Question

请高手帮忙翻译一下。谢谢！

In conclusion, I should like to pose one more question, which was already suggested by my initial reflections and which is capable of bringing to light the possible openness of the global process which we call history, I have described the movement of human experience and Praxis as a process in which reality becomes meaningful, takes on form(Gestalt), on the one hand in the sense of a further determination and differentiation, on the other hand in the sense of a redetermination and restructuring. My question deals explicitly with the connections between the individual phases of this global process and with the laws which regulate the transition from one to another,
An empiricist has no difficulty answering this question, since all he recognizes is a sequence of externally connected events, events which are self-contained and isolated, and do not refer beyond themselves. The connection is reduced to the factual regularity of the sequence. Here we are confronted with a maximal openness, since everything could also occur in a completely different manner, but there is no sign here of a dialectic in the sense of an inner unity and reciprocity. In contrast, an unambiguous inner connection is given when the individual events are ordered in terms of unitary goal. It is a positive if the goal already lies in the nature of things or is projected in the form of a law of reason, this would be the metaphysical or moral form of teleology. It is a negative teleology if the goal is at work in the internal contradictions of the whole, this would be the dialectical form of teleology as it is found in Hegel and his followers. As we have seen, openness in this context implies a mere 'not yet', in which case it is quite possible that one leaves undetermined the whether, the when and how of the realization of the goal. I shall not try to decide to what extent the Marxian dialectic exhausts itself in this kind of negative dialectic; should this turn out to be the case, then it would indeed be nothing more than ' the necessary expression and the product of the alienation of materialist- social life ', it would be ' the logic of a history which has not yet become human, but is becoming human '. One may call that which would follow dialectics or not: with the end of prehistory and the disappeaance of the ' antagonistic contradictions ', the pace and laws of the dialectic change: if one thinks of this as an infinite approximation of a goal, it remains a question of a mere ' not yet '.

Answer 1

总之,我想再问一个问题,是什么构成了我最初的映像，并且能够给全球开放带来光明的,我们称之为史,我描述了人类的经验和实践运动成为一种过程的瞬间,在这个过程中,需要对现实负责,从一方面说，在这个意义上的决心和分化,从另一方面来说，在这个意义上的一个重新决定和重新组合。我的问题和其中的关联交易的个人的全球性的过程,以法律规范过渡从一个到另一个,
有经验的人对这个问题不会感到为难,因为回答这个问题是由一系列事件构成的,这些事件,外部连接是自给自足的,是孤立的,并且不超出自己的范围。连接被减少到真实的规律性的顺序。我们在这里所面对的最大的开放,因为一切也会出现在一个完全不同的方式,但并没有在这里所写的的辩证唯物主义的内在统一和对等的。相反,给出一个明确的内在联系的个人事件时,就应该按照统一的目标。它是一个积极的目标，就像已经存在的事物的本质或规定的法律的原因,这将是形而上学或道德的目的论”。它是一种负面的目的论既然目标是在家工作的内在矛盾,这将成为整体的辩证的目的论为它在黑格尔和他的追随者。
正如我们所看到的,公开在此背景下,纯粹意味着“没有”,在这种情况下,它很可能变得确定了,变成了一个何时并且如何能否实现的目标。我不会尝试决定到什么程度的马克思主义辩证来耗尽自己在这种消极的辩证;正是如此,那么它的确会不外乎必备的表达和产品的异化的唯物主义-社会生活,它会成为一个历史的逻辑，虽然它尚未成为人类的逻辑,但是终将会成为人类的逻辑。也许可以称之为遵循唯物辩证法与否:同年底,史前的和disappeaance对抗性矛盾”的速度和法律的变化:如果将辩证法的无限逼近作为一个目标,那么它仍然是一个问题,也就仅仅是“没有”。