%0 Journal Article
%T 论阿多诺与阿尔都塞的理论实践概念及其政治后果
%A 朱彦明
%J 复旦学报(社会科学版)
%D 2018
%X 虽然阿多诺和阿尔都塞属于西方马克思主义不同阵营,但他们之间仍然有“相通”之处。他们都反思了启蒙以来西方思想中的理论工具主义,提出了理论实践概念,或把理论理解为一种实践形式。在这方面,阿多诺坚持理论的否定性,赋予了理论批判和反抗现实的激进作用,阿尔都塞则将哲学理解为观念领域中的阶级斗争。他们的理论实践,既不是回到古代自足的沉思,也不是走向黑格尔的理论思辨,而是认为理论不需要去“附和”实践或政治,它本身就有激进作用或政治效果。他们的这个思想对西方左翼的学术化征程产生了重要的影响。阿多诺和阿尔都塞的理论实践概念,虽然对于挑战理论工具主义并保持理论自身活力和生命有着积极的作用,但是他们对理论独立性和自主性的强调,还是神化了理论实践本身。</br>Abstract：Despite belonging to two different schools in Western Marxism, Adorno and Althusser have “something in common” in their bringing forward a familiar subject named “theoretical practice,” a theory considered as a form of practice in their reflection and critique of the pragmatization and instrumentization of theory in Western thought including Marxism itself. In this respect, Adorno insists on the negativity of theory and endows it with the role of resistance to the reality, Althusser regards the theory or philosophy as the class struggle in ideology. Their theoretical practice does not return to archaic contemplation and Hegelian speculative philosophy, but hold that the theory itself has radical role and political effect without being instrument of practice or politics. Therefore, their thought plays an important role in the politics of academic left. Their theoretical practice has active influence for challenging the instrumentization of theory and keeping it alive, but they risk to apotheosize the theoretical practice itself in their emphasis of the autonomy and singularity of theory.
%K 阿多诺
%K 阿尔都塞
%K 理论
%K 实践
%K 政治&lt
%K /br&gt
%K Adorno
%K Althusser
%K theoretical practice
%K theory
%K practice
%K politics
%U http://www.fdwkxb.fudan.edu.cn/CN/abstract/abstract2320.shtml