站内搜索
  您现在的位置: 科技哲学教研室 >> 人大科哲 >> 教学与招生 >> 学位论文 >> 正文
2012—黄婷:解构论的意义与困惑
  作者:黄婷    文章来源:本站原创    点击数:    更新时间:2012-7-20    
】【】【

——德里达科学哲学思想评析

论文类别:博士论文

论文作者:黄婷

指导教师:刘大椿

答辩时间:20125

 


 

 

关键词:解构;延异;原文字;真理;两难

在科学主义盛行的时代,知识的客观性、真理性仿佛是不言自明的事实。解构大师德里达从对客观性知识先验存在的质疑开始其解构之路。他的解构思想以对在场形而上学、在场本体论的解构为根本,蕴含着迥异于传统在场形而上学框架下的真理观、科学观、技术观。

传统的符合论真理观因为无法证明是否存在现成的真理,无法澄清真理标准而面临重重困境。德里达在肯定胡塞尔、索绪尔超越传统形而上学的符合论真理观的同时,批判了他们的不彻底性,即再次陷入对先验真理的预设而回到了在场形而上学中。胡塞尔把符号(语言)分为含义充实的表述和含义不充实的指号,前者能够完整地再现真理,后者则不能,从而还原日常语言而得到单义性、透明性的理想语言,以图回问几何学观念对象、几何学真理的最初产生,这无形中回到了符号再现真理的老路。德里达通过指出符号和内时间意识的差异性重复结构,表明并不存在自我同一的现成的真理,真理是在符号的差异化重复的时间运作中被建构起来的,是包含着非同一性的同一。由于我们必须依赖符号来认识真理以及语言、符号的非单义性,因而语言既是真理传承的可能性又是真理遗忘的根源,对真理、客观性知识的起源的回问也总是处于延迟中。德里达分析了索绪尔的符号观,指出其从符号的任意性、差异性原则出发认为符号的所指与能指的结合是任意的,从而跨出了传统形而上学符号再现意义的窠臼,但是由于他在静态的、共时的口语系统中研究符号,仿佛言语能够再现真理,他无形中设定了先验所指、先验真理的在场。德里达彻底贯彻任意性、差异性原则,认为既然符号是必需的,那么真理、意义、本体、所指不能完满地出场便是其原初缺陷,符号补充其缺陷并代替其出场,而符号本身也不是完满的,因而真理就是一个无限延续的能指的替补之链,是符号的差异化运作、能指的无休止延异游戏的效果。德里达通过对现象学和结构主义的解构推翻了真理直接在场而抹消符号的预设。从某种意义上来说,他不是真理的敌人、反对者,而是真理的不懈追求者、不断发问者。

由于传统形而上学对先验真理的预设,科学知识仿佛就是对真理的表征,科学活动就是追求先验真理的活动。在关于直接、完全再现真理的好的文字与不能直接、完全再现真理的坏的文字的区分中,“好的文字”的隐喻一直影响着从中世纪的神学家直到当代的科学研究者,科学活动被认为是阅读上帝用数学语言写就的自然之书。但是,由于语言、符号的延异运作,因此,作为关于“……是什么”的科学知识体系,只能在延异中加以理解。科学不是“好的文字”,不是真假二值逻辑下、同一性逻辑下的真理的再现,而是替补逻辑下、延异运作中的原文字,是人介入世界的一种方式。因此,科学中没有绝对的真理,一切结论在成立之时便面临着要抹去自身,开辟新的可能性。

德里达提出一种新的文字学,为在传统在场形而上学中受到贬低的文字翻案。他批判了自柏拉图以来对贬低文字技术,回到真理在场、自我回归、道德完满的人之初的企图。自柏拉图以来,声音中心主义作祟,声音与逻各斯、意义、存在、观念对象、真理无限接近,声音能够完全再现它们,因而得到颂扬,而文字作为声音的补充、能指的能指、中介的中介,外在于逻各斯,因而受到贬低、压抑,文字的历史成为一部屈辱史。德里达通过解构列维斯特劳斯、卢梭等指出,既然都是对逻各斯、真理的再现,那么所有符号早已有异于被再现者,因而,声音作为再现符号早已像文字符号一样,是延异中的技术。因为原来意义上的文字比声音更能体现差异性,德里达便把比传统文字概念广得多、其外在性嵌入意义内在性、遵循一种新的替补逻辑的印迹称为原文字。德里达认为,这原文字是所有带有铭文、遗物特征的东西,是产生意义的一切人类活动,是延异运作,由此产生的原始力量也是人类进步和堕落的根源。通过为文字技术翻案,德里达实际上推翻了所有自然文化(技术)的对立,指出并不存在一个我们所向往的完满的人之初,由于人的原初缺陷,人从来都是技术的存在——人的生存过程就是技术的无限替补之链。因此,没有前技术时代和技术时代的区分,也不可能回到前技术的纯真年代。德里达的技术观从本体、人的原初缺陷出发,把技术上升到了人的存在的高度,因而超越了以在场形而上学为基础的把技术当作工具的技术乐观主义和技术悲观主义。

但是,德里达的解构本身存在不可自圆其说的地方。首先,解构不能一以贯之,在确定性与非确定性之间自相矛盾,因而陷入是否要解构自身的反身性两难境地。如果有一个解构理论的话,那么德里达无法确切说出这个理论是什么。他一方面说延异、原文字、解构不是概念,没有一种确定性的意义,一方面又指责别人误解他,从而为解构设定了一个确定意义。其次,由于解构本身的理论困境,他对解构策略的运用也就常常有用力过度、矫枉过正之嫌。他的解构是要强说不可说的变动不居者,但是正是因为强说,他往往说过了头而滑向虚无主义。他反对同一性逻辑,推崇替补逻辑,把科学活动看做是任何结论一旦产生就面临着抹消自身,被新的认识替代,从而间接否定了现有的科学成果,也否定了科学活动中的任何确定性。他把人的存在看做一个技术的无限替补过程,因而过度强调变,强调新,强调技术革新带来的变革性力量,在肯定人在技术化生存中的弥赛亚承诺时,却忽视技术的不确定性给人类带来的威胁。像很多后现代主义者一样,他也陷入对技术狂欢的肯定中。

因此,与其选择用永不驻足、毫无定法的解构来看待人类活动(包括科学技术活动),不如审度。因为审度首先肯定其次才批判,在可选的道路中择其优者而行之。相对于德里达在解构中迷失于延异游戏,审度坚持变与不变的统一,确定性与不确定性的统一,在坚实的土地上走向新的希望。

 

 

 

 

   

0.1 德里达的学术人生   

0.2 为什么选择德里达? 

0.3 德里达相关研究文献综述 

0.4 本文写作架构   

0.5 本文的创新与不足   

1章 德里达解构论的起点:追问客观性  

1.1 经验发生与客观结构的两难   

1.1.1 经验发生的困难   

1.1.2 先验发生的困难   

1.1.3 发生辩证法的必然性   

1.2 对几何学客观性根源的追问   

1.2.1 几何学起源问题的提出 

1.2.2 从“我”到“我们”如何可能   

1.2.3 语言的透明性如何可能 

1.2.4 永远延迟着的起源 

1.3 简析   

2章 德里达解构论之真理观

2.1 传统的符合论真理观及其困境 

2.2 德里达对胡塞尔真理预设的解构   

2.2.1 胡塞尔对符号的表述—指号区分 

2.2.2 德里达对先于区分的一般符号的追问 

2.2.3 交往和独白中的符号问题   

2.2.4 符号的差异化重复结构 

2.3 德里达对索绪尔真理预设的解构   

2.3.1 索绪尔语言学的两个原则   

2.3.2 从差异到延异 

2.3.3 从文字到原文字   

2.4 时间延迟中的真理   

2.4.1 胡塞尔“同一时刻”中的真理   

2.4.2 德里达对“同一时刻”的解构   

2.5 简析   

3章 德里达解构论之科学观

3.1 表征真理的科学 

3.1.1 同一性逻辑中的知识   

3.1.2 上帝书写的自然之书   

3.2 德里达的反认识论科学观 

3.2.1 作为原文字的科学 

3.2.2 不断抹去自身的科学   

3.3 简析   

4章 德里达解构论之技术观

4.1 声音技术与文字技术的分分合合   

4.1.1 现象学的声音与音响形象   

4.1.2 文字的屈辱史 

4.1.3 德里达对声音之在场性的解构   

4.1.4 一种新的文字学   

4.2 对列维—斯特劳斯自然—文化(文字)对立结构的解构   

4.2.1 修补匠与工程师

4.2.2 原始文字的原始暴力   

4.3 对卢梭自然—文化(文字)对立结构的解构 

4.3.1 卢梭对文字技术的明贬暗褒 

4.3.2 符号技术的替补逻辑   

4.3.3 卢梭:技术“这危险的替补……”   

4.3.4 德里达:卢梭想说的和说出的   

4.4 德里达对技术乐观主义和悲观主义的超越   

4.5 简析   

5章 德里达解构论的两难  

5.1强说不可说的解构

5.2 从反认识论走向反科学   

5.3 从不确定的乐观主义走向技术狂欢 

结语 从解构到审度:一种新的思路

参考文献

 

 

Abstract

In the era of scienticism, the objectivity and truthness of knowledge seems self-explantory. Derrida, as a post modern deconstruction master, began his deconstruction with questioning the ontology of objective knowledge.. His thought of deconstruction contains profound view about truth, science, and technology which are very different from those in traditional metaphysics of presence. .

 

While agreeing with Husserl and Saussure who transcend traditional metaphysics, Derrida criticized their lack of thoroughness. Husserl made an essential distinction between expression (Ausruck) and indication (Anzeichen), which are two signs. The former is the sign of an abundance of meaning, and the latter is the sign of the lack of meaning. From the essence of the general sign of differentiation, and the repetition of non-self within the time consciousness impression and retention, perception and representation of the intertwined, Derrida pointed out that Ausruck and Anzeichen are always intertwined, and there is no pure Ausruck, therefore meaning or truth  is the effect of sign’s différance. Contraposing husserl’s view of recalling (rükfrage) the generation of concept object of geometry through reducing ordinary language to single meaning language, Derrida pointed out that single meaning language is impossible. So far as he was concerned, language is the root of the inheritance and forgottenness of truth, therefore, the recalling of the generation of objective knowledge is always in delay.

 

From the two characteristics of sign — randomicity and difference, Saussure points out that the combination of signifier and signified is by random. But when he studied the static, synchronical system of sign, he undesignedly set a priori presence, namely, a priori truth before sign. Thoroughly putting the characteristics of randomicity and difference principle into effect, Derrida argued sign is a infinite continuation of the chain of substitute of signifier, an endless game of difference. Through the deconstruction of phenomenology and structuralism, Derrida overthrew the view that there is a priori truth before sign appearing. In a sense, he is not an enemy and opponent of truth, but a constantly questioner of truth.

 

As the traditional metaphysics presuppose a priori truth, scientific knowledge become representation of truth and scientific activities are those pursuing a priori truth. Concerning good words which express truth directly and bad words which doesn’t express truth directly, "good words" metaphor has influenced people from theologians in medieval until contemporary scientific researchers. However, Derrida pointed out that, as the presence of certainty must be based on the present, and present itself only be understood through the trace of sign and différance, the scientific knowledge system which concerns "what is …" only be understood through the dual movement of difference in space and delay in time. Science is neither "good words," nor representation of truth in identity logic, but the archi-writing in the movement of différance, and a way of people involving in the world. As a result, there is no absolute truth in science, and every conclusion is confronted with effacing itself and opening up new possibilities when it becomes a conclusion. Derrida’s view of science benefits to eliminate all kinds of scientism currently, especially the excessively pursuing scientificity in humanities and social sciences.

 

Through rethinking writing, Derrida criticized the attempt of returning to the era of the presence of truth, self-regression of human being, and perfect state of morality through belittling the technology of writing. Since Plato, because of the traditional phonocentricism, voice is close to logos infinitely, whereas writing, as the supplement of voice, the intermediary of intermediary, the signifier of signifier, is out of logos. Because the presupposition of voice as the presence of logos, significance, being, and truth, the history of writing is a humiliated history. Through the deconstruction of  Claude Levi-Strauss, Rousseau, Derrida pointed out that, archi-writing, characterized by externality embedding in internality, following a new logic of supplement, is more original and more fundamental than voice, as voice has have the otherness characteristic of writing long ago. In Derrida’s sense, archi-writing is trace, différance, and every human activity that produce significance. The original power of activity is the root of both progress and degeneration. Through correcting the status of writing, Derrida actually overthrew all nature-culture (technology) contradictory. He points out that human beings are always beings of technology and there no boundary between pre- technology era and technology era, because of human beings’ primal defects. Therefore, we never could turn back to a innocence era. Derrida's view of technology elevated technology to the height of the nature of man, from the angle of human's original defects. He transcended the optimism and pessimism of technology, both of which are based on presence metaphysics.

 

In spite of all the benefits, Derrida's deconstruction can’t prove itself. First of all, deconstruction can’t be consistent all the time, and there is contradiction between certainty and uncertainty. If there is a deconstruction theory, Derrida can't tell exactly what this theory is. If there is no deconstruction theory, we can’t understand what Derrida says in his works. On one hand, He said that différance, archi-writing, deconstruction are not concept; on the other hand, he accused others’ misunderstanding of him, which means that he set definite meanings for différance, archi-writing, deconstruction. He highlighted uncertainty excessively, to the extent that he neglected certainty. Furthermore, because of the predicament of deconstruction, his applying of deconstruction is often trapped in overexertion and hypercorrection. His deconstruction goes against identity logic and praises highly supplement logic. As a result, the interweaving of defense and discovery in scientific activities will orient to opposing pure defense. According his deconstruction, there is no certainty in scientific activities, and all are literature, metaphor, endless sign game. He seemingly transcended the technology optimism and pessimism of instrumentalism, but he essentially is a technology optimist to some extent, because of his excessive emphasis on change and uncertainty. Like most postmodernists, he involved himself in the carnival of technology.

 

Instead of choosing to use never stopping deconstruction without any law to treat human activities (including the activities of science and technology), we should choose assessing. For sure, assessing affirms something, and then criticizes it. Opposite to Derrida’s deconstruction of lost in the infinite différance game, assessing insists on the dialectical unitarity of changeness and unchangeness, certainty and uncertainty, and open up a new hope on the solid land.

 

Key words: deconstruction; différance; archi-writing; truth; dilemma

打印】  【关闭】  【返回
Copyright © 2010-2012 Philosophy of Science and Technology,Renmin University of China All Rights Reserved.
中国人民大学哲学院科技哲学教研室 版权所有 京ICP备10216924号;京公网备110108007581