我们让人反复理解这一点:对生动话语的称赞忠诚于卢梭思想中的一个主题,这个主题和它的对立面结合并组织起来:对所谓完满话语始终越发怀疑。讲话过程中,在场获得承认的同时亦遭到拒绝。卢梭提出话语高于书写的谈话应该是,或本该是明明白白的。我们必须注意这种方式,注意在生动的谈话中把我们与在场联系起来的时刻。实际上,卢梭体会到直接的话语奇迹和话语本身内所隐蔽的东西,以无可比拟的敏锐性承认并分析了这个遮盖物,我们尝试通过语言的表示抓住所渴望的在场,但我们失掉了它。斯塔罗宾斯基在《活的眼睛》中 We have repeatedly understood this: Praise of vivid discourse is loyal to one of the themes of Rousseau’s thought, which is combined with and organized by its antinomy: the constant suspicion of the so-called perfect discourse. In the course of his speech, his presence was also rejected. Rousseau’s speech above the written discourse should be, or should be, plainly. We must pay attention to this approach, paying attention to the moment that connects us with the presence in a lively conversation. In fact, Rousseau realizes what is hidden in the direct discourse of miracles and discourse itself, recognizing and analyzing this covering with unparalleled acumen, and we try to seize the desired presence through the expression of language but we lose It Starbucksky is in “The Living Eye.”