批判与超越:现代工程与主体形而上学  

Criticism and transcending: modern engineering and subject metaphysics

作　　者：高海青[1] 姚宇臣 

机构地区：[1]广东外语外贸大学马克思主义学院,广东广州510420 [2]北京大学哲学系,北京100871

出　　处：《长安大学学报（社会科学版）》2016年第1期90-95,共6页Journal of Chang'an University(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究基金项目(15YJC720008)

摘　　要：通过把现代工程置于现代形而上学的轨迹来理解和把握其本质,可以发现现代工程的本质比现代技术的本质更接近海德格尔所谓的"集置"。按照海德格尔的存在哲学,要超越作为"集置"的现代工程,只能从审美维度入手,海德格尔与马尔库塞都重视艺术这种解蔽方式,但在现代工程思维和工程方法论成为信仰的时代,艺术是被排斥在边缘的。通过文本解读可以发现,在两位思想家的理论中都有政治解蔽,但海德格尔没有明确将政治把握为一种解蔽方式,马尔库塞沿袭马克思主义,将政治这种解蔽方式明确化了。近年来芬伯格技术设计思想对马尔库塞技术批判的推进,随着对现代工程之政治维度的再度重视,超越现代工程的可能性从马克思主义哲学的发展中重新涌现了出来。From the perspective of modern metaphysics,it＇s discovered that the essence of modern engineering is closer to＂Ge-stell＂called by Heidegger than the essence of modern technology. According to Heidegger＇s existential philosophy,transcending modern engineering as ＂Ge-stell＂can only start from aesthetic dimensionality. Both Heidegger and Marcuse paid great attention to art,this kind of demasking mode,but in this period taking modern engineering thought and engineering method as belief,art is excluded to the edge. Through literature interpretation,it＇s discovered that political demasking existed in both of the two ideologists＇ theories. The difference lies in that Heidegger didn＇t take politics as a kind of demasking mode while Marcuse specified it along Marxism. In recent years,Feenberg＇s technical design thought promoted Marcuse＇s technology criticism. As the political dimensionality of modern engineering is emphasized again,the possibility of transcending modern engineering comes forth from the development of Marxism.

关 键 词：现代工程 主体形而上学 存在哲学 实践哲学 政治维度 

分 类 号：B089.1[哲学宗教—哲学理论]