【作者】 朱忠良；

【导师】 何中华；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 马克思主义哲学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 自从马克思主义诞生以来,人们对马克思哲学(马克思哲学与马克思主义有所区别,前者主要指马克思本人的哲学思想,后者主要指由马克思和恩格斯开创的理论体系)的认识通常集中在经验性维度上,其超验性维度往往被忽视,甚至有学者不承认它具有超验性维度。事实上,马克思哲学以超验与经验的矛盾为坐标考察世界,进而致力于通过实践使二者在逻辑上和历史中消除对立。其超验性维度之所以不被承认主要因为：一是马克思强调经验和消灭哲学、形而上学等说法,容易让人产生他已经完全抛弃超验和形而上学的印象；二是经验主义的哲学视野妨碍对马克思哲学作出全面深入的了解,经验主义把一切都赋予经验,不承认任何超验性事物和事物的超验性维度,马克思哲学因而同样没有超验性维度。关于马克思与恩格斯的学术思想关系讨论的核心是马克思哲学是否具有超验性维度。对立论和差异论认为,马克思哲学具有超验性维度而恩格斯的哲学视野更具经验性；一致论认为两人都没有超验性维度因而是一致的。事实上,马克思自觉承认超验并始终在超验与经验的矛盾中探索和改造世界,即其哲学同时具有超验性和经验性两维度；恩格斯排除超验,他没有在本体论层面上认识到超验性维度是哲学不可去除的内在因素,从而在理论上出现“漏洞”。在实践中,马克思的无神论不再追溯到纯粹超验领域,超验性维度于是落实于(自由和)道德。当马克思哲学的超验性维度与道德结合后,两维度之间的矛盾就转化为超验道德与经验历史之间的矛盾,矛盾可以进一步抽象为超验与经验的关系,由此马克思哲学获得广阔的理论空间。因此,说起马克思哲学两维度的关系,一般说来也是在谈论道德与历史、超验与经验的关系,反之亦然。实践把相互矛盾的双方包含于自身,进而在绽开自身即矛盾的自我绽开中解决双方的对立。实践自身的运动(抽象实践)不仅是矛盾的产生根源,而且是矛盾的解决途径,这是实践能够充当马克思哲学本体的根本原因之所在。在西方哲学史上,关于超验与经验关系的探讨源远流长。它发端于希腊哲学中柏拉图主义与亚里士多德主义的对立,体现为实在论与唯名论、唯理论与经验性以及唯心主义与旧唯物主义之间的争论。争论体现超验与经验的分离和对立。康德二元论使对立明朗化,在认识论层面上通过先验知性概念不超出经验界限的应用,他完成了超验与经验的统一,但是在本体论层面上没有完成,因为他没有找到超验道德的经验性实现之路。道德的实践是先验的,但其先验性只停留在理念中而没有实在性。为达到超验与经验在本体论上的统一,他提出科学的未来形而上学。在康德那里,超验与经验分别对应本体与现象、自由与自然、道德与科学。本体是神、世界和人的领域,人具有意志和灵魂。尽管自由和道德在先验性和超验性上有绝对性,但它们又必须在经验世界中绽开自身以获得实在性,这样超验与经验就获得接触的必要。实践在根本上是践行道德,通过自由和道德实践获得超验性,同时实践作为感性活动具有经验性。于是,超验与经验在实践中统一起来。超验与经验由于矛盾而相互作用,在作用中实践绽开自身并深入经验历史,在绽开中历史和马克思哲学同时得以完成,由此实践成为马克思哲学的本体。在实践看来,超验与经验的分离和对立来自“世俗基础的自我分裂”,在分裂中一边产生纯粹纯粹超验的神一边产生纯粹经验的自然界(与人无关的抽象自然界),在分裂中超验性和经验性维度同时被遮蔽的实践是抽象的。超验性被遮蔽产生旧唯物主义,经验性被遮蔽产生唯心主义,在抽象中同时保留超验与经验产生二元论。超验性和经验性维度同时彰显的具体实践为超验与经验对立的消解提供根据,康德未来形而上学由此得以完成。但是,完成也是批判和消灭,马克思对分裂尘世的批判使一切抽象思辨哲学体系寿终正寝。马克思在《博士论文》中确立的自由具有绝对性,在探求绝对自由经验性实现的意义上,自由是先验的。康德认为先验自由基础之上的道德是超验的,马克思的道德概念源于康德。马克思不再谈论道德的超验本性并不说明他否认道德的超验性,也不说明他抛开了道德。只有在道德超验性在纯粹性上无法经验性实现的意义上,他才反对它。面对资本主义的恶,他致力于道德的实现而非谴责。因此,超验与经验的对立在马克思这里转化为超验的道德在经验的历史中何以可能的问题。资本主义社会是道德缺席的时代,资本剥夺道德的超验性。超验道德必须经验地绽开自身以获得实在性,经验性使经验主义陷入幻觉,否认道德和马克思哲学的超验性。道德的超验本性与经验性实现构成矛盾,矛盾的自我展开构成历史发展的动力。马克思立足于矛盾去研究世界,进而致力于矛盾的经验性解决,解决使道德在历史中成为可能。从超验道德上看,历史是人“改变世界”的主观过程；从经验历史上看,历史是矛盾自我展开的客观规律过程。在实践中两过程是统一的,它们是从不同视角观察同一事物得到的不同结论。然而,对于马克思来说,不存在一个外在于历史的道德,道德是历史的产物。作为人的自由本性和社会属性的表现,道德内在于人的历史。历史是实践的绽开,人在实践中发现自己的自由本质、发现自己是“类存在物”和“社会动物”,但是对象化的本质反过来统治人。当人原始地与自己的本质合一时,人意识不到道德问题,当人失去本质即对象化本质统治人时,道德开始成为人们关注的焦点,这时道德作为概念进入哲学领域和历史舞台。道德一旦产生就缺席了,对道德如何实现和回归的探讨构成现代社会实践的最本质内容,即实践是人重新拥有自己类本质的现实性道路。基于此,本文以马克思哲学的超验性和经验性维度及其关系为中心线索绽开。文章各部分大致呈现层次性,即分别讨论马克思哲学的两个维度后,再讨论二者之间的关系。同时,各部分之间也有某种并列性,在谈起超验性时不可能完全避开经验性,反之亦然。另外,有些章节的标题与内容吻合也许不太紧密,而且一个标题下问题的回答有时会在其他地方得到补充和加强,马克思哲学作为一个有机整体,从任何一个局部契入都会涉及整体,对局部性问题的彻底回答不能离开整体,而对整体的描述又必须是从局部开始。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since Marxism came on the social and historical stage, people concentrate on the empirical dimension of Marx’s philosophy (the difference between Marx’s philosophy and Marxism is that the former is mainly the philosophical thought while the later is the theory system initiated by Marx and Engels), but its transcendent one is usally overlooked, even some scholars do not think that Marx’s philosophy doesn’t have the transcendent feature at all. In fact, Marx’s philosophy looks the contradiction between transcendent and empirical in order to check the world, then to resolve it logically and historically in practice. The reason why the transcendent dimension of Marx’s philosophy is that Marx said philolophy and metaphysics disappear and the empirical is important, and this tends to make people think that he had already threw the transcendent and philosophy away completely; another reason is that the angle of empiricism henders to see the transcendent of Marx’s philosophy clearly and empiricism put everything into the empirical so that there is nothing transcendent so Marx’s philosophy is also empirical completely.The key factor of the discussion about the intellectual relationship between Marx and Engels is whether or not Marx’s philosophy has the transcendent dimension. The Scholars who hold that Marx and Engels were opposite and who hold that they were different think that Marx’s philosophy has transcendent dimension and Engels’doesn’t, while who hold they were in conformity with each other think that their philosophies don’t have transcendent dimension so that they are the same. In fact, Marx consciously recognized the transcendent and explored and changed the world in the contradiction between transcendent and empirical, while Engels denied transcendent and he didn’t recognize on ontological level that the transcendent dimension is the factor which cannot be removed, so that his theory has some kind of "hole". That is to say, Marx’s philosophy has transcendent and empirical dimensions at the same time and the two conflict each other.In practice, Marx’s Antitheism doesn’t go into the pure transcendent field, so the transcendent originates in (freedom and) morality. When the transcendent dimension of Marx’s philosophy connects with morality, the contradiction between two dimensions turns into that between transcendent morality and empirical history, and in turn into transcendent and empirical, so Marx’s philosophy gets large theory space. So, if you mention the relationship between the two dimensions you are talking about the relationship between morality and history, between transcendent and empirical, and vice versa. Practice puts the two dimensions together and during the two conflict each other (that is practice unfolds itself), opposition between them will disappear. Practice is moving and it is not only (abstract practice is) the root-cause of the contradiction but also the way to settle it, and this is the reason why practice is the ontology of Marx’s philosophy.In the western philosophical history, discussion about the relationship between transcendent and empirical has existed for a long period of time. It originated in the antagonism between Platonism and Aristotelianism; it is showed in the discussion between realism and nominalism, spiritualism and empiricism, idealism and materialism of the old type. And it shows that transcendent and empirical leave and oppose each other. Kant’s Dualism makes the fight clear and he made transcendent and empirical unified on Epistemological level with the transcendental concepts working in the empirical confines but didn’t achieve it on Ontological level for he failed to find the way for transcendent morality becoming real in the empirical world. The moral practice is transcendental, but the transcendental is only an idea and isn’t actuality. In order to unify transcendent and empirical, he raised the scientifically future metaphysics.In the context of Kant’s philosophy, transcendent and empirical are correspondingly essence and phenomenon, freedom and nature, morality and science etc. The essence is the God, world and man’s field, and man has will and soul. Though freedom and morality are definite on transcendental and transcendent sense, they must actualize themselves in the empirical world, so transcendent and empirical need to meet with each other. Practice is essentially moral practice, on freedom and morality sense practice gets the transcendent dimension at the same time as experiencing action practice gets the empirical dimension. So transcendent and empirical are unified in practice. Transcendent and empirical are fighting, and during the fight practice actualizes itself and goes into the history, and during actualizing history and Marx’s philosophy achieve at the same time, and this makes practice become the ontology of Marx’s philosophy.From the practical point of view, it is "self split up of secular base" that make transcendent and empirical leave and contradict each other and during splitting up purely transcendent God and purely empirical nature (having nothing to do with human), and transcendent and empirical dimensions of practice are obstructed so practice becomes abstract. When the transcendent dimension is obstructed materialism of the old type appears and when the empirical one obstructed idealism does and in the abstract to keep both transcendent and empirical develops dualism. Practice that its transcendent and empirical dimensions are both manifested is concrete so that it can make the two become a unit, so that Kant’s future metaphysics can be achieved. But achievement is also critique and disappearance because Marx criticized splitting secular world so that all the philosophic and closed systems which only depend on abstract speculation die.The freedom concept which was established in Marx’s "Doctoral Thesis" is definite, and he searched the way for definite freedom to actualize itself in the empirical world so freedom is transcendental. Kant held morality which bases on transcendent freedom is transcendent. Marx’s moral concept came from Kant. Marx didn’t talk about the transcendent feature but this does not prove that he denied the feature and does not prove he rejected morality. Only because the transcendent of morality is pure so that it cannot actualize itself in the empirical world he rejected it. Facing the capital’s sin, he tried to make morality be truly put into effect and he was not satisfied with morally censuring. So Marx turned the opposition between transcendent and empirical into the question how the transcendent morality possible in the empirical history.Morality is absent from the capital society because the capital deprives morality of the transcendent feature. Transcendent morality must empirically unfold itself to become real but the empirical makes empiricists freak out and deny the transcendent of morality and Marx’s philosophy. The transcendent feature of morality and it empirically unfolding are conflicting and this makes the history develop. Marx stood on the conflict to research the world then to empirically settle the conflict and this makes morality be possible in history. From the transcendent morality’s point of view, history is the subjective process that human being "changes the world"; from the empirical history’s point of view, history is the objective process that the contradiction unfolds itself to form a rule. During practice, the two processes are one for they are the different conclusions when you investigate one thing in different ways.But for Marx, there is no morality which is outside history because morality is the product of history. As expression of human being’s free and social nature, morality is in history. History is that practice unfolds itself, and in practice people find their free nature and find they are "class things that exist" and "social animals" but the object-oriented nature in turn rules people. When people were primarily with their nature they didn’t see morality while when they lose it (that is they are ruled by the object-oriented nature) people begin concentrating on morality and it becomes concept going onto the stage of philosophy and history. Morality is absent as soon as it appears on the stage so that it is the essential content of practice of modern society that to investigate how to make morality truly put into effect, that is practice is the real way for human being to get its class nature.For that matter, in this paper we will unfold according to the relationship between transcendent and empirical dimensions of Marx’s philosophy. There are some levels among different parts, such as after talking about the two dimensions we go into the relationship between them. At the same time, on some sense different parts are also at the same level for when we talk about the transcendent we can’t leave the empirical, and vice versa. There is another thing that some titles of sections do not seem to conform to the content very well even the answer after a title will be enhanced and replenished because Marx’s philosophy is a whole so if you go into it from a part you will touch upon the whole and answer a partial question thoroughly you can’t leave the whole, and if you want to show clearly the whole you must be from some part.更多还原