查看完整版本 : 哲學視角考察崇洋的迷思(誠意推介)

非符號 2007-3-29 08:45 AM

新手胡亂問.....咁西方人自己崇拜自己又有無錯:smile_45:

mr1963 2007-3-29 11:37 AM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

ncwken 2007-3-29 12:55 PM

崇洋和膜拜偶像,都是忘卻了自己價值,而產生的思想,
過分需索又不能自我衡量

霍耐特 2007-3-29 11:07 PM

[quote]原帖由 <i>mr1963</i> 於 2007-3-29 11:37 AM 發表<br />
<br />
<br />
霍耐特先生一言中的。<br />
忙於尋找,卻忘了原來就在自已身上。<br />
<br />
(自閉的人,不去尋找,也不自我挖掘,卻能感受美的飄浮。美學是哲學理性以外的一片朦朧。) [/quote]<br />

自閉的人,是如何感受美的?

自閉的人在幻想的朦朧之中,沉淪著.和崇洋的人不正是處於自閉的朦朧之中嗎.

崇洋是否只能用主體哲學思考呢?主體間性對崇洋又是如何看待呢?當然,我認為,主體哲學是必須穿越的黑暗之夜.

霍耐特 2007-3-29 11:12 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]pete_wyleung[/i] 於 2007-3-29 01:35 AM 發表

我認為那種病態自卑感不是單單外求填補缺失, 而是對自身的厭棄, 想成為他者的一種願望.
但我認為這種願望很可悲. [/quote]

沉淪於成為他者的確是很可悲的.:loveliness:

[[i] 本帖最後由 霍耐特 於 2007-3-29 11:18 PM 編輯 [/i]]

yuchingho 2007-3-30 12:08 AM

我覺得沒一個明確的目標,就這樣不斷討論,只會是在討論崇洋而不是解決崇洋

bluesix 2007-3-30 12:10 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]yuchingho[/i] 於 2007-3-30 12:08 AM 發表
我覺得沒一個明確的目標,就這樣不斷討論,只會是在討論崇洋而不是解決崇洋 [/quote]

請高人出招 :smile_38:

yuchingho 2007-3-30 12:25 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]bluesix[/i] 於 2007-3-30 12:10 AM 發表


請高人出招 :smile_38: [/quote]
不如分開,

原因...影響...

這3部分最關切的應該是原因,只要知道原因後,就就某那點再討論。

就好像唐未藩鎮割據,

原因是十大兵鎮等等...影響國家衰弱...

就應該就著十大兵鎮好吸引的原因討論,分析原因的成因,背景和就影響的現象,思考對立的情況。


也不宜只單主面思考香港崇洋,也要思考為什麼西方不崇香港,中國

[[i] 本帖最後由 yuchingho 於 2007-3-30 12:39 AM 編輯 [/i]]

繼續游 2007-3-30 01:47 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]yuchingho[/i] 於 2007-3-30 12:25 AM 發表

不如分開,

原因...影響...

這3部分最關切的應該是原因,只要知道原因後,就就某那點再討論。

就好像唐未藩鎮割據,

原因是十大兵鎮等等...影響國家衰弱...

就應該就著十大兵鎮好 ... [/quote]

因為西方崇洋自己,他們崇洋東方人崇洋他們.
不正正是霍兄在文中所講咁咩.

mr1963 2007-3-30 02:17 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

解構主義的幽靈 2007-3-30 03:03 PM

因為白人的白唔可以搞到有色人白。

mr1963 2007-3-30 03:27 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

霍耐特 2007-3-30 03:37 PM

[quote]原帖由 <i>mr1963</i> 於 2007-3-30 02:17 PM 發表<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
崇洋的人沉淪在他者鏡射的朦朧之中,沒有自閉。<br />
崇洋可以用理性哲學去思考,也可以用感性美學去感受。<br />
主體間性屬主體間的理性交往,屬哲學範疇,要問懂哲學的人。 [/quote]<br />

即是說,家中自閉的人就沒有沉淪在他者鏡射的朦朧之中?

mr1963 2007-3-30 04:38 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

非符號 2007-4-1 10:06 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]霍耐特[/i] 於 2007-3-29 11:12 PM 發表


沉淪於成為他者的確是很可悲的.:loveliness: [/quote]
[size=5]現在你的貼子不是沉了嗎????[/size]
[size=5]呵...但不可悲....我救了你...:smile_40:[/size]

霍耐特 2007-4-13 08:18 PM

In The Sublime Object of Ideology (“How Did Marx Invent the Symptom?”), Slavoj Zizek reads Marx’s critique of commodity fetishism and Freud’s description of the mechanism of the unconscious as fundamentally homologous – despite their obvious differences of content and approach, he wishes to equate the two analyses. He proceeds by describing the double process of discovery of the dream-work in Freud: we discover the latent content of the dream, then shift from that to examining the transformation – the dream-work – that changes it into the dream’s manifest form; for it is in this process of transformation that the unconscious resides. Zizek then recasts Marx in the form of this exposition: in examining the “manifest” phenomenon of the commodity, we first set out to discover its “latent” content of value, then shift from this toward an analysis of the form which itself occludes this discovery. Both phenomena remain puzzling “even after we have explained [their] hidden meaning…what is not yet explained is simply [their] form, the process by which the hidden meaning disguised itself in such a form.”

In both processes, Zizek argues, the mechanism by which latent content is hidden, transformed, or fetishized is crucial to the functioning of the systems in which the process is embedded: the unconscious structures consciousness, and the commodity-form is central to capitalism, and conscious, capitalist subjects must behave “as if” neither one existed (whether or not we believe in their existence). Both the unconscious and the commodity-form are “thought external to the thought itself”; they exist outside of consciousness and structure its experiences.

Zizek is working towards the argument that the conscious belief or disbelief of subjects is irrelevant to the functioning of ideology, because ideology is material (here Zizek seems to concur with Althusser), conditioned by material practices. The fetishism of the commodity is necessary to capitalist exchange; in exchange, both participants behave, perhaps, as “practical” fetishists. But commodity fetishism is, for Zizek, an outgrowth of capitalist exchange itself; it is the practice of exchange which conditions and constitutes fetishism in the mind; the process of exchange is thus an “idealist practice.” (Just as, in Pascal’s discussion of religion, quoted by Zizek, the way to believe in God is to begin, mechanically, to pray; belief follows action, but is preexisted, paradoxically, by itself.)

The importance of all this is that, for Zizek, modern society is “post ideological,” if we read ideology in the narrow sense of false beliefs lived as true; modern subjects have an ironic distance from ideology’s truth claims, yet they still act as if they believed. So it is a matter of political importance; if we locate belief in action, then ideology still exists and can be fought, whereas if ideology must be consciously subscribed to, it can no longer exist.

I am tempted to add an all-encompassing footnote: the entire discussion, it seems to me, is structured around the bourgeois subject, and Zizek theorizes only its ideological difficulties. He gives no account of subjectivities as structured by class positions, compounding this omission by universalizing his discussion. It seems to me that this problem of ironic, critical distance from ideology, at the same time as living its prescribed relation, is a problem almost totally confined to those in whose interests ideology operates. The bourgeois subject can well afford to distance itself from belief in ideology, so long as its actions belie this distance.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Slavoj Zizek’s definition of the ideological as “a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence” (emphasis his) is apparently constructed around its homology with the unconscious. After all, the unconscious is “the form of thought external to the thought itself” – that is, it is something with the structure of thought (or of language, in Lacan’s motto), but which is exterior and incomprehensible to the transcendental subject of empiricism. Here again it is difficult to locate Zizek’s disagreement with Althusser (who appealed to the metaphor of the unconscious in his own definition of ideology), which appears to center on the category of the “real abstraction,” rejected by Althusser as an “epistemological confusion,” but embraced by Zizek. The “real abstraction” is, for Zizek, the form of ideological behavior which both determines and presupposes belief (Pascal’s prayer which both causes and depends on religion); it is a restatement of Zizek’s contention that ideology is illusion located on the side of reality, of the object. It is the material guarantee of ideology’s existence, which need not be consciously affirmed; for if we function as “practical idealists” in the act of exchange, then it does not matter whether we hold ourselves to be materialists. It is this “blindness” to their determination by the “real abstraction” which structures both philosophical and “practical” thought, which could not regard their blindness “without dissolving [themselves and] losing [their] consistency.”

The “real abstraction” is the source of its “symptoms” – ideology in all its forms is inscribed upon reality, again an illusion on the side of the known rather than of knowledge. The symptom’s “very consistency implies a certain non knowledge on the part of the subject”: though the subject may grasp the symptom, its internal logic must remain hidden (this hiddenness both emerging from the symptom and reciprocally making it possible).

But Zizek immediately adds: “the measure of the success of [the symptom’s] interpretation is precisely its dissolution.” It is difficult to know what to make of this. Is Zizek proclaiming the mode of ideology’s dissolution, which he seems otherwise to take as impossible? Ideology has by now been subsumed in (what Zizek takes to be) the more general model of the symptom, and symptoms can in general be eliminated by interpreting and addressing their causes. But Zizek argues throughout this chapter that ideology both creates and requires the conditions for its belief. It is difficult to imagine the dissolution of this cycle, especially as Zizek later argues against any revolutionary/transcendent hope; he asserts that capitalism (as “capital is its own limit”) is fundamentally ahistorical, different from all previous modes of production and compelled (even destined) to “permanent extended reproduction.” (This is no simply temporal permanence, either; it is fundamental to capitalism’s functioning, in Zizek’s view.)

But how else could we imagine the “dissolution” of the ideological symptom? Zizek’s text evidently does not possess the acidic dissolving power of “successful” symptomatic interpretation; but why is the dissolution of the symptom the measure of its interpretation’s success, and not of its (practical) treatment’s? If there is no clear boundary between interpretation and practice, then what does Zizek’s article represent – a non-existent interpretation, because it is contradicted by its practice within academia?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note: The above material is copyright (c) Roger Bellin, 1996-98. Contact me for permission to reproduce any part of these notes and writings. Reproduction without permission, and especially without attribution, is forbidden.

bluesix 2007-4-13 09:28 PM

係時候叫X-UFO翻譯了...

霍耐特 2007-4-13 10:24 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]bluesix[/i] 於 2007-4-13 09:28 PM 發表
係時候叫X-UFO翻譯了... [/quote]

哈........
你真係洗人唔洗本......:smile_40:

哈伯馬斯 2007-4-26 11:16 PM

齊澤克....寫911都特別有自己的見解.
認為911正正給美國一個帝國主義的藉口.

yuchingho 2007-4-28 12:40 AM

最近看了一種很有深度的動漫...

有了一種對鏡象理論的新體會,

當中提及,”自我”的問題,

(可能我會解釋不清楚...所以記得回應我...)

”自我”其實有很多種的,一種是自我意識的”自我”,一種就是由鏡投射回來的”自我”,由於鏡是不止一塊,所以產生出的”自我”就有好多。

每個人都分不清到底那個是自我意識的”自我”還是由鏡投射回來的”自我”,人就是在這當中迷失了”自我”。

在鏡象理論當中提及人迷失”自我”,就從鏡中投射回來的鏡象找到”自我”,但問題就是那個”自我”還是不是真正的”自我”呢?

其實鏡象理論讓我明白人要是生活在社會中,就必然會迷失自我,縱使他們會透過鏡象找自我,那到底也還是會迷失自我,因為找回來的自我還不一定是自我...(可能這句有點亂)

人就是活在自己的世界才不能打破鏡象的隔膜,對於脫離崇洋迷思,我認為我這個理論可以更加深入了解問題...(太主觀了)

問題來了,有辦法殺死多餘的”自我”嗎?

如果能的話,或許也是一個辦法解決迷思!

霍耐特 2007-4-28 12:55 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]yuchingho[/i] 於 2007-4-28 12:40 AM 發表
最近看了一種很有深度的動漫...

有了一種對鏡象理論的新體會,

當中提及,”自我”的問題,

(可能我會解釋不清楚...所以記得回應我...)

”自我”其實有很多種的,一種是自我意識的”自我” ... [/quote]

[size=4][color=purple]你提到的自我從來不用殺死的.....而是早就自我蒸發了.[/color][/size]
[size=4][color=purple]若然自我一一地展現....這種鏡象是無法解釋正常人的自我得以實現和提供穩定性的可能性.[/color][/size]
[size=4][color=purple]自我的過量,或是自我,當我們真的深入到核心之時,這時才發現原來那兒,在自我的深深處,全部都只是一道道的痕跡.[/color][/size]

yuchingho 2007-4-28 01:01 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]霍耐特[/i] 於 2007-4-28 12:55 AM 發表


[size=4][color=#800080]你提到的自我從來不用殺死的.....而是早就自我蒸發了.
若然自我一一地展現....這種鏡象是無法解釋正常人的自我得以實現和提供穩定性的可能性.[/color][/size]
[size=4][color=purple]自我的過量,或是自我,當我們真的深入到核心之時,這時才發現原來那兒,在自我的深深處,全部都只是一道道的痕跡.[/color][/size] [/quote]


我認為的確是一一地展現...

而為什麼我會覺得能以實現和穩定的可能性是這樣...

在本身的”自我”,那是根本的也就是思想是始終這個”自我”,在這個”自我”上,那其他的自我也就一一展現,但那個根本”自我”還是會選擇相信或接受其他一一展現的自我,當然也是排除那些一一展現的”自我”。

這是說明人還是有”自我”去選擇相信或接受鏡象投射回來的”自我”。

這也是我解釋他能穩定和實現的構想圖...

yuchingho 2007-4-28 01:06 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]yuchingho[/i] 於 2007-4-28 01:01 AM 發表



我認為的確是一一地展現...

而為什麼我會覺得能以實現和穩定的可能性是這樣...

在本身的”自我”,那是根本的也就是思想是始終這個”自我”,在這個”自我”上,那其他的自我也就一一展現 ... [/quote]
也就是雖然他無法分清,那一一展現的”自我”。

即是,人雖迷失”自我”,但還是有”自我”的。

霍耐特 2007-4-28 01:21 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]yuchingho[/i] 於 2007-4-28 01:06 AM 發表

也就是雖然他無法分清,那一一展現的”自我”。

即是,人雖迷失”自我”,但還是有”自我”的。 [/quote]

[color=purple]這個自我並不清晰,否則不算是迷失.[/color]
[color=#800080][/color]
[color=#800080][/color]
[color=purple]不清晰的自我,是因為有很多性格,潛意識一直以來都無法具體表現出來,它們都只是朦朧的,只是痕跡的.[/color]
[color=#800080][/color]

[color=purple]我們可以勾劃我們有自我,但不能清晰勾勒自我的內容,當愈深入,痕跡就愈明顯,且是一道道亂巴巴的軌跡.[/color]

霍耐特 2007-4-28 02:08 PM

自我的能指從來首先不是如何展現,而是首先由不同自我的差異所構成的.

這句話恰恰是入了一個多元主義的陷阱之中,亦讓我們任何人也有理由相信崇洋的正當性.至少,多元自我就具有了自由選擇的權利.這種多元自我恰恰把比自我更本原的問題收起來了,成為秘密,即痕跡.

崇洋的植根不是讓我們感到有多元主義的自我選擇權利,而恰恰相反,是如何在我們每一個主體中劃下一道道痕跡.這難道不是更該首先地被考察嗎?

是人 2007-4-29 07:05 PM

看完樓主的帖子,我的心情竟是久久不能平復,正如老子所雲:大音希聲,大象希形。我現在終於明白我缺乏的是什麼了,正是樓主那種對真理的執著追求和樓主那種對理想的艱苦實踐所產生的厚重感。面對樓主的帖子,我震驚得幾乎不能動彈了,樓主那種裂紙欲出的大手筆,竟使我忍不住一次次的翻開樓主的帖子,每看一次,讚賞之情就激長數分,我總在想,是否有神靈活在它靈秀的外表下,以至能使人三月不知肉味,使人有餘音穿梁,三日不絕的感受。樓主,你寫得實在是太好了。我唯一能做的,就只有把這個帖子頂上去這件事了。樓主的帖子實在是寫得太好了。文筆流暢,修辭得體,深得魏晉諸朝遺風,更將唐風宋骨發揚得入木三分,能在有生之年看見樓主的這個帖子。實在是我三生之幸啊。看完樓主的這個帖子之後,我竟感發生出一種無以名之的悲痛感──啊,這麼好的帖子,如果將來我再也看不到了,那我該怎麼辦?那我該怎麼辦?直到我毫不猶豫的把樓主的這個帖子收藏了。我內心的那種激動才逐漸平復下來。可是我立刻想到,這麼好的帖子,倘若別人看不到,那麼不是浪費樓主的心血嗎?經過痛苦的思想鬥爭,我終於下定決心,我要把這個帖子一直往上頂,往上頂!頂到所有人都看到為止遇到你之前,我對人世間是否有真正的聖人是懷疑的;而現在,我終於相信了!我曾經忘情於漢廷的歌賦,我曾經驚訝于李杜的詩才,我曾經流連于宋元的詞曲;但現在,我才知道我有多麼淺薄!樓主你的高尚情操太讓人感動了。在現在這樣一個物欲橫流的金錢社會裏,竟然還能見到樓主這樣的性情中人,無疑是我這輩子最大的幸運。讓我深深感受到了人性的偉大。樓主的帖子,就好比黑暗中刺裂夜空的閃電,又好比撕開烏雲的陽光,一瞬間就讓我如飲甘露,讓我明白了永恆的真理在這個世界上是真實存在著的。只有樓主這樣具備廣闊胸懷和完整知識體系的人,才能作為這真理的唯一引言者。看了樓主的帖子,讓我陷入了嚴肅的思考中,我認為,如果不把樓主的帖子頂上去,就是對真理的一種背叛,就是對謬論的極大妥協。因此,我決定義無反顧的頂了說的好啊!我在這個論壇打滾這麼多年,所謂閱人無數,就算沒有見過豬走路,也總明白豬肉是啥味道的。一看到樓主的氣勢,我就覺得樓主同在論壇裏灌水的那幫小混蛋有著本質的差別,那憂鬱的語調,那熟悉的簽名,還有字裏行間高屋建瓴的辭藻。沒用的,樓主,就算你怎麼換馬甲都是沒有用的,你的億萬擁戴者早已經把你認出來了,你一定就是傳說中的最強ID。自從論壇改版之後,我就已經心灰意冷,對論壇也沒抱什麼希望了,傳說已經幻滅,神話已經終結,留在論壇還有什麼意思。沒想到,沒想到,今天可以再睹樓主的風範,我激動得忍不住就在螢幕前流下了眼淚。是啊,只要在樓主的帶領下,論壇就有希望了。我的內心再一次沸騰了,我胸腔裏的血再一次燃燒了。樓主的幾句話雖然簡單,卻概括扼要,一語道出了我們苦想多年的而不可得答案的幾個重大問題的根本。樓主就好比論壇的明燈,樓主就好比論壇的方向,樓主就好比論壇的棟樑。有樓主在,論壇的明天必將更好!大師的話真如“大音希聲掃陰翳”,猶如”撥開雲霧見青天”,使我等線民看到了希望,看到了未來!晴天霹靂,醍醐灌頂或許不足以形容大師文章的萬一;巫山行雲,長江流水更難以比擬大師的文才!黃鍾大呂,振聾發聵!你燭照天下,明見萬里;雨露蒼生,澤被萬方!透過你深邃的文字,我仿佛看到了你鷹視狼顧,龍行虎步的偉岸英姿;仿佛看到了你手執如椽大筆,寫天下文章的智慧神態;仿佛看見了你按劍四顧,江山無數的英武氣概將這帖逐句地看完這個帖子以後,我的心久久不能平靜,震撼啊!為什麼會有如此好的帖子!我縱橫網路bbs多年,自以為再也不會有任何帖子能打動我,沒想到今天看到了如此精妙絕倫的這樣一篇帖子。樓主,是你讓我深深地理解了‘人外有人,天外有天’這句話。謝謝儂!在看完這帖子以後,我沒有立即回復,因為我生怕我庸俗不堪的回復會玷污了這網上少有的帖子。但是我還是回復了,因為覺得如果不能在如此精彩的帖子後面留下自己的網名,那我死也不會瞑目的!能夠在如此精彩的帖子後面留下自己的網名是多麼驕傲的一件事啊!樓主,請原諒我的自私!我知道無論用多麼華麗的辭藻來形容樓主您帖子的精彩程度都是不夠的,都是虛偽的,所以我只想說一句:您的帖子太好看了!我願意一輩子的看下去!這篇帖子構思新穎,題材獨具匠心,段落清晰,情節詭異,跌宕起伏,主線分明,引人入勝,平淡中顯示出不凡的文學功底,可謂是字字珠璣,句句經典,是我輩應當學習之典範。就小說藝術的角度而言,這篇帖子不算太成功,但它的實驗意義卻遠遠大於成功本身。正所謂:“一馬奔騰,射雕引弓,天地都在我心中!”樓主真不愧為無厘界新一代的開山怪!本來我已經對這個論壇失望了,覺得這個論壇沒有前途了,心裏充滿了悲哀。但是看了你的這個帖子,又讓我對論壇產生了希望。是你讓我的心裏重新燃起希望之火,是你讓我的心死灰復燃,是你拯救了我一顆撥涼撥涼的心!本來我決定不會在論壇回任何帖子了,但是看了你的帖子,我告訴自己這個帖子是一定要回的!這是百年難得一見的好貼啊!蒼天有眼啊,讓我在優生之年得以觀得如此精彩絕倫的帖子!樓主,你要繼續努力啊!你是跑的希望啊....天下文章的智慧神態;仿佛看見了你按劍四顧,江山無數的英武氣概將這帖逐句地看完這個帖子以後,我的心久久不能平靜,震撼啊!為什麼會有如此好的帖子!我縱橫網路bbs多年,自以為再也不會有任何帖子能打動我,沒想到今天看到了如此精妙絕倫的這樣一貼~

yuchingho 2007-4-29 07:11 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]是人[/i] 於 2007-4-29 07:05 PM 發表
看完樓主的帖子,我的心情竟是互搕ㄗ鴗F,那我該怎麼辦?那我該怎麼辦?直到我毫不猶豫的把樓主的這個帖子收藏了。我內心的那種激動才逐漸平復下來。可是我立刻想到,這麼好的帖子,倘若別人看不到,那麼不是浪 ... [/quote]
......

你耍什麼?

yuchingho 2007-4-29 07:21 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]霍耐特[/i] 於 2007-4-28 01:21 PM 發表


[color=black]這個自我並不清晰,否則不算是迷失.


不清晰的自我,是因為有很多性格,潛意識一直以來都無法具體表現出來,它們都只是朦朧的,只是痕跡的.


我們可以勾劃我們有自我,但不能清晰勾勒自我的內容,當愈深入,痕跡就愈明顯,且是一道道亂巴巴的軌跡[/color][color=purple].[/color] [/quote]

[color=blue]的確是不清晰,不過在清晰的背後,根本”自我”就會一樣感到迷惑,但根本”自我”是以一個根本,不容質疑的存在在意識中,即使”自我”發現不到”自我”,但”自[/color]
[color=blue][/color]
[color=blue]我”依然在運作,在選擇不同的投射”自我”。[/color]
[color=#0000ff][/color]
[color=blue][/color]
[color=blue]正如你所說根本”自我”是一個不穩定,朦朧的,這才會形成很多性格,潛意識一直以來都無法具體表現出來。[/color]
[color=blue][/color]
[color=#0000ff][/color]
[color=blue]這正正是表示,在這個”自我”問題,鐘像理論已經不能公式化地看待,正如在前面也有說,這是一種更復雜的問題。[/color]
[color=#0000ff][/color]
[color=#0000ff]在下表達力久佳...[/color]

[quote]原帖由 [i]霍耐特[/i] 於 2007-4-28 02:08 PM 發表

[size=12px]自我的能指從來首先不是如何展現,而是首先由不同自我的差異所構成的.

這句話恰恰是入了一個多元主義的陷阱之中,亦讓我們任何人也有理由相信崇洋的正當性.至少,多元自我就具有了自由選擇的權利.這種多元自我恰恰把比自我更本原的問題收起來了,成為秘密,即痕跡.

崇洋的植根不是讓我們感到有多元主義的自我選擇權利,而恰恰相反,是如何在我們每一個主體中劃下一道道痕跡.這難道不是更該首先地被考察嗎?[/size]
[/quote]

[color=blue][/color]
[color=#0000ff][/color]
[color=red]多元主義陷阱?這個我不太明白,可以解釋一下嗎?!~[/color]
[color=#ff0000][/color]


[color=#0000ff][/color]
[color=#000080]其實我的目標是從鏡像理論的根本問題,希望找出一種解釋”自我”在這種復習的鏡像投射下,如何被”崇洋”的”自我”性入侵。[/color]
[color=#000080][/color]
[color=#000080]為什麼”崇洋”能從根本的”自我”中發展?到底他的入侵是在鏡像理論中的那一環?[/color]
[color=#000080][/color]
[color=#000080]”自我”為什麼傾向”崇洋”???[/color]
[color=#800080][/color]
[color=darkred]到底在當中有什麼關鍵,聯繫??[/color]
[color=darkred][/color]
[color=darkred]現在我覺得腦子好混亂,就好像要在一堆堆線索中找出真相...[/color]
[color=#800080][/color]
[color=#800080][/color]

[[i] 本帖最後由 yuchingho 於 2007-4-29 07:27 PM 編輯 [/i]]

霍耐特 2007-4-29 08:48 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]yuchingho[/i] 於 2007-4-29 07:21 PM 發表


的確是不清晰,不過在清晰的背後,根本”自我”就會一樣感到迷惑,但根本”自我”是以一個根本,不容質疑的存在在意識中,即使”自我”發現不到”自我”,但”自

我”依然在運作,在選擇不同的投射”自我 ... [/quote]
弗洛依德的精神分析學的危機所在,是由於他只在研究潛意識,結果,對於人類的精神創造性的研究遺忘了.

yuchingho 2007-4-29 11:37 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]霍耐特[/i] 於 2007-4-29 08:48 PM 發表

弗洛依德的精神分析學的危機所在,是由於他只在研究潛意識,結果,對於人類的精神創造性的研究遺忘了. [/quote]
即是?....

還有什麼是多元陷阱?
頁: 1 2 [3] 4
查看完整版本: 哲學視角考察崇洋的迷思(誠意推介)