摘要
自1989年福山发表《历史的终结?》一文以来,国内外学界围绕历史终结论的争论一直没有停止过。福山的历史终结论主要由三部分构成:一是肯定了普世史的存在;二是现代自然科学和"寻求承认的斗争"支撑起自由民主理念及其制度矗立在历史的终结处;三是讨论了人类固有的优越意识是否构成颠覆自由民主制度的内在因素。德里达从三个角度批判了福山的历史终结论,他首先揭露了历史终结论回避的资本主义世界出现的各种严重问题,其次认为福山在论证历史终结论时混淆了论证方法,最后批评了福山历史终结论建立在抽象的历史观和人性论之上。但是,德里达没有看到福山主动承认并解释资本主义国家中存在的问题,没有认清自由民主理念和制度的发展是一个需要时间的过程,而非一蹴而就的事实,也没有看到"寻求承认的斗争"和"激情"在人类历史上发挥的重要作用。因此,德里达对福山历史终结论的批判有一部分内容是不成立的。
Since 1989, when Fukuyama published the article ＂The End of History＂ , scholars, home and a- broad, has never stopped the debate as to the theory of ＂the end of history＂. Francis Fukuyama~ ＂The End of History＂ consists of three parts： First, it affirmed the existence of universal history; Second, it elaborated modern natural science and ＂struggle for recognition＂ to prop up the idea of liberal democracy and its system stands at the end of history; Third, it discussed whether human inherent consciousness of superiority consti- tutes internal factors of subversion of liberal democracy. Derrida criticized Fukuyama＇s end of history from three perspectives, who first exposed the serious problems of capitalist world, which the end of history are try- ing to avoid, followed by his option that Fukuyama confused argumentation method in his argument of the end of history ; finally, he criticized that Fukuyama had built end of history on the abstract conception of history and the theory of human nature. However, Derrida did not see Fukuyama had initiatively recognized and explained the problems in the capitalist countries, and did not recognize that the process of developing the concept of freedom and democracy would take a long time, and it could not be achieved overnight, and did not see that ＂ struggle for recognition ＂and＂ passion ＂ had played an important role in human history. Thus, a part of Derri- da＇s critique of Fukuyama＇ s end of history is not valid.
出处
《知与行》
2016年第5期21-24,共4页
Cognition and Practice
关键词
福山
自由民主
德里达
历史终结论
Derrida
liberal democracy Fukuyama
End of History
