<DIV>
Alexandre Kojève (1902–1968) is most widely known in America for his provocative assertion that history is at its end, that is, its completion. In the “practical” sense, this means that the process of historical development can at last be seen (if from a distance) as the realization of the Marxist “universal and homogeneous state.” However, Kojève claimed as well that the history of philosophical thinking had also reached its goal in the transformation of philosophy, as the “love of wisdom” (or the unsatisfied quest for comprehensive knowledge), into that very Wisdom itself and had done so in the most essential respects in the philosophy of Hegel.
The Concept, Time, and Discourse is the first volume of Kojève’s magnum opus, which was to have given an exposition of the (Hegelian) System of Knowledge and of which five volumes were written before his death. It contains, along with a preliminary discussion of the need for an updating of the Hegelian system, the first two of three introductions to the exposition of that system: a First Introduction of the Concept (the integrated totality of what is comprehensible, which is the final object of philosophic inquiry) and a Second Introduction concerning Time, both introductions leading to the (Hegelian) identification of the Concept with Time, an identification which alone takes adequate account of the fact that Philosophy is necessarily discursive (that it must actualize the requirements and essential structure of Discourse).
The present volume offers Kojève’s fullest statement of his Ontology. It includes a critical discussion of the traditional oppositions of the “general” to the “particular” and of the “abstract” to the “concrete” and an analysis of the act of “generalizing abstraction,” which detaches Essence from the Existence of Things. Kojève then discusses the three great figures in the three-stage development of philosophy into wisdom: Parmenides, Plato, and Hegel. Parmenides’ monadic account of Being (= Eternity) rendered it ineffable, thereby reducing philosophy to (non-philosophic) silence; Plato’s dyadic account of Being (as eternal) was intended to make Being a possible subject of discourse but failed to reflect adequately the triadic (and temporally developing) structure which Plato himself discerned in Discourse. Finally, Hegel’s triadic account of Being as itself “dialectical” achieved the final identification of the Concept with Time.
</P></DIV>
Alexandre Kojève (1902–1968) is most widely known in America for his provocative assertion that history is at its end, that is, its completion. In the “practical” sense, this means that the process of historical development can at last be seen (if from a distance) as the realization of the Marxist “universal and homogeneous state.” However, Kojève claimed as well that the history of philosophical thinking had also reached its goal in the transformation of philosophy, as the “love of wisdom” (or the unsatisfied quest for
comprehensive knowledge), into that very Wisdom itself and had done so in the most essential respects in the philosophy of Hegel.
亚历山大·科耶夫(1902–1968) 在美国之所以闻名遐迩,是因为他关于历史终结的论断,即历史达到了圆满。在“实践”意义上,这意味着历史发展的进程最终可以(从极远的地方)被看成是马克思主义的“普遍同质性国家”的实现。然而,科耶夫也认为,哲学思考的历史也在作为“爱智慧...
评分亚历山大·科耶夫(1902–1968) 在美国之所以闻名遐迩,是因为他关于历史终结的论断,即历史达到了圆满。在“实践”意义上,这意味着历史发展的进程最终可以(从极远的地方)被看成是马克思主义的“普遍同质性国家”的实现。然而,科耶夫也认为,哲学思考的历史也在作为“爱智慧...
评分亚历山大·科耶夫(1902–1968) 在美国之所以闻名遐迩,是因为他关于历史终结的论断,即历史达到了圆满。在“实践”意义上,这意味着历史发展的进程最终可以(从极远的地方)被看成是马克思主义的“普遍同质性国家”的实现。然而,科耶夫也认为,哲学思考的历史也在作为“爱智慧...
评分亚历山大·科耶夫(1902–1968) 在美国之所以闻名遐迩,是因为他关于历史终结的论断,即历史达到了圆满。在“实践”意义上,这意味着历史发展的进程最终可以(从极远的地方)被看成是马克思主义的“普遍同质性国家”的实现。然而,科耶夫也认为,哲学思考的历史也在作为“爱智慧...
评分亚历山大·科耶夫(1902–1968) 在美国之所以闻名遐迩,是因为他关于历史终结的论断,即历史达到了圆满。在“实践”意义上,这意味着历史发展的进程最终可以(从极远的地方)被看成是马克思主义的“普遍同质性国家”的实现。然而,科耶夫也认为,哲学思考的历史也在作为“爱智慧...
这本书在处理跨学科议题时所展现出的那种游刃有余的态度,令人印象深刻。它毫不费力地在本体论的严谨性与社会学现象的具身性之间架设桥梁。我尤其关注到作者是如何巧妙地运用一系列看似不相关的案例——从古代的祭祀仪式到最新的神经科学发现——来共同论证一个关于“时间感知”的核心命题。这种“广撒网”的证据收集方式,非但没有显得松散,反而强化了其论点的普遍适用性。它有力地反驳了将知识领域人为割裂的倾向,倡导一种更加整体、更具生态视野的理解世界的方式。读到后面,我发现自己看待日常交流的方式都开始发生微妙的变化,那些习以为常的交流模式,在作者的审视下,立刻显现出其背后的历史沉淀与文化负荷。
评分坦白地说,这本书的阅读门槛并不低,它要求读者具备一定的理论素养,否则很容易在开篇的几页就被其密度和专业性劝退。然而,对于那些愿意投入精力的读者而言,回报是巨大的。它不仅仅提供了一套分析工具,更提供了一种全新的“看待”世界的方式。我尤其欣赏作者对“不确定性”的接受和拥抱。在当今世界,许多思想倾向于提供简单的答案和快速的解决方案,而这本书却坚定地捍卫了复杂性和模糊性的价值。它提醒我们,真正的深刻性往往存在于那些我们尚未能完全言说清楚的领域。这种对思维局限性的诚实描述,反而赋予了文本一种超越时代的真诚力量,让人感到被尊重,因为作者承认了阅读本身也是一个充满挣扎和探索的过程。
评分从文本结构的角度来看,这本书的排布堪称大胆。它似乎故意打乱了传统论著的“绪论-主体-结论”的既定范式。章节之间的连接并非通过明确的过渡词或总结句来完成,而是依赖于一种更深层次的主题回响和概念的螺旋上升。对于习惯了清晰路线图的读者来说,这无疑是一个挑战,你必须学会信任作者的引导,接受暂时的迷失感,相信所有的碎片最终会在某个高点汇集成一个完整的图像。我体会到了一种强烈的“去中心化”的阅读体验,不再有一个绝对的权威点来解释一切,而是鼓励读者自己去构建连接。这种对阅读权威的消解,恰恰是本书最深刻的立场体现。它迫使我不再做一个被动的接受者,而是成为了一个主动的参与者和阐释者,这种赋权感是极其宝贵的。
评分这部作品无疑是一次对知识边界的勇敢探索,它以一种近乎手术刀般的精准度剖析了人类理解力的核心构成。我必须承认,阅读过程犹如置身于一个巨大的迷宫,每当我以为触及到某种确定性时,作者便巧妙地引入一个新的维度,迫使我重新审视一切假设。特别是在论述“存在”的结构性限制时,那种绵密而又层层递进的逻辑推演,让人不禁拍案叫绝。作者似乎并不满足于停留在表面的现象描述,而是深入到意识建构的最底层,挖掘出那些支撑我们日常经验的隐秘支架。其中关于“意义”的生成机制,尤其引人深思,它不再被视为一个静态的实体,而是一个不断流变、被权力关系重塑的动态过程。这种动态的视角,极大地丰富了我对符号学和现象学的理解。读完之后,我感到自己的思维框架被彻底颠覆了,那种久违的、智力上的兴奋感,驱使着我渴望立即开始第二次的阅读,去捕捉那些初读时可能因速度过快而遗漏的精微之处。
评分这本书的叙事节奏令人捉摸不透,它既有哲学思辨的宏大叙事,又时常穿插着一些极其私人化、近乎日记式的片段,这种强烈的反差,反而形成了一种奇特的张力。我特别欣赏作者在处理复杂概念时所展现出的那种近乎诗意的语言驾驭能力。例如,在描绘某个历史转折点时,文字的流动性仿佛就模仿了事件本身的不可逆转性与加速感。它不是那种枯燥的说教式论述,而更像是一场精心编排的剧本,每一幕都有其存在的必要性和情感上的共鸣。我时常会停下来,仅仅是为了回味某个长句的内部韵律和结构。这种阅读体验,与传统学术著作的线性推进大相径庭,它要求读者必须时刻保持警觉,准备好随时从宏观视角跳跃到微观细节,再被拉回更广阔的背景之中。这不仅仅是知识的传授,更像是一次智力上的“漫游”,充满了意料之外的风景。
评分 评分 评分 评分 评分本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有