Humanism went out of style in the second half of twenty century. Moreover, it became a special target of theoretical criticism. For many theorists, it may be not honourable to defend human dignity, to be guided by universal values, and to foretell an emancipated humanity. After totalitarianisms, post-colonial and ecological movements, post-structuralism, and decolonial criticism, it is no longer possible to be a humanist in a naive or selfconfident way; indeed, it has become an actual danger for one’s own academic reputation to proclaim oneself a ‘humanist’. Behind an intended humanist’s lovely ‘symbolic’ vision, we can always be unmasked as having a ‘diabolical’ attitude of domination, exploitation or exclusion. As a matter of fact, there is a wide post-humanist consensus in contemporary thought. All of these criticisms are of significant relevance because they require self-critical surveillance whenever someone dares to be a spokesperson and starts by saying: ‘we humans ... ’. However, the deconstruction of a wrapped humanism in itself is different from sheer disinterestedness in the human or rejection of the question about what humanity is. If the question is problematic and the answer unaccomplished, it does not mean that it should be interdicted or that it cannot be thought about. What we need to recognize is that the human being is neither an obvious starting point nor a necessary one, but still an inescapable problem with which we have to deal. We live in times of crises in which contemporary critical thinking seems to be restricted to negativity and deconstruction. In this way, it reinforces the process of social fragmentation, resulting in closed communitarianism, political radicalisms and relativizations of human rights and democracy. In such times, a democratic reconstruction of universal values is necessary. In my view, this is only possible if we take humanity seriously. That is why Daniel Chernilo’s project of philosophical sociology is very welcome, for he undertakes this task in a scholarly, rigorous, timely and fruitful manner while performing a rescue of the question about the human within the social sciences. He investigates grounds and objectifies blooms of universal values: freedom and autonomy, reflexivity and recognition, love and justice, responsibility and solidarity, dignity and good life, democracy and deliberation. Besides the fact that I identify with his normative repertoire, I consider that the reconstruction of the possibility of affirmative speaking of universals is crucial for the development of a critical social theory. In the first part (I), I point out the relation between philosophical sociology and critical theory. My attention is directed to the human capacities of criticism and justification, to which I propose the Rhetoric understanding of the human. In part two (II), I propose to explore other ways towards a philosophical sociology. I suggest that philosophical

中文翻译：

---

认真对待人类：哲学社会学的基础与发展

人文主义在二十世纪下半叶过时。而且，它成为理论批评的特殊对象。对于许多理论家来说，捍卫人类尊严，以普遍价值观念为指导并预示着解放的人类也许并不光荣。在极权主义，后殖民主义和生态运动，后结构主义和非殖民主义批评之后，不再可能以幼稚或自信的方式成为人本主义者。的确，自称“人文主义者”已经成为个人学术声誉的实际危险。在有意的人文主义者可爱的“象征性”愿景的背后，我们总是会被揭露为具有对统治，剥削或排斥的“恶魔般”的态度。实际上，当代思想中存在着广泛的后人文主义共识。所有这些批评都具有重大意义，因为每当有人敢当发言人并要求说“我们是人类...”时，它们都需要进行自我批评的监视。但是，对被包裹的人文主义本身的解构与对人的纯粹无私或对人性是什么的拒绝是不同的。如果问题有问题而答案没有完成，则并不意味着该问题应被阻止或无法考虑。我们需要认识到的是，人类既不是一个明显的出发点也不是一个必要的出发点，而是我们必须处理的不可避免的问题。我们生活在危机时代，当代的批判思维似乎仅限于消极和解构。这样，它加强了社会分化的过程，导致封闭的社群主义，政治激进主义以及人权与民主的相对化。在这样的时代，有必要对普遍价值观念进行民主重建。我认为，只有我们认真对待人类，才有可能实现这一目标。这就是为什么丹尼尔·切尔尼洛（Daniel Chernilo）的哲学社会学项目之所以受到欢迎，是因为他以学术，严谨，及时和富有成果的方式承担了这项任务，同时在社会科学领域中对人类的问题进行了救助。他调查了普世价值的基础，并确定了普世价值的绽放：自由与自治，反思与承认，爱与正义，责任与团结，尊严与美好生活，民主与审议。除了我认同他的规范曲目外，我认为重建对普遍性的肯定性表达的可能性对于批判性社会理论的发展至关重要。在第一部分中，我指出了哲学社会学与批判理论之间的关系。我的注意力放在批评和辩护的人的能力上，对此我提出了对人的修辞理解。在第二部分（II）中，我建议探索哲学社会学的其他方法。我建议哲学 我建议探索哲学社会学的其他方法。我建议哲学 我建议探索哲学社会学的其他方法。我建议哲学