本文選題：批判理論 + 語言學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)向　； 參考：《中國海洋大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：早期法蘭克福學(xué)派對資本主義社會現(xiàn)實(shí)開展過激烈的批判,主要從西方工業(yè)文明的意識形態(tài)和工具理性兩個角度進(jìn)行。哈貝馬斯繼承了法蘭克福學(xué)派的批判精神,并在前人研究的基礎(chǔ)上明確了“物化世界”的社會現(xiàn)實(shí)。哈貝馬斯借鑒韋伯關(guān)于合理性的考察與分類,形成了自己獨(dú)特的以交往理性為基點(diǎn),以交往行為理論為核心的批判理論。 哈貝馬斯認(rèn)為,通過意識哲學(xué)的規(guī)范來解讀現(xiàn)代西方的現(xiàn)代性問題已經(jīng)不可行。為實(shí)現(xiàn)對自己理論的論證,哈貝馬斯首先實(shí)現(xiàn)了方法論上的語言學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)向,進(jìn)而用普遍語用學(xué)和商談倫理學(xué)為交往行為的實(shí)現(xiàn)提供可能性,最后將生活世界作為交往行為實(shí)現(xiàn)的理想境域。 隨后,哈貝馬斯由理論轉(zhuǎn)向了實(shí)踐。他首先對資本主義社會危機(jī)進(jìn)行了深刻地剖析,得出資本主義社會危機(jī)主要表現(xiàn)在經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)、合理化危機(jī)、合法性危機(jī)和動機(jī)危機(jī)。他認(rèn)為導(dǎo)致資本主義社會危機(jī)的原因是多方面的,并且認(rèn)為由系統(tǒng)對生活世界的殖民化所導(dǎo)致的合法性危機(jī)是現(xiàn)代社會的主要困境,并進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為法律的合法性缺失是社會合法性危機(jī)的重要原因。 因此,哈貝馬斯將關(guān)注的重點(diǎn)投向了法律領(lǐng)域。通過對西方資本主義法治社會進(jìn)行分析,他認(rèn)為西方現(xiàn)代法律有自由主義法范式和福利法范式兩種范式,而這兩種范式都割裂了私人領(lǐng)域與公共領(lǐng)域,生活世界與系統(tǒng)以及市民社會與政治國家之間的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系。他認(rèn)為要想從根本上逃脫困境,必須找一條新的思路,解決之道就在于尋求確保合法之法生成的途徑�；诖�,他提出了程序主義法律新范式。他認(rèn)為只有所有相關(guān)的人們,借助人們語言交流的有效性和達(dá)成特定規(guī)范共識的可能性,通過平等、自由的理性協(xié)商與話語論證,通過意志協(xié)調(diào)達(dá)成規(guī)范共識,從而形成作為法律的規(guī)則才是合法之法。為了程序主義法律范式這種美好的制度設(shè)想能夠在現(xiàn)實(shí)層面具有可操作性,哈貝馬斯對德沃金詮釋學(xué)建構(gòu)主義轉(zhuǎn)向的思路進(jìn)行了批判與借鑒,發(fā)現(xiàn)了一種能夠提供最終論證的法律論辯理論——法律商談,并利用法律商談給程序主義法范式的運(yùn)作提供了途徑。至此,形成自己獨(dú)特的程序主義法律觀。
[Abstract]:The early Frankfurt School criticized the reality of capitalist society from the perspectives of ideology and instrumental rationality of western industrial civilization. Habermas inherits the critical spirit of Frankfurt School and clarifies the social reality of materialized world on the basis of previous studies. Habermas drew on Weber's investigation and classification of rationality and formed his own critical theory based on communicative rationality and centered on communicative behavior theory. Habermas believes that it is no longer feasible to interpret the modernity of modern West through the norms of philosophy of consciousness. In order to demonstrate his own theory, Habermas first realized the linguistic turn in methodology, and then provided the possibility for the realization of communicative behavior with universal pragmatics and negotiation ethics. Finally, the world of life is regarded as the ideal realm for the realization of communicative behavior. Then Habermas turned from theory to practice. Firstly, he deeply analyzed the crisis of capitalist society, and concluded that the crisis of capitalist society was mainly manifested in economic crisis, rationalization crisis, legitimacy crisis and motivation crisis. He believed that the causes of the crisis in capitalist society were manifold and that the crisis of legitimacy resulting from the colonization of the living world by the system was the main dilemma of modern society. And further think that the lack of legitimacy of the law is an important reason for the crisis of social legitimacy. Therefore, Habermas will focus on the legal field. Through the analysis of the western capitalist society under the rule of law, he thinks that there are two paradigms of western modern law: liberalism and welfare law, and these two paradigms have separated the private and public spheres. The relationship between the living world and the system and between civil society and political state. He thinks that if we want to escape from the dilemma fundamentally, we must find a new way of thinking. The solution lies in finding a way to ensure the generation of legal law. Based on this, he proposed a new paradigm of procedural law. He believes that only all the people concerned can reach a normative consensus through equal, free rational consultation and discourse argumentation, with the help of the effectiveness of human language communication and the possibility of reaching a consensus of specific norms. Thus the formation of the rules as a law is the legal law. In order to realize the feasibility of procedural legal paradigm, Habermas criticizes and draws lessons from Dworkin's constructivist approach to hermeneutics. A kind of legal argumentation theory, legal negotiation, which can provide the final argumentation, is found, and the use of legal negotiation provides a way for the operation of the procedural legal paradigm. At this point, the formation of their own unique legal view of procedural doctrine.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國海洋大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D909.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 童世駿;沒有“主體間性”就沒有“規(guī)則”——論哈貝馬斯的規(guī)則觀[J];復(fù)旦學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2002年05期

2 曾益康;;論哈貝馬斯的法律與交往理性[J];法制與社會;2008年04期

3 夏宏;;交往理性與自然法的批判[J];江漢論壇;2009年09期

4 吳建紅;;程序法治建設(shè):交往行為理論的解讀[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊;2009年31期

5 劉鋼;;論法律話語理論從德沃金到哈貝馬斯的演化[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年01期

6 盧建軍;;馬克思、哈貝馬斯的交往理論與行政執(zhí)法的改進(jìn)[J];南通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2010年04期

7 艾四林;哈貝馬斯思想評析[J];清華大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2001年03期

8 陳弘毅;;從哈貝馬斯的哲學(xué)看現(xiàn)代性與現(xiàn)代法治[J];清華法治論衡;2002年00期

9 高鴻鈞;;權(quán)利源于主體間商談——哈貝馬斯的權(quán)利理論解析[J];清華法學(xué);2008年02期

10 王明文;程序主義法律范式:哈貝馬斯解決法律合法性問題的一個嘗試[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2005年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 程德文;法律的商談理論[D];南京師范大學(xué);2003年

2 吳苑華;評哈貝馬斯的“重建歷史唯物主義”[D];蘇州大學(xué);2004年

3 高玉平;道德客觀性的證明[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

4 楊禮銀;哈貝馬斯的話語民主理論研究[D];北京師范大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號：1812295