【作者】 赵海英；

【导师】 王振林；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 马克思主义哲学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 随着绝对化的主体理性的自我完成,理性主体成为了世界的中心和主人。理性主体在自身的封闭、孤独、独白式的抽象极端化中走到了尽头,从而力图消解和突破自身而进入到与他者的共在与对话之中。哲学家们分别从现象学、存在论、语言理解、语言交往等等不同的道路和途径去论说他者的存在,并在其中揭示了他者所具有的丰富内涵,彰显了他者在人类存在中所具有的重要价值和作用。尽管不同的哲学家在走向他者的道路上都有所建树,但是,他们往往都夸大了人类实践活动的某个侧面、某个环节,从而从绝对化的理性主体陷入到其他的绝对抽象的原则之中。只有马克思的实践论立场为他者现象指明了现实的前提和基础,为说明他者现象指明了正确的方向。因而,本文力图对各大哲学流派中的代表人物的他者理论进行系统的反思、研究和批判。通过比较和研究,揭示并梳理出现代西方欧陆人文哲学家在“他者”问题上的融合与分歧,建构与解构的发展理路;揭示并阐发他们在各自不同的理论基点上出发而建构起来的他者所具有的突破和局限;最后,从马克思主义哲学的实践论出发,说明他者现象的实践论基础,揭示并分析马克思的实践中的他者对于其他哲学流派的他者概念的奠基和超越。更多还原

【Abstract】 Our times has entered the age of both globalization and diversity. In this big background, how we keep surviving and developing together with the Other has become a big problem of our age. In philosophy,what we should first answer is the possibility of the Other out of Self . This paper tries to research and compare, reflecte and criticize the philosophers of different schools for the exploration of their achievements,displaying the basic position of the Practice of Marxist philosophy on the problem of the Other .In the principle of modern epistemology, the Rational Self has become the world’s subject and the basic principle of interpreting the world. However, as establishing his own being, the Rational Self has caused his separation from the Other. This caused the difficulty that the true Other cannot gain his independent being in the principle of the Rational Self.Therefore, how to get out of egology, and to establish the independent Other, has became the philosophical theme of our age. Philosophers on the different theoretical basis have searched for and break through the weaknesses and shortcomings of the the Rational Self ,and developed different pathes leading to the Other.To begin with ,This paper has systematically reflected and criticized and studied the theories about the Other. Through comparing and studing them it reveals and outlines the development of the distinction and disputation,the destruction and constitution on the problem of the Other.It opens out and explains the deflections and limens of their theories based on the different foundations.It shows and analyses the relation and differences between Marx’s practice and other philosophers’theories.Husserl created phenomenological method, and turned to the pure consciousness through the phenomenological suspension.Beginning with the pure consciousness of self-evidence, Husserl began to prove the existence of the Other. Husserl finished the job through the body as an intermediary. First, he thought the self as the combination of body and consciousness, and thought the others as the similar combination of body and consciousness,and to prove the being of inter- subjectivity.This Other still lives in the area of consciousness, and still is a other self but not the Other. Thus, despite Husserl has established the basis of phenomenology,he was criticized form the inside and outside of phenomenology because of the egology.Along with the path of Husserl’s phenomenology,his successors Sartre absorbed the nourishment of phenomenology and ontology,and displayed the Other from the structure of the being of in-itself and the being of for-itself;The being of in-itself is revealed from the gaze of others.In the gaze of other,the relationship of the being of in-itself and for-itself is conflicting, and others has become the astriction of the self’s freedom. Therefore, Sartre considered the relationship between the Self and others as a conflict, in his own words,"Hell is other people."Away from Sartre, Merleau-Ponty’s theory is based on the body and goes beyond solipsism to meet otherness. He believed that mind and body are not separated,and the body is the world’s noumenon, the body and mind are united and integrated.The body is a differentiated being in essence, the same time, there is mutual coordination and unity between the body organs,and this relationship between body organs can also be extended to inter-subjectivity. So Merleau-Ponty believes that the body is the being that contains the presence of the Other and has a connotation of inter-subjectivity. He believes that the relationship between the Self and the Other is not the conflict as Sartre said, but is co-being within the body, and constitutes the spiritual body. In the phenomenological way, Merleau-Ponty is a real person who pushed ahead the theory of the Other. Levinas is the one who established the most thorough theory of the Other,his theory is from phenomenology and phenomenology, has matured in existentialism and transcends existentialism. He proved the absolute and infinite Other from the metaphysical“original difference”,and show the different state of the Other through "face".In Levinas, he constitutes a existence beyond the reach of rational identity, or an absolute Other beyond rationality.Heidegger also seeked to break through the limit of Husserl’s solipsism, his theory was based on the ontology of metaphysics in order to reveal the“co-being”from the“Dasein”.“Dasein”is the provisions of man, and the basic structure of“Dasein”is“co-being-world”. Heidegger thought, as the integrity of“Dasein”,the trouble, fear and death revealed“Dasein”as“co-being”.So,“co-being”was not an mantter of nothing but a fundamental prescriptive. Meanwhile, the timing of“Dasein”also revealed the Other .Heidegger also revealed the“ontological difference”by the timing of“Dasein”to illustrate the existence of alterity, which demonstrated the necessity of the existence of otherness in the metaphysical sense. This was the devastating blows to the self-evident and self-sufficiency of the Rational Self, and really found the ontological foundation of the Other. Therefore, Heidegger’s theory about the Other transcend beyond the solipsism of Husserl’s phenomenology from the perspective of ontology ,and broke through the limitations of dualism, revealing the living structure of“co-being”. However, Heidegger’s theory of the Other also has inherent deficiencies.first of all, because his aim was clarity of Dasein,the Other only was the supplementary category of self-revealing .Second, he ignored the real encounter between the Self and the Other. Finally, Heidegger’s approach to the Other still was the appearance of“Dasein”, so he basically did not materialize out of position from the self-centered.Gadamer struke out in another direction, from the perspective of ontology language to break through the monologue of the rational subject and reveal the linguistic Other .Gadamer believed that language was not only objects and tools of human cognition, but also was a world view and possessing the ontological significance. Because of the innate dialogic nature of the language, language provided in a fundamental meaning the“co-being”of the Self and the Other.The dialogic nature of language was displayed in the no-subject nature of language.Only if I really entered the dialogue with the Other,and were not in accordance with the my will, we would really enter into the language. Like the concept of the game, only if we entered the game, rather than as an outsider of the game, the game became the game itself, and we were the really player of games. Second, The dialogic nature of language was displayed also in the language of self-forgetting. Language does not explain itself in nature, but rather show what it has to say. In this“original”language, the language necessarily reveals itself as a“dialogue”.Gadamer also explained the being of the Other from the concept of understanding. First, the“fusion of horizons”was the premise to understand. The Other and the Self constituted the“meaning of horizons”together, and made real understanding. Secondly, as a prerequisite for understanding the concept of effective-history inherently contained the structure of the Self and the Other. In short, Gadamer explained the being of the Other from the ontological perspective of language, and explained the specific shape and characteristics of the Other in language, thereby further destroyed the bastion of rational monologue. However, because he thought of the language as the abstract ontology to the world,he lose the real basis for the philosophical theory of practice.therefore, fundamentally, he can not really establish the existence of the Other.The difference between Habermas and other philosophers is that he would regulate the Other and restrict the infinite spread of otherness from the communicative rationality.Therefore, Habermas’first task was to learn the main lesson of Husserl’s construction of inte-subjectivity, and to break the shackle of solipsism, with the inter-subjectivity to accommodate the being of the Other. Secondly, he regulated the social interaction behavior and discourse behavior in order to achieve equality freedom and reason between subjects from the communicative rationality,therefore, he would construct a normative theory of communicative theory of activities from the communication and language.Finally, only from the basis of Marx’s pratice theory, we can really find realistic and reasonable argument for the Other. First, the practice provides a realistic basis to consciousness, survival, language and communication, so that only Marx’s theory of practice can reasonably describe the reasonable and realistic nature of the phenomenology, existentialism, language and communicative rationality. Second, Marx reveals the Other through practice. First, the production relations in practice is the basis of relation among people and between the Self and the Other. Practice reveal humanbeing as social people and people in the relation with the Other. Social practice also reveals humanbeiing as historical people, he is a“co-being”person with the Other in his history. Thus, the social practice of man reveal themselves as a“group”existence, not a isolated self beyond society and history. Secondly, to show the Other from the alienation of social practice. Human’s material production activities promote the continuous development of productive forces, and put humans into different social division of labor, and the deepening social division of labor has caused the growing antagonism and strangeness between the Self and the Other. Therefore, the specific social and historical reality determines the relationship between the Self and Other. Thirdly, to reveal the existence of the Other from the nature of linguistic practice, respectively, reveal the existence of the Other from the sociality and historicity of language. Marxist philosophy has laid the practical basis of the Other’s theory which provided a reasonable explanation of the Other from the practice theory.This paper has no intention to show various theories of the Other on a simple list, and is not trying to use Marxist philosophy to integrate those various theories of the Other, but through the analysis and exploration of the logical premise and the thought thread about the Other, to reflect and critize the successes and failures of theory of the Other, and to strive to answer the question why the Other’s existence is possible and necessary, and to reveal forms and characteristics of the Other, and the tendency and purport of the theory of the Other.更多还原