141.
[12] [16]王晓东.西方哲学主体间性理论批判[M].中国社会科学出版社,2004.22,177.
[13] [美]莱斯利·A·豪.哈贝马斯[M].陈志刚译.北京:中华书局,2002.87-88.
[15]赵汀阳.理解与接受.数字中国, http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=13
[17] [18] [19] [20] [25]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].第一卷.曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2004. 126,69,69,126,26.
[22] [23] [31] [32] [35] [43] [48] [55] [57] [60] [70] [71] [82] [87] [88] [89]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第二卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994.244,208,227-229,207,137,326-327,160.,137,195,241,201,137,174,438,437,442.
[24] [26] Habermas, Jürgen. Toward a Rational Society. Trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press,1970. 100,114.
[27]参见福柯.规则与惩罚.转引自,福柯与哈贝马斯之争[DB/OL].中华硕博网, http://lw.china-b.com/zxlw/lwzx_109450_3.html
[28]转引自The Passion of Michel Foucault, p.336.
[29]福柯,罗尔斯及其他——哈贝马斯“读书座谈会”纪要.读书,
[30]马克思.1844经济学—哲学手稿[M].人民出版社,1979.103.
[33] [67]转引自.张向阳.哈贝马斯的生活世界理论评述[D].苏州大学2004年硕士论文,27,2.
[34]汪行福.通向话语民主之路——与哈贝马斯对话[M].成都.四川人民出版社,2002.146.
[36] [52] [54]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第一卷.洪佩郁、蔺青译.重庆出版社,1994.67,67—68,137.
[37] [47]转引自.刘福森.西方工业文明的危机与发展伦理学[M].江西教育出版社,2005.总序.1,217.
[38] [39] [42]贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].33,37,26.
[40] [41]曹卫东.文化的剩余价值——哈贝马斯的大众文化批评[J].文学评论,2002.5.
[44]霍克海默.阿多尔诺.启蒙辩证法[M].第241.重庆:重庆出版社,1990.
[45] [46]宾克莱.理想的冲突[M].商务印书馆,1983. 13,12.
[49]后来,哈贝马斯将“私人经济领域”排除于“私人自主领域”之外.划入系统。
[50]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型.曹卫东(等).译.上海:学林出版社,171.
[51] [81]哈贝马斯.我和法兰克福学派[J].载于哲学译丛.1984,(1).76,22.
[53]哈贝马斯.现实与对话伦理学[J].载于哲学译丛1994,(2).36.
[56]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].张博树.译.重庆出版社,1989.109.
[58]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].郭官义译.社会科学文献出版社,2000.53.
[59]哈贝马斯.道德与美德[J].《水星》杂志,1985,(12).转引自,章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].山东人民出版社,2001.41.
[61]哈贝马斯.民主法治国家的承认斗争[J].载汪晖、陈燕谷主编.文化与公共性三联书店,1998.343.
[62]哈贝马斯.对话伦理学与真理的问题[M].沈清楷译.中国人民大学出版社,2005.9.
[63]哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].曹卫东、付德根.译.译林出版社,2001.213.
[64] [65] [83] [84]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷. .北京:人民出版社,9,66,56,73.
[66]英]吉登斯.现代性与自我认同—现代晚.的自我与社会北京.三联书店1998.3.
[68] Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. VolumeⅠ:Reason and the Rationalization of society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1984.318.
[72]唐涛.哈贝马斯后形而上学伦理思想研究[D].南京师范大学2005年硕士学位论文.30.
[73]哈贝马斯.解释学要求普通适用[J].哲学译丛1986,(3).32.
[74] [75]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].刘北成、曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2000. 6-7,19.
[76]帕森斯认为,社会行动系统是由各要素协调一致的行动、相互关联的功能组成的一个统一整体。更进一步说,它象一个自我调节维持其均衡的有机体,这个有机体要得以生存必需具备适应(A)、目标实现(G)、整合(I)和模式维持(L)四个基本必要功能,在社会行动系统中,执行这四项必要功能的分别是行为系统、人格系统、社会系统和文化系统。
[77]参看,任皑.哈贝马斯“生活世界”学说管窥[M].马克思主义研究.2002,(4).
[78]中国社会科学院哲学研究所编.哈贝马斯在华演讲集[M].北京.人民出版社,2002.37.
[79]哈贝马斯.有根据的节制——对“正确生活”问题存在后形而上学的回答吗?[J].薛华译.安徽师大学报.2001,(11).
[80] Habermas, Jürgen. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1990.65.
[85]马克思.1844经济学哲学手稿[M].北京:人民出版社1985.53.
[86]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第2卷.北京:人民出版社1995.32.
[1]哈贝马斯.我和法兰克福学派[J].转引自哲学译丛.1984,(1).76.
[2]郑璐.商谈与和谐——哈贝马斯商谈伦理的现代意蕴[J].中共南京市委党校南京市行政学院学报.2004,(6).
[3] [4] [5] [6] [9] [11]哈贝马斯.对话伦理学与真理的问题[M].沈清楷译.中国人民大学出版社,2005.7-8,9-10,10,12,11-12,16.
[7] [21] [40]哈贝马斯·重建历史唯物主义[M].北京.社会科学文献出版社,2000.271—272,174,271-272.
[8]哈贝马斯.道德共识与交往行为[M].MIT出版社,1993.89.
[10] [18]艾四林..哈贝马斯[M].长沙.湖南教育出版社,1999.177,177.
[12][英]威廉姆·奥斯维特.哈贝马斯[M].沈亚生译.哈尔滨.黑龙江人民出版社,1999.60.
[13]转引自.薛华.哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学[M].辽宁教育出版社,1988.2.
[14]康德的绝对命令是指,“你一定要这样行动,使得你能够立定意志要你行为的准则成为普遍规则”。它所要求的,是规则、准则、规范的普遍化能力。
[15]康德承认,道德(Moral)即普遍性,道德行为并非简单的是个人的私事,一个从道德立场出发的善的事情必须对每一个在同样前提下的人来说是善的。
[16] [23] [24] [27]王振林.两种相悖的伦理话语.罗蒂与哈贝马斯[J].长白学刊.2003,(2).
[17]陆玉胜.哈贝马斯的商谈理论及其应用[J].华东师范大学2005硕士论文.14.
[19] [26] [31] [41] [59] [61] [70] [78] [79] [80] [87]汪行福.通向话语民主之路——与哈贝马斯对话[M].成都.四川人民出版社,2002.176,163,21-22,99,209,29,29,148,156,28-29,147.
[20]赵一凡.哈贝马斯与交往理性(下)[J].中国图书评论,2008,(6).
[22]刘放桐.新编现代西方哲学[M].人民出版社,2000.485
[25] [95] [108]哈贝马斯.包容他者[M].曹卫东.译.上海.上海人民出版社,2002.2,173,173.
[28]哈贝马斯.对话语伦理学的解说[M].法兰克福/美因.1991. 27.
[29][30]赵汀阳.理解与接受.数字中国, http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=13
[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [42] [45] [52] [55]哈贝马斯.哈贝马斯精粹[M].曹卫东译.南京大学出版社,2004.235,236,236,236,240,240,241,242,244-247,247-248,247,245-246.
[43] [57] [69]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东(等)译.上海.学林出版社,1999.23,26,21.
[44] [48] [60] [72] [76]李远行.哈贝马斯程序主义民主观述评[J].政治学研究.2000,(3).
[46] [53] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [75] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [89] [90]哈贝马斯.在事实与规范之间.关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M].童世骏译.北京.三联书店.2003.445-446,前言.6-7,446,445-446,448,449,449,452,448,475,455,457,457-458,472,472-473,461,455,456.
[47] [50] [51] [58] [74] Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans.William Rehg. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,1996.438,363,534,493,137.
[49] [71] [77]李佃来.话语民主:哈贝马斯政治哲学的关键词[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2005,(11).
[54] [56]哈贝马斯.事实与有效性[M].法兰克福.1992.187,188.
[73]现实与对话伦理学———哈贝马斯答郭官义问[J].哲学译丛,1994,(4).
[88] [91]哈贝马斯访谈录[J].外国文学评论,2000,(1).
[92] [94] [104] Habermas, Jürgen. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Eds. Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998.116,141,26.
[93] [96] [101]哈贝马斯.超越民族国家?[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2000.73-74,82,78.
[97]哈贝马斯.在全球化压力下的欧洲的民族国家[J].复旦学报,2001,(3).
[98] [99]程晓燕.哈贝马斯的国际政治观[J].国际关系学院学报,2006,(3).
[100] [102]曹卫东.走向一种没有世界政府的世界内政——哈贝马斯话语政治的历史背景与现实意义[J].社会学研究.2003,(6).
[103]哈贝马斯.迟到的革命.法兰克福,1990.198.
[105]李颖川.哈贝马斯的文化理论解读[J].中共杭州市委党校学报.2005,(2).
[106]哈贝马斯认为,把人权道德化,等于把它降低为一部分人的道德价值取向,从而否认了其普适性,而人权问题的意识形态化则经常导致不同国家间的对立、冲突。
[107] [110] [119]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].山东人民出版社,2001.197,201-202,209.
[109]哈贝马斯.后民族结构[M].曹卫东译.上海人民出版社,2002.118.
[111]哈贝马斯.作为意识形态的技术和科学[M].李黎、郭官义译..学林出版社,1999.84.
[112] [113] [114] [115] [118]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第3卷.人民出版社,1995.633-634,455-456,23,31,633-634.
[116]关桂芹.重建语境下的历史唯物主义——兼论哈贝马斯与马克思在历史观上的分歧[J].内蒙古民族大学学报.2007,(5).
[117]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社,1995.294.
[1] [2] [3] [7] [12] [13] [14] [15]贺来.现实生活世界——乌托邦精神的真实根基[M].吉林教育出版社,1998.序.1,序.2,序.2,4-6,188,80,85,85.
[4] [美]刘易斯·芒福德.马克思主义、毛泽东主义与乌托邦主义[M].中国人民大学出版社,2005.1.
[5]韦氏标准词典[M].北京.辞书出版社,1990.
[6]乔·奥·赫茨勒.乌托邦思想史[M].北京.商务印书馆.1990.252.
[8]麦茜特讲“自然之死”,福柯则说.人也死了。
[9]龚群.道德乌托邦的重构——哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究[M].商务印书馆.2005.前言.3-4.
[10] Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion, Boston: Beacon press, 1963, 144.
[11]杨适.重读马克思[M].四川人民出版社,1996.48.
[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]刘福森.西方文明的危机与发展伦理学——发展的合理性研究[M].江西教育出版社,2005.218,230,238,243,262,275,275,286,276.
[25]孙正聿.思想中的时代[M].北京师范大学出版社,2004.184.
[26] [47]马克恩恩格斯选集[M].第3卷.人民出版社1995.720,455.
[27] [32]孙正聿.思想中的时代[M].北京师范大学出版社,2004.179,179.
[28] [29] [30] [31] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.人民出版社,1995. 87,75,86,86,9—10,41,47-48,43,287,124,83,119,294.
[42]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第42卷.人民出版社,1979.120.
[43] [44]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第1卷.人民出版社, 1956.443,467.
[45]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第23卷.人民出版社,1972.649.
[46]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第25卷.人民出版社,1974.926-927.
[1]马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1-4卷.北京:人民出版社,1995.
[2]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1956.
[3]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第19卷.北京:人民出版社,1963.
[4]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第23卷.北京:人民出版社,1972.
[5]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第25卷.北京:人民出版社,1974.
[6]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第42卷.北京:人民出版社,1979.
[7]马克思恩格斯全集[M].第47卷.北京:人民出版社,1979.
[8]马克思.1844经济学哲学手稿[M].北京:人民出版社,2000.
[9]马克思.资本论[M].第2卷(上).北京:人民出版社,1975.
[10]马克思,恩格斯.费尔巴哈[M].人民出版社,1988.
[11] Habermas, Jürgen. Toward a Rational Society. Trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press,1970.
[12] Habermas, Jürgen. Knowledge and Human Interests. Trans. Thomas McCarthy.Boston: Beacon Press,1971.
[13] Habermas, Jürgen. Theory and Practice. Trans. John Viertel. Boston: Beacon Press,1973.
[14] Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1975.
[15] Habermas, Jürgen. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1979.
[16] Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. VolumeⅠ:Reason and the Rationalization of society. VolumeⅡ: Lifeworld and System: A Critique ofFunctionalist Reason. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press,1984.
[17] Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Trans. Frederick G. Lawrence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1987.
[18] Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1989.
[19] Habermas, Jürgen. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1990.
[20] Habermas, Jürgen. Postmetaphysical Thinking. Trans. William Mark Hohengarten. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1992.
[21] Habermas, Jürgen. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Trans. Ciaran P. Cronin. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1993.
[22] Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans.William Rehg. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996.
[23] Habermas, Jürgen. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Eds. Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998.
[24] [德]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第一卷.洪佩郁、蔺青.译.重庆出版社,1994.
[25] [德]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论[M].第二卷.洪佩郁、蔺青.译.重庆出版社,1994.
[26] [德]哈贝马斯.交往行为理论[M].第一卷.曹卫东.译.上海人民出版社,2004.
[27] [德]哈贝马斯.认识与兴趣[M].郭官义.等.译.上海.学林出版社,1999.
[28] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯,[德]米夏埃尔·哈勒.作为未来的过去.与著名哲学家哈贝马斯的对话[M].章国锋.译.浙江:浙江人民出版社,2001.
[29] [德]哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].曹卫东、付德根.译.译林出版社,2001.
[30] [德]哈贝马斯.包容他者[M].曹卫东.译.上海人民出版社,2002.
[31] [德]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东(等).译.上海:学林出版社,1999.
[32] [德]哈贝马斯.作为意识形态的技术和科学[M].李黎、郭官义.译.学林出版社,1999.
[33] [德]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].上海人民出版社,2000.
[34] [德]哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].郭官义.译.社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[35] [德]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].刘北成、曹卫东.译.上海人民出版社,2000.
[36] [德]哈贝马斯.哈贝马斯精粹[M].曹卫东.译.南京大学出版社,2004.
[37] [德]哈贝马斯.在事实与规范之间.关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M].童世骏.译.北京:三联书店.2003.
[38] [德]哈贝马斯.超越民族国家[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
[39] [德]哈贝马斯.后民族结构[M].曹卫东.译.上海人民出版社,2002.
[40] [德]哈贝马斯.对话伦理学与真理的问题[M].沈清楷.译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[41] [德]于尔根·哈贝马斯.现代性的哲学话语[M].曹卫东等.译.南京:译林出版社,2004.
[42] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.理论与实践[M].郭官义,李黎.译.北京:社会科学文献出版社.2004.
[43]中国社会科学院哲学研究所编.哈贝马斯在华演讲集[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
[44] [德]弗兰克.理解的界限——利奥塔和哈贝马斯的精神对话[M].先刚.译.北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[45] [英]威廉姆·奥斯维特.哈贝马斯[M].沈亚生.译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1999.
[46] [美]莱斯利·A·豪.哈贝马斯[M].陈志刚.译.北京:中华书局,2002.
[47]余灵灵.哈贝马斯传[M].河北人民出版社,1998.
[48]艾四林.哈贝马斯[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1999.
[49]薛华.哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学[M].辽宁教育出版社,1988.
[50]陈学明.哈贝马斯的“晚期资本主义论”述评[M].重庆出版社,1993.
[51]张博树.现代性与制度现代化[M].学林出版社,1998.
[52]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M] .山东人民出版社,2001.
[53]汪行福.通向话语民主之路——与哈贝马斯对话[M].成都:四川人民出版社,2002.
[54]龚群.道德乌托邦的重构——哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究[M] .商务印书馆,2003.
[55]陈学明,吴松,远东,编.通向理解之路——哈贝马斯论交往[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,1998.
[56]曹卫东.曹卫东讲哈贝马斯[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[57]曹卫东.权力的他者[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2004.
[58]韩红.交往的合理化与现代性的重建——哈贝马斯交往行动理论的深层解读[M].北京:人民出版社, 2005.
[59] [德]马克思·韦伯.社会学的基本概念.顾忠华(译).桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005.
[60]戴维·弗里斯比.现代性的碎片[M].卢晖临.周怡.李林艳(译).商务印书馆.2003.
[61]齐格蒙·鲍曼.生活在碎片之中——论后现代道德[M].郁建兴.周俊.周莹(译).上海:学林出版社,2002.
[62]齐格蒙特·鲍曼.现代性与矛盾性[M].邵迎生(译).商务印书馆.2003.
[63]大卫·雷·格里芬.后现代精神[M].王成兵(译).中央编译出版社,1998.
[64]道格拉斯·凯尔纳.斯蒂文·贝斯特.后现代理论——批判性的质疑[M].张志斌(译).中央编译出版社,2004.
[65]丹尼尔·贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].赵一凡.蒲隆.任晓晋(译).三联书店.1989.
[66]罗尔斯.政治自由主义.批评与辩护[M].万俊人.等(译).广东人民出版社,2003.
[67]赫伯特·马尔库塞.单向度的人——发达工业社会意识形态研究[M].张峰.吕世平(译).重庆:重庆出版社,1998.
[68]约翰·奈斯比特.等.高科技高思维[M].新华出版社,2000.
[69]安东尼·吉登斯.失控的世界[M].江西人民出版社,200l.
[70]霍克海默.阿多尔诺.启蒙辩证法[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1990.
[71] [英]吉登斯.现代性与自我认同——现代晚期的自我与社会.北京:三联书店1998.
[72] [美]刘易斯·芒福德.马克思主义、毛泽东主义与乌托邦主义[M].中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[73]乔·奥·赫茨勒.乌托邦思想史[M].北京:商务印书馆.1990.
[74]海德格尔.海德格尔选集[M].上海三联书店.1996.
[75]费耶阿本德.自由社会中的科学[M].上海译文出版社,1990.
[76]宾克莱.理想的冲突[M].商务印书馆,1983. 13.
[77]高清海.高清海哲学文存(1—6卷)[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,1997.
[78]高清海.高清海哲学文存·续编(1—3卷)[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,2004.
[79]高清海,胡海波.贺来.人的“类生命”与“类哲学”——走向未来的当代哲学精神[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,1998.
[80]刘福森.西方文明的危机与发展伦理学——发展的合理性研究[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,2005.
[81]孙正聿.思想中的时代[M].北京师范大学出版社,2004.
[82]陈嘉明.现代性与后现代性[M].人民出版社,2001.
[83]贺来.现实生活世界——乌托邦精神的真实根基[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1998.
[84]任平.走向交往实践的唯物主义——马克思交往实践观的历史视域与当代意义[M].北京:人民出版社,2003.
[85]杨适.重读马克思[M].四川人民出版社,1996.
[86]张再林.中西哲学比较论[M].西安:西北大学出版社,1998.
[87]王晓东.西方哲学主体间性理论批判[M].中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[88]范宝舟.论马克思交往理论及其当代意义[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005. D.学位论文
[1]罗骞.论马克思的现代性批判及其当代意义[D].复旦大学哲学系,2005.
[2]胡振江.从马克思的劳动实践到哈贝马斯的交往实践[D].黑龙江大学,2006.
[3]唐涛.哈贝马斯后形而上学伦理思想研究[D].南京师范大学,2005.
[4]马珂.论哈贝马斯的国际政治哲学[D].华东师范大学人文学院哲学系,2004.
[5]陆玉胜.哈贝马斯的商谈理论及其应用[D].华东师范大学人文学院哲学系,2005.
[6]余波.哈贝马斯晚期资本主义合法化危机思想述评[D].苏州大学,2003.
[7]李宏勇.从交往理性看全球问题的出路[D].山西大学,2005.
[8]陆燕虹.哈贝马斯话语民主理论述评[D].华东师范大学,2004. G.期刊中析出的文献
[1]孙利天.作为思想的形而上学[J].学习与探索,2003,(6).
[2]王振林.两种相悖的伦理话语.罗蒂与哈贝马斯[J].长白学刊,2003,(2).
[3]哈贝马斯.生产力与交往[J].哲学译丛,1992,(6).
[4]哈贝马斯.解释说要求普通适用[J].哲学译丛,1986,(3).
[5] [德]H·鲍克纳.论哈贝马斯对进步、理性和民主的选择[J].哲学译丛,1992,(4).
[6]哈贝马斯,章国锋.哈贝马斯访谈录[J].外国文学评论,2000,(1).
[7]哈贝马斯.我和法兰克福学派[J].哲学译丛,1984,(1).
[8]现实与对话伦理学——哈贝马斯答郭官义问[J].哲学译丛,1994,(4).
[9]哈贝马斯.在全球化压力下的欧洲的民族国家[J].复旦学报,2001,(3).
[10]哈贝马斯.有根据的节制——对“正确生活”问题存在后形而上学的回答吗?[J].薛华译.安徽师大学报,2001,(11).
[11]曹卫东.走向一种没有世界政府的世界内政——哈贝马斯话语政治的历史背景与现实意义[J].社会学研究,2003,(6).
[12] [美]理查德·伯恩斯坦.现代性/后现代性的比喻:哈贝马斯与德里达[J].马克思主义与现实,2005,(6)
[13]关桂芹.重建语境下的历史唯物主义——兼论哈贝马斯与马克思在历史观上的分歧[J].内蒙古民族大学学报,2007,(5).
[14]殷杰,郭贵春.论哈贝马斯“语用学转向”的实质[J].自然辩证法研究,2002,(3).
[15]曹卫东.文化的剩余价值——哈贝马斯的大众文化批评[J].文学评论,2002.5.
[16]哈贝马斯.民主法治国家的承认斗争[J].载汪晖、陈燕谷主编.文化与公共性[M].三联书店,1998.343.
[17]任皑.哈贝马斯“生活世界”学说管窥[J].马克思主义研究.2002,(4).
[18]郑璐.商谈与和谐——哈贝马斯商谈伦理的现代意蕴[J].中共南京市委党校南京市行政学院学报,2004,(6).
[19]赵一凡.哈贝马斯与交往理性(上、下)[J].中国图书评论,2008,(5),(6).
[20]李远行.哈贝马斯程序主义民主观述评[J].政治学研究,2000,(3).
[21]李佃来.话语民主:哈贝马斯政治哲学的关键词[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2005,(11).
[22]程晓燕.哈贝马斯的国际政治观[J].国际关系学院学报,2006,(3).
[23]傅永军.哈贝马斯晚期资本主义危机理论述评[J].哲学研究,1999,(2).
[24]阳海因.论哈贝马斯对早.法兰克福学派合理性理论的改造[J].兰州学刊,2006,(1).
[25]陈振明.当代资本主义社会及其合法化危机——评哈贝马斯的“晚期资本主义理论”[J].岭南学刊,1996,(2).
[26]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,(7).
[27]吴开明.现代性哲学基础的反思——哈贝马斯对意识哲学范式的拒斥[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2001,(3).
[28]徐军.社会批判理论内部的对话—哈贝马斯与法兰克福学派理论关系新探[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2002,(6).
[29]李佃来.哈贝马斯与交往理性[J].湖北行政学院学报,2002,(5).
[30]金高品.论哈贝马斯的合理性概念[J].马克思主义与现实,2000,(4).
[31]陈学明.西方人士眼中的当代资本主义制度(上)[J].思想理论教育导刊,2007,(8).
[32]陈咸瑜.生活世界理论与马克思的哲学观[J].江汉论坛,2007,(11).
[33]潘西华.协商民主与意识形态的合法性——从哈贝马斯的“商谈论”谈起[J].中国人民政协理论研究会会刊,2007,(3).
[34]陈卓.“生活世界”与现实生活:两种生活的抗拮——从现实生活中阻碍交往的诸多因素反思哈贝马斯的交往行为理论[J].云南电大学报,2008,(3).
[35]胡军良.当代西方哲学的“对话范式”及其对马克思主义哲学探究的启示[J].内蒙古社会科学(汉文版),2007,(9).
[36]陈雄辉,关锋.交往的乌托邦:哈贝马斯人类解放思想评析[J].华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(3).
[37]张炳勇.重提人的解放[J].新疆社科论坛,2004,(6).
[38]仰海峰.超越市民社会与国家:从政治解放到社会解放——马克思的国家与市民社会理论探析[J].东岳论丛,2005(3).
[39]伏涤修.从批判人的异化到寻求人的自由与解放——论马克思的人文关怀思想[J].人文杂志,2002,(2).
[40]郝孚逸.从人性复归到人类解放[J].湖北社会科学,2008,(3).
[41]杨建毅.共产主义是人类追求的最高目标——对马克思主义自由观的理解与探讨[J].甘肃理论学刊,2002,(7).
[42]章国锋.未来世界向何处去?——[德]哈贝马斯论海湾战争对全球化的影响[J].马克思主义与现实(双月刊),2001,(6).
[43]张汝伦.评哈贝马斯对全球化政治的思考[J].哲学研究2001,(7).
[44]蓝江.后民族时代的世界政治——哈贝马斯的全球政治观[J].新视野,2002,(5).
[45]贺翠香,张翼星.从交往观看哈贝马斯与马克思的全球化理路[J].北京行政学院学报,2002,(1).
[46]李宏勇.全球性问题与交往理性[J].理论探索,2005,(1).
[47]杨秀香.康德与哈贝马斯普遍性道德原则比较研究[J].辽宁师范大学学报(社科版), 1998,(4).
[48]赵前苗.论哈贝马斯对道德规范的建构[J].道德与文明,2005,(5).
[49]刘日明.哈贝马斯的主体性理论及其现实意义[J].上海社会科学院学术季刊,2001,(3).
[50]李曙新.哈贝马斯的社会进化理论评析[J].社会科学研究,2004,(4).
[51]陈映霞.历史唯物主义和哈贝马斯的社会进化观[J].天津社会科学,2003,(5).
[52]盛晓明.从公共性到主体间性——哈贝马斯的普遍语用学转向[J],浙江学刊,1999,(5).
[53]唐涛.交往的家园—论哈贝马斯的生活世界理论[J].淮南师范学院学报,2004,(6).
[54]周春霞.生活世界的殖民化与合理化—评哈贝马斯的双层社会解释架构[J],安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000,(3).
[55]赵汀阳.关于自由的一种存在论观点[J].世界哲学,2004,(6)
[56]赵汀阳.认同与文化自身认同[J].原道辑刊.第九辑(暨新原道第二辑).大象出版社,2004.
[57]赵汀阳.再论“自由的困境”——同时回复王贵明先生[J].学术月刊,2006,(3).
[1]赵汀阳.乌托邦还是乌托邦[DB/OL]. http://59.67.74.3/tszz/thinker/habermas/habermas020.doc.html
[2]赵汀阳文,方杰译.理解与接受[DB/OL].数字中国, http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=13 http://www.china001.com/show_hdr.php?xname=PPDDMV0&dname=1AA9G41&xpos=12
[3]再谈马克思主义是人的解放学[DB/OL].京报网,www.bjd.com.cn
[4] (比)欧内斯特.曼德尔.共产主义的前途[DB/OL]. http.//www.marxists.org/chinese/13/marxist.org-chinese-mandel-1990.htm
[5] [美]莫里斯·迈斯纳.马克思主义与乌托邦主义[DB/OL].人民网, http://theory.people.com.cn/GB/49157/49164/4520243.html, 2006-06-23.
[6]哈贝马斯.论人权的文化间性——假想的问题与现实的问题(访华讲演录之一)[DB/OL].中国社会科学院哲学研究所,http://philosophy.cass.cn/jiaoliu/habeimasi/yjlu.htm
[7]童世骏.没有“主体间性”就没有“规则”--论哈贝马斯的规则观[DB/OL].当代文化研究网,http://www.cul-studies.com/community/tongshijun/200505/1573.html
[8]童世骏.政治文化和现代社会的集体认同--读哈贝马斯近著两种[DB/OL].当代文化研究网,http://www.cul-studies.com/community/tongshijun/200505/1568.html
[9]童世骏.非理性主义时代的理性主义——波普尔和哈贝马斯的合理性观比较[DB/OL].当代文化研究网,http://www.cul-studies.com/community/tongshijun/200505/1570.html
[10]哈贝马斯.现代性:一个未完成的方案[DB/OL].学术中华,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=5114
[11]哈贝马斯.超越民族国家?——论经济全球化的后果问题[DB/OL].柴方国译.学术中华,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=10288
[12]哈贝马斯.欧洲的民族国家--关于主权和公民资格的过去与未来[DB/OL].曹卫东.译.学术中华,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=10286
[13]哈贝马斯.不必要的妥协——评罗尔斯的《政治自由主义》[DB/OL].江绪林.译.学术中华,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=10291
[14]哈贝马斯专题[DB/OL]. http://www.gongfa.com/habeimasizhuanti.htm
[15]哈贝马斯.社会行为、目的行为和交往[DB/OL].曹卫东译. http://philo.ruc.edu.cn/pol04/Article/western/w_germany/200407/599.html