略论马克思的“普遍历史”思想

【作者】 陈祥勤；

【导师】 陈学明；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 西方马克思主义， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 历史在何种意义上是普遍性的?有没有普遍性的历史?历史能否为语言和思维表象为普遍性的科学和知识?这种普遍性的历史科学能否赢得实践性或伦理的合理性辩护?等等这些问题曾经激起现代历史哲学的兴起,人们试图探寻历史作为经验、科学和哲学对象的可能性、本质性的根据和普遍的规定性,然而诸如此类的努力已经被历史主义打进思想的冷宫。但是,历史作为人的存在方式,作为人的自然界,如何为人的意识和语言、思维所表象,能否在人的思维表象中达到普遍性的知识高度,以至可以合理性地谈论历史的真理性和理想,这不仅关系到人类能否通过历史实现自我认识的知识或理论使命,而且关系到人类能否在历史中能否实现自我完善的道德或实践使命。历史的普遍性,以及作为普遍性的知识和科学的可能性问题在本质上关系到历史与人的存在和命运相关联的本体论问题或原始性的伦理学问题,而不只是一个单纯的知识论问题或客观性的自然学问题。追求一门普遍性的历史科学曾经是维柯的新科学的理想,也是马克思的历史科学所要完成的理论使命。本文所要处理的就是从马克思的历史概念出发,探讨历史的普遍性和普遍性的历史科学的可能性问题,发掘马克思等经典作家对这一问题的可能回答,以及这一问题在西方马克思主义的思想和历史语境中的若干表现。全文共分四章(除导论和结语外),现将各章内容介绍如下：第一章主要阐述现代历史思想的两大脉络——历史的思辨哲学和批判哲学。从理论历程来看,这两种思潮是在历史领域重演康德哲学对经验、科学和形而上学的批判工作：历史的批判哲学所要抵达的思想终点是先验自我,在先验自我的感性和知性能力中,历史作为经验和知识的客体予以理论的探讨；历史的思辨哲学所依据的思想起点是先验自由,在先验自由的形而上学表象中,历史作为理性的客体予以目的论或本体论的探讨。前者始终陷入现象与本体、主观与客观、认识与对象的分裂而不能自拔,后者对历史的本体论探讨是无根的,因为它对历史的先验设定往往是抽象的、偶然的和脱离人的。马克思的历史科学的可能解答是,历史在更高的层次被把握为人类的创造物,而不只是人的感性和理智所表象的客观物,第二章着重通过马克思的社会概念探讨普遍历史的确定性形式。历史的普遍的确定性形式就是社会,正是在社会范畴中,历史才能呈现出它自身的结构和规定性,才能为语言和思维表象为合规律性的知性科学。对于马克思的社会概念,这一部分主要从三个角度入手：一是将马克思的社会概念把握为感性范畴,把握为人的感性活动或创造性活动的对象性表现,历史作为社会史呈现出它作为创造物的特征；二是将马克思的社会概念把握为知性范畴,社会呈现出它的客观性的结构过程(社会生产方式或社会经济结构),以及在人的主观性生活中的理论和实践表现(意识形态和政治社会),历史作为社会史呈现出它的合规律特征；三是将马克思的社会概念把握为理性范畴,把握为自由概念,即把握为人的普遍性的自由本质的历史性表现,社会在这一维度呈现出它的合目的性和理想特征。第三章主要是通过马克思的类概念探讨普遍历史的真理性基础。历史的普遍性,或者作为普遍性概念的历史,它的真理性基础作为普遍性存在物或类存在物的人。人的本性或本质概念作为普遍性的概念或类概念,是人将他自身把握为普遍性的对象而形成的反思性范畴,是对人之为人的根据和本质的理论把握。在人被把握为普遍性存在物的地方,历史必然是普遍性的,人的历史必然是普遍历史,在人被把握为普遍性的创造性活动本身的地方,这种普遍历史必然有着维柯所说的真理性基础。历史的真理性基础就是被把握为普遍性的创造活动的人本身。在这一部分,论文主要通过对马克思的人类概念和海德格尔的此在概念的分析,梳理他们对人的类属性或普遍性问题的思想,并进一步描绘这一思想在西方马克思主义中的若干表现。第四章主要是通过马克思的历史理想范畴探讨普遍历史的理想问题。历史的理想性问题关系到历史能否赢得实践理性的合理性辩护问题,即历史有没有它的内在的意义和价值,能否为形而上学表象为诸如目的论的或神正论的历史,从而满足人的自我认识和自我关切的深层道德动机。正是在理想性的高度,历史科学才可能呈现出它作为实践理性科学的道德特征,才可能在更深的层次将自身揭示为与人的存在和命运相关联的源始性的伦理学。历史的理想性在本体论的意义上就是历史的真理性,就是被把握为理想性范畴的人性概念或人的本质概念,从人类学的角度来看,所谓哲学或神学,其实是对人在理论和实践上的类属性或普遍性(如直观、语言思维、精神表象、自由意志和创造等)的形而上学揭示。这一部分,论文主要通过马克思的历史理想概念,探讨马克思、布洛赫、本雅明对这一问题的解答。更多还原

【Abstract】 In what sense we can talk about the history as a universal category? Can we obtain the knowledge of history in human language and cogitative presentation as a universal science? Can the universal science of history be sure of practical and moral justification? These problems have been excited modern historical philosophies to investigate the possibility, essential foundation or universal rules of the history as the empirical, scientific and philosophic object. Unfortunately, these efforts have been relegate to marginal spheres in historicism context. However, historical existence, as human universal natural world, could it be as a universal concept in human knowledge and scientific presentation? Could it be reasonable to talk about the truth and ideality of history? These theoretic-historical issues are not only related to the epistemological or theoretical mission of human self-cognition, also related to the moral or practical mission of human self-perfection. The universality of history and its possibility as a universal science is by nature a original ethical theme related to human existence and destiny, not only a pure knowledge issue about objectivity of history-in-itself.To construct a universal science of history is the ideal of Vico’s New Science, is also the theoretical mission of Marx’s Historical Science. This article is to investigate the subjects on universality of history and its universal science from Marx’s concept of history, to excavate the possible solutions to these problems in Marx’s thought, to quest their manifestation in Western Marxist context.The dissertation is consisted of four chapters. The content of each chapter is as follows:In chapterⅠof the article, it is to elaborate the two branches in modern philosophies of history:philosophy of history in critical or analytical way and in speculative or metaphysic way. From their thought progress, these two philosophical branches are the replay of Kantian critique on experience, science and metaphysics in history field. In critical context, history as the empirical and knowledge object is to be researched through human sensuous and understanding forms. In speculative context, as the metaphysical object, history is to be discussed through human rationality. Consequently, the theoretical destination of critical philosophy is Kantian transcendental ego; the starting point of speculative philosophy is Kantian transcendental freedom. In critical thought, history is lost into the division and contradiction between phenomenon and noumenon, subject and object, idea and reality. In speculative thought, the metaphysical history is separated from the empirical and real history, transformed into a-history. From Marx’s point of view, the true history is by nature the creation by human-in-itself, not only the sensuous and intellectual object.Now come to chapterⅡ, this part is to investigate the certain forms of history from Marx’s concept of Society. Universal certainty of history is society in Marx’s context. History, through the category of society, its structure, process and conformity to law which is the hypothesis of history as intellectual science is appeared. In this part, the article is to analyze Marx’s concept of society from three ways. The first way is to view Marx’s concept of society as sensuous or esthetical category, as the objectification of human creative activity, as sensuous reality of human freedom and existence, in which history has become to reveal its property of human creature. The second way is to view Marx’s concept of society as understanding or intellectual category, in which history has become to reveal its objective structure, process and lawfulness, and its theoretical and practical manifestation in individuals or groups subjective life. The third way is to view Marx’s concept of society as rational concept, as a freedom concept, as the historical externalization of human internal freedom and essence, in which history has become to reveal its property of purposiveness, ideality and humanity.In chapterⅢ, the article is to investigate the truthfulness of history through Marx’s concept of species-being. The foundation and truth Universal history is human itself as a universal or species-being. As a category, human nature or humanity is the reflexive concept come into being in human self-cognition, is the concept view human itself as a species-being. If human being is a universal or species-being, human history has to be the universal history, has to be the manifestation of human universal creative activity, in which the truthfulness of history has found its essential basis. In this point of view, the objective structure of social-historical process is the objectification of human universal creative activity. In this part, the article is to elaborate theories on human universality or humanity from Marx, Heidegger to Western Marxism, to reveal the anthropological basis of universal history.The last part is chapterⅣ. This part is to investigate the ideality of history through Marx’s ideal of history. The ideality of history is related to the issues about the justifications or vindications of the practical reason or moral rationality of history. As universal or total category, does history inherit meaning, value or purposiveness in-itself? Could it be the object of practical reason? In its metaphysic representations, Could history win its justifications in such forms as theodicy or teleology, and to satisfy existential and humanitarian motion to realize human self-perfection and self-cognition? In the sight of ideality, the universal science has been viewed as a practical or moral science which is related to human existence and destiny. By ontological view, the ideality of history is identical to its truthfulness. Humanity as universal category is the supreme theme which hided in philosophy and theology context and manifest in the forms such as human nature, ontological principle, metaphysical idea or divine deity, etc. Ideality and truthfulness are unified to human-in-itself as the universal free and creative being in its practical activity. In this part, the article is to elaborate the theories from Marx to Bloch and Benjamin in Western Marxist context.更多还原