哲学的改造—阿佩尔哲学研究

【作者】 张今杰；

【导师】 夏基松；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 外国哲学， 2004， 博士

【摘要】 卡尔-奥托·阿佩尔是战后德国最著名的哲学家之一，他在促进战后德国哲学向外国哲学传统开放和改造康德先验哲学方面作出了重要的贡献。阿佩尔主要的哲学旨趣有三个：第一，以认知人类学对康德以来的知识论进行改造；第二，探索西方哲学中语言分析哲学和解释学两大传统的融合方案；第三，建构先验语用学，使之成为第一哲学的第三范式，为西方哲学走出困境而设计蓝图。而对康德先验哲学进行改造的主题贯穿了阿佩尔的整个哲学生涯。 阿佩尔认为20世纪西方哲学中发生的“语言学转向”是哲学应对危机的一种积极回应。这种危机的深层根源是传统的二元分立的思维方式，尤其是康德以来的主客对立的知识论预设。康德的知识论预设只是针对自然科学的，因此人文社会科学的合法地位得不到保障。他认为“语言学转向”的句法-语义学阶段并未走出方法论唯我论的怪圈。因此，他提出了认知人类学以改造康德的先验哲学。认知人类学最主要的内容是认知旨趣理论、交往共同体理论和关于人文社会科学的不同类型的理论。他的认知人类学旨在为人类科学尤其是人文社会科学提供坚实的基础。他指出知识有两个必要条件，一是认知旨趣，即笛卡尔以来的知识理论所强调的“先验”条件，也即意义先天性；二是由感官做出的活生生的世界介入，即身体先天性。二者是所有知识的互补的必不可少的条件。以这两个条件为基础，阿佩尔把人文社会科学分为三种类型：“准因果法则的行为科学”、解释学和批判的社会科学。阿佩尔通过认知人类学为人文社会科学的地位奠定了基础。 在改造康德先验的过程中，阿佩尔认为西方两大哲学传统已经日益走向了沟通与对话。他认为两大传统的对立实质上是两者在方法论上的分歧，也就是在自然科学的“解释”与人文社会科学的“理解”之间的对立。阿佩尔认为在作为意识先天性的认知旨趣上，获取技术性自然知识的科学旨趣和对生活中可能的意义动机的主体间性沟通的解释学旨趣是互补的，而作为身体先天性的“因果解释”和“意义的理解”之间也是一种互相预设而不可相互还原的互补关系。与罗蒂把哲学拉向文化的平面的方式不同，阿佩尔用“意识形态批判”来实现两大传统的融合。他认为人类与自然之间的知觉性认知交换是以人与人之间的解释性认知交换为前提的，而理解有时也会发生局部中断以借助于一种准客观的说明性科学来分析其对象从而达到理解的目的。因此客观的科学知识与主体间性“沟通”的知识之间是互补互斥、相得益彰的。 阿佩尔改造康德先验哲学的结果就是建构了其先验语用学理论。先验语用学是先验哲学与语用学的结合。先验语用学一方面使康德的先验哲学与20世纪哲学的新发展结合起来；另一方面通过赋予语用学以先验性而拓宽了语言分析哲学的研究视野，彻底完成了语言学转向，使之成为第一哲学的第三范式，为西方哲学走出困境进行了有益的探索。 阿佩尔对康德以来的知识论预设的分析是深刻的，他的认知人类学对康德知识论的改造是卓有成效的；他的互补性论题对促进西方哲学两大传统的交流与对话是有启发意义的；他所建构的先验语用学在探索西方哲学的出路方面是有着建设性意义的。虽然阿佩尔的哲学工作中提出了许多有价值的观点和理论，但他的理论也有不少缺憾。首先表现在他的理论体系内在的矛盾，即他一方面强调主体间通过论辩、商谈而达成共识，这表现出了自由主义的精神：另一方面，他又认为论辩共同体的先验地位对共同体成员而言有着无比的优越性，成员没有选择的自由，唯有遵守共同体所有的规则和前提条件才可能成为其中的一员。这与其所倡导的自由主义精神不一致。其次他在致力于西方哲学两大传统的融合时并非站在中立的立场上，而是更偏向于强调解释学传统的地位和作用。这同科学主义强调自然科学的“解释”的做法一样是偏颇的，对人类文化的丰富性和多样性是不利的。 虽然阿佩尔的哲学形态有其体系自身的矛盾和缺憾，但他对康德先验哲学的改造具有许多有价值的因素，为西方哲学走出困境做出了非常有益的探索。这使他在西方后现代哲学中具有较为重要的地位。更多还原

【Abstract】 Karl-Otto Apel is one of the most famous philosophers in postwar Germany; he has made great contribution to making the postwar German philosophy face to the philosophy traditions of foreign countries. Apel has three main study interests: first, to transform the theory of epistemology since Kant with cognitive anthropology; second, to explore the scheme of integration between language analytic philosophy and hermeneutics in western philosophy; third, to establish transcendental pragmatics and make it the third paradigm of the first philosophy, in order to design a blueprint for western philosophy to extricate itself from a difficult position. The theme of transformation of Kant’s philosophy runs through his philosophical career.Apel considers it a positive response to the philosophy crisis that the "linguistic turn "occurred in western philosophy in 20-century. The internal origin of this crisis was the dualism mode of thinking in western tradition, especially the subject-object dualism presupposition since Kant. The presupposition of Kant’s epistemology only fits for natural science, so the legal status of Geisteswissenschaften cannot be guaranteed. He thinks the syntax-semantics stage of "linguistic turn" has not transcended the methodology solipsism. So he puts forward cognitive anthropology in order to transform Kant’s transcendental philosophy. The main substances of cognitive anthropology are the followings: the theory of cognitive interests; the theory of communicative community and the theory of the types of Geisteswissenschaften. The target of the cognitive anthropology is to provide a solid basis for human science especially for the Geisteswissenschaften. According to Apel, there are two necessary and complementary preconditions for human knowledge. One is cognitive interest that is the "transcendental" conditions emphasized by the epistemology since Dilthey. (It is also called a priori of consciousness). The other is a living engagement made by sense organs. (It is also called "the bodily a priori"). Based on these two preconditions, Apel classifies the Geisteswissenschaften into three types : "quasi-nomological behavioral science", hermeneutics and critical social science. He establishes a foundation for Geisteswissenschaften with cognitive anthropology.Apel considers that the two traditions of western philosophy are coming into integration and beginning to cooperation. The contradiction between these two kinds of traditions is actually the divergence between their methodologies, that is, the difference between "explanation" and "understanding". On cognitive interests as a priori of consciousness, according to Apel, the relationship between the cognitive interest of gaining technological knowledge and the hermeneutics interest of inter-subjective community of the meaning-intention in the life is a complementary and irreducible one; so is the relationship between "causal explanation" and "meaning-understanding". Rotty pull the philosophy to the horizon of the culture in order to integration language analytic philosophy and hermeneutics. Different from Rotty, Apel tries to make the integration between these two traditions comes into reality with "critique of ideology". He emphasizes that the understanding-exchange between persons is the precondition of the perceptual-exchange between human and nature; Moreover, understanding sometimes suspends partially in order to arrive at the goal of understanding with the help of a quasi-objective explanative science to analyze its object. So the relationship between the objective scientific knowledge and inter-subjective communicative knowledge is a complementary one.The result of Apel’s transformation of Kant’s transcendental philosophy is the theory of transcendental pragmatics. Transcendental pragmatics is an integration of transcendental philosophy and pragmatics. On one hand, transcendental philosophy such as Kant’s comes into integration with the development of philosophy in 20-century; On the other hand, it broadens the vision of the linguistic更多还原