题目：代具、记忆与药:贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒论技术
答辩人：张亢
指导教师：刘永谋
答辩日期：2023年5月15日
目 录
导言
0.1 生平简介
0.2 研究意义
0.3 主要研究与著作
0.4 国内外研究综述
0.5 论文研究内容
第一章 技术作为代具：技术对人的构成性
1.1 代：作为延异的技术
1.1.1 外在化和已经在此
1.1.2 代具的哲学意味：呈现缺陷
1.2 具：延异中的技术
1.2.1 技术物：有机化的无机物
1.2.2 技术物不是技术实体
1.3 从代具到一般器官学
1.3.1 代具观念遭遇以及可能遭遇的问题
1.3.2 一般器官学理论:基本框架和技术器官
1.3.3 一般器官学对人和技术之间关系的启发
第二章 技术作为记忆：人对技术的能动性
2.1 第三记忆与语法化
2.1.1 第三记忆的两个来源
2.1.2 第三记忆：作为遗忘和确正的技术
2.1.3 语法化：记忆技术的发展过程
2.2 技术作为第三滞留
2.2.1 从康德的三重综合到胡塞尔的两重回忆
2.2.2 意识的空间性：第三滞留作为图像意识
2.2.3 意识的时间性：第三滞留作为电影
2.2.4 第三滞留还是第三记忆？
2.3 一般器官学：心理器官和社会器官的个体化
2.3.1 从意识分析到意识的社会批判
2.3.2 心理器官和社会器官的跨个体化
第三章 技术作为药：对技术问题的社会批判
3.1 什么是药学
3.1.1 药的双层涵义
3.1.2 再论一般器官学
3.2 技术的毒性
3.2.1 速度的胜利：延迟性的消失
3.2.2 无产阶级化：差异性的消失
3.2.3 消费主义：欲望的剥夺
3.3 毒性的治愈：友爱与参与
3.3.1 哲学观念中的友爱
3.3.2 参与与行动
3.4 跨越技术乐观主义和技术悲观主义
3.4.1 悲剧/意外作为悲观主义的来源
3.4.2 乐观的悲观主义精神
第四章 从技术哲学到技术学：对斯蒂格勒技术思想的回应
4.1 对斯蒂格勒技术思想的补充：技术的“艺术化”和“缺陷”
4.1.1 过于“艺术化”的技术
4.1.2 缺陷和遗忘的伦理维度
4.2 斯蒂格勒技术思想的定位：从哲学与技术哲学的角度
4.2.1 哲学：在现象学与结构主义之间
4.2.2 技术哲学：在先验论与经验论之间
4.3 斯蒂格勒技术思想的启示与发展：从技术哲学到技术学
4.3.1 当前技术哲学的问题及研究纲领
4.3.2 以技术物为导向的技术学
结语
参考文献
致谢
摘 要
法国哲学家贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒的技术思想极具原创性，不仅是他哲学理论的基石，而且能够为哲学、技术哲学和技术批判理论提供新的理论视野和研究路径。目前，斯蒂格勒的技术思想在西方哲学、马克思主义哲学以及媒介批判理论中具有重要影响力，但如果缺乏技术哲学的研究视角，他的思想的真正意义就难以被理解。论文主要立足于技术哲学领域，从代具、记忆和药三个具有代表性的观念出发对斯蒂格勒的技术思想进行辨析。
导言不仅介绍和说明了斯蒂格勒的生平、理论背景、主要著作和思想价值，而且通过综述和指出现有研究及其不足，简要阐明论文的研究意义和主要研究内容。
第一章题为“技术作为代具”。代具不仅是斯蒂格勒从人类学和哲学视角对技术进行的诠释，还是技术作为记忆和药这个两个概念的前提和基础。本章主要内容包括：（1）指出斯蒂格勒代具概念的两层涵义——技术作为人的本质和延异以及技术作为技术物和延异内容，并指出由于未能深入技术的这两层涵义，部分现有研究对斯蒂格勒的批评更像是一种误解；（2）通过分析代具观念已遭遇以及可能遭遇的问题，指出代具如何成为斯蒂格勒提出一般器官学理论的出发点。一般器官学理论在本章被论述的内容包括：它的基本结构、相关术语以及技术器官个体化；（3）作为代具的技术在面对人和技术之间关系的争论时，能够带给我们何种启发。
第二章题为“技术作为记忆”。将技术作为记忆，是从认识论或者意识分析视角出发的对斯蒂格勒技术思想的解析。此章分别从第三记忆的角度和第三滞留的角度来论述斯蒂格勒作为记忆的技术：（1）指明第三记忆的两个来源、遗忘和确正的特征以及第三记忆的发展历史——语法化。（2）论述了斯蒂格勒如何通过作为第三滞留的技术记忆来补充胡塞尔的内时间意识理论。从空间性出发，斯蒂格勒的第三滞留呈现为胡塞尔所说的图像意识；从时间性出发，第三滞留呈现了意识如电影般运行的机制。（3）提出需要区分第三记忆与第三滞留。已有研究由于未作出区分，因此难以提出中肯的批评。在此基础上，指出斯蒂格勒的第三记忆这一概念更契合于技术记忆，而第三滞留的用法容易造成混淆和误解。（4）阐释心理器官和社会器官的个体化以及它们对技术器官的反作用——这些反作用体现了人的能动性，并以此勾勒一般器官学理论的全貌：它的完整结构以及跨个体化的运行机制。
第三章题为“技术作为药”。将技术诠释为药，体现了斯蒂格勒对当今技术所产生的社会问题的关注，是从社会批判视角入手的、对当今技术现实的思考。在斯蒂格勒看来，技术既是毒药也是解药。技术的毒性来自于技术与社会发展之间的速度差，毒性总会先于治愈性。本章主要（1）处理技术何以产生毒性的问题，并在此基础上以递进而非并列的方式——延迟性丧失、差异性丧失以及动力的丧失——来呈现技术毒性对心理器官和社会器官的不断侵蚀。已有研究要么专注于斯蒂格勒对某一种毒性的描述，要么将斯蒂格勒描述过的各种毒性并列出来展示。递进式的描述更有助于我们理解斯蒂格勒技术毒性背后的逻辑，进而更深入地阐释其技术批判思想。（2）讨论斯蒂格勒所提供的解毒药方——个人成为业余爱好者以及集体发展贡献式经济，指出这两个措施背后共享着建立友爱关系和参与争论的政治机制。（3）斯蒂格勒的药学理论能够在技术乐观主义和技术悲观主义之间开辟新视角，他本人应被界定为乐观的悲观主义者。
第四章主要以补充、定位以及发展的方式回应斯蒂格勒的技术思想。（1）指出斯蒂格勒对技术的思考可能会造成的误解以及可进一步补充之处：一是，斯蒂格勒对艺术和艺术家的论述有导致对技术过于艺术化理解的倾向，因此容易将其误解为技术实践中的审美功能重于实用功能；二是，斯蒂格勒仅仅发展了遗忘在认识论中的涵义，而未对遗忘作出伦理学方面的扩展。一方面，遗忘的伦理问题对数字化时代来说尤为重要，我们应人为地使互联网技术展现和保护遗忘的品质；另一方面，目前的记忆伦理学大都专注于“记住”的伦理，而斯蒂格勒对遗忘的分析定位能为其提供新角度。（2）斯蒂格勒技术思想的价值及其定位。在哲学领域中，斯蒂格勒开辟了一条以技术为条件的、在现象学和结构主义之间的道路，他的技术理论和哲学思考既规避了现象学和结构主义的理论短板，又兼容了二者的方法论；在技术哲学中，以跨越先验论和经验论二分的方式，为我们开启了一条不同于经典技术哲学研究和经验论技术哲学研究的路径。（3）综合斯蒂格勒在哲学和技术哲学中的定位，在他技术思想的基础上，能发展出一种不同于现有技术哲学以及科学技术与社会研究的新研究纲领——“技术学”。
总之，论文从技术哲学的角度出发，从代具、记忆和药三个观念入手解析斯蒂格勒的技术思考，并指出其思考导向了一种作为第一哲学的技术哲学流派：（1）在哲学层面上，以技术代表的意外和动态性取代以往以语言为代表的逻各斯中心主义；（2）在技术哲学层面上，超越经典技术哲学与经验论技术哲学之间、技术实体论与技术工具论之间以及技术决定论和社会建构论之间的二分；（3）在技术批判层面上，从系统论或者一般器官学的角度展示技术的问题与解决方法。技术的问题在于其快速发展造成的心理器官、社会器官和技术器官之间的失衡，其解决方法在于通过建立友爱关系和参与行动。通过形成相应的知识、规范以及社会组织等使器官学系统达到新的亚稳定状态；（4）有可能形成以技术物与合成思想为基础的技术哲学的新研究纲领——技术学。
关键词：贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒；技术；代具；记忆；药
Abstract
French Philosopher Bernard Stiegler's thinking on technics is highly original, constituting not only the cornerstone of his philosophical theory, but also providing new theoretical perspectives and research paths for philosophy, philosophy of technology, and critical theory of technology. Currently, Stiegler's thought exerts significant influence in Western philosophy, Marxist philosophy, and media criticism theory. However, without a research perspective from the philosophy of technology, the true significance of his ideas may be difficult to comprehend. This paper is primarily rooted in the field of philosophy of technology, and analyzes Stiegler's technological thought through three representative concepts: prosthesis, memory, and pharmacology.
The introduction not only introduces and explains Stiegler's life, theoretical background, major works, and intellectual value, but also briefly clarifies the significance and main research content of the paper by reviewing and pointing out the existing research and its limitations.
Chapter One, entitled "Technology as a Prosthesis," examines Stiegler's interpretation of technology from anthropological and philosophical perspectives, as well as its role as a prerequisite and foundation for the concepts of memory and pharmacology. The main content of this chapter includes: (1) identifying the two layers of meaning in Stiegler's concept of prosthesis - technology as the essence and extension of human beings, and technology as technical objects and their extensions - and pointing out that due to a lack of understanding of these two layers, some existing criticisms of Stiegler may be more like misconceptions; (2) analyzing the problems encountered by the concept of prosthesis and the potential problems it may face, and identifying how the concept of prosthesis serves as the starting point for Stiegler's theory of general organology. The discussion of Stiegler's theory of general organology in this chapter includes its basic structure, related terminology, and individuation of technical organs; and (3) exploring what insights technology as a prosthesis can offer when faced with debates on the relationship between human beings and technology.
Chapter Two, entitled "Technology as Memory," analyzes Stiegler's technological thought from an epistemological or consciousness analysis perspective that considers technology as memory. This chapter discusses Stiegler's technological memory both from the perspective of the tertiary memory and the tertiary retention: (1) identifying the two sources of the tertiary memory, forgetting and orthothesis, as well as its characteristic features and developmental history - grammatization. (2) Discussing how Stiegler's use of technological memory as the tertiary retention complements Husserl's theory of inner time consciousness. From a spatial perspective, Stiegler's third retention appears as what Husserl called image consciousness; from a temporal perspective, the third retention manifests as the mechanism by which consciousness functions like a movie. (3) Emphasizing the need to distinguish between the third memory and the third retention and pointing out that the failure to make such distinctions has made it difficult to present objective criticisms of Stiegler's concepts. Based on this, this chapter argues that Stiegler's concept of the tertiary memory more accurately reflects technological memory while the usage of tertiary retention could cause confusion and misinterpretation. (4) Exploring the individualization of psychological and social organs and their countertendency on technical organs - these feedback effects reflect human agency and serve to outline the complete structure of Stiegler's theory of general organology and its transindividuation operational mechanisms.
Chapter Three, entitled "Technology as Pharmakon," interprets technology as both poison and cure, reflecting Stiegler's concern with the social problems that arise from technology and his critical perspectives on contemporary technological reality. In Stiegler's view, technology is both a poison and a cure. The toxicity of technology arises from the speed differential between technological and social development, and the toxicity tends to occur before the curative effects. This chapter primarily (1) deals with the problem of how technology generates toxicity, and, based on this, presents the progressive erosion of psychological and social organs by technological toxicity through delay loss, differentiation loss, and disire loss. Previous research has either focused on Stiegler's description of a particular toxicity or displayed various toxicities in parallel. The progressive description is more conducive to our understanding of the logic behind Stiegler's technological toxicity and provides a more profound interpretation of his critical technological thought. (2) Discussing the remedies that Stiegler has proposed - individuals becoming amateur and the collective development of contributtion economics, it points out that these two measures share political mechanisms of establishing friendly relationships and participating in discussions. (3) Stiegler's pharmacological theory provides new perspectives that could reconcile technological optimism and pessimism, with Stiegler himself being defined as an optimistic pessimist.
Chapter Four, seeks to respond to Stiegler's philosophy of technology through supplementation, positioning, and development. (1) It notes potential misunderstandings from Stiegler's discussion of art and the artist, which tend to overemphasize the aesthetic aspects of technology, leading to the mistaken belief that aesthetic function is more important than practicality in technical practice. Additionally, Stiegler only develops the meaning of forgetting within epistemology and fails to extend its ethical implications. On the one hand, ethical issues of forgetting are particularly relevant in the digital age, and we ought to deliberately promote and protect the quality of forgetting in internet technology. On the other hand, current memory ethics mostly focuses on the ethics of "remembering," while Stiegler's analysis of forgetting highlights a novel perspective for exploration.
(2) Stiegler's philosophy of technology has significant value and position in the philosophical field. He has paved the way to a hybrid school of thought that combines phenomenology and structuralism, grounding his theory of technology on technological conditions, avoiding the theoretical shortcomings of both phenomenology and structuralism, and seamlessly blending the methods and approaches of both disciplines. Furthermore, his philosophy of technology transcends the distinction between a classical and empirical observation, opening up a new path that diverges from both classical philosophy of technology and empirical philosophy of technology.
(3) By integrating Stiegler's positions in philosophy and philosophy of technology, we can develop a new research agenda, different from the existing philosophy of technology, science and technology studies, and other related fields. This new research agenda, called "La technologie" is grounded in Stiegler's philosophy of technology.
In conclusion, this paper analyzes Stiegler's philosophy of technology from the perspectives of prosthesis, memory, and pharmacology. It argues that Stiegler's approach (1) replaces the logocentrism of old-fashioned philosophy with the contingency and dynamism represented by technology; (2) transcends the binary oppositions between classical philosophy of technology and empirical philosophy of technology, between technocratic and instrumentalist approaches to technology, and between technological determinism and social constructivism; (3) demonstrates the problems and solutions of technology from the standpoint of systems theory or general organology. The problem of technology lies in the imbalance between psychic organs, social organs, and technical organs resulting from its rapid development, and the solution is to establish relationships of friendship and participation through the formation of relevant knowledge, norms, and social organizations that enable the organological system to reach a new state of quasi-stability. (4) This paper suggests that a new research agenda "La technologie" may emerge, based on the synthesis of philosophical consideration of technology objects and composition thinking.
Key Words: Bernard Stiegler; Technics; Prosthesis; Memory; Pharmakon
站内搜索
