论文部分内容阅读
在理论研究中,在某种“说话方式”内是难以解决的问题,而换一种“说话方式”却可能产生豁然之感,因为一种“说话方式”表征着一种解决问题的思路及其对问题的基本看法。在实践与主体性问题的讨论中,人们往往把这一问题归结为主客体及其抽象关系的思辩演绎之中,从而把这一问题搁置在传统哲学的“说话方式”之内。于是,关于实践与主体性问题的讨论陷入了主客体这两个范畴之间的“解释循环”,说“实践是主客体间的活动”,说“主体性是主体对客体的主导性”等等。这种论断无非告诉人们;实践就是实践,主体性就是主体性,即“A=A”。
In theoretical research, it is an issue that can not be solved within a certain “way of speaking.” A change of “way of speaking,” however, may give rise to a sudden feeling because a “way of speaking” represents a way to solve the problem Its basic view of the problem. In the discussion of practice and subjectivity, people often attribute this issue to the deduction and deduction of subject and object and their abstract relations, thus leaving this issue within the “mode of speaking” of traditional philosophy. Thus, the discussion of practice and subjectivity falls into a “cycle of explanation” between the two categories of subject and object, saying that “practice is the activity between the subject and the object”, and that “subjectivity is the dominance of the subject to the object” Wait. This assertion is nothing more than to tell people; practice is practice, subjectivity is subjectivity, that is, “A = A”.