西方人本主义马克思主义的迷失与回应

西方马克思主义者将马克思主义人本主义化 ,并形成一种世界性的哲学思潮。然而 ,作为其理论基础的哲学人道主义却遭到了西方“反人本主义者”的尖锐批判 ,阿尔都塞甚至提了“马克思主义是理论上反人道主义”的著名论断。而马克思本人对人本主义的批判则更为彻底 ,更为深刻。     

空无与黑夜:青年阿尔都塞的哲学关键词

本文主要讨论了青年阿尔都塞哲学中思想的多重理论逻辑。作者简述了青年阿尔都塞哲学思想的一般发展线索,特别是指认出鲜为人知的作为天主教徒和受黑格尔哲学影响的两个异质思想阶段,并着重探讨了贯穿青年阿尔都塞思想中的空无本体论和主体之缺席说,以及这些思想对后来阿尔都塞哲学的根本性影响。     

论历史主义科学哲学的发生及其概念运动的动力

库恩哲学概念的特殊性来自于其思想的历史主义倾向。本文通过讨论库恩历史主义科学哲学的发生来揭示理解库恩哲学概念的维度,同时认为历史主义的“困境”是一种内部矛盾,也正是推动库恩哲学概念如“不可通约性”延展其丰富性的动力所在。     

福柯政治历史主义探究

"主体""历史"和"国家"是福柯思想中密切相关的三个重要论题。福柯的反人类学主体主义决定了其采取政治历史主义立场。此种政治历史主义不仅实施"区域批判",构建"反科学"和"反历史",以拯救"边缘知识"和"被征服的知识",还依据战争图式来探索历史-政治场域内权力关系的运作,阐发了以布兰维里耶为代表的、不同于以往哲学-法律话语的历史-政治话语,勾勒了西方生命权力形式从17世纪初到20世纪中叶的近现代演变史,展现了福柯政治历史主义之反普遍主义、反主体主义、反柏拉图主义、反霍布斯主义、反卢梭主义和反马基雅维里主义的理论实质和思想创新。现代性批判的重点主要因福柯的思想工作而从19世纪的经济关系转移到20世纪的权力关系。     

论坛荟萃

陈先达:关于主体和主体性问题 在哲学领域里,主体是个热门课题。国内外不少学者在这方面做了有益的探索。它拓宽了哲学研究领域,展示了新的哲学视角。但不可否认的是,自恩格斯逝世,特别是从本世纪20年代开始,主体这个哲学问题变成了一些人手中掷向马克思主义哲学的“砖头”。在西方人本主义思潮中,以人为出发点和归宿的人本主义,与他们在主体问题上倡导的以主体为出发点和归宿的唯主体主义是一刀两刃。这种思潮对我国是有影响的。我们同样经历了从以人为出发点和归宿的明显的人本主义,转向以主体为出发点和归宿的隐蔽的人本主义。有些人还给主体性问题以明显的政治涵义。这说明主体和主体性问题确实存在理论甚至政治分歧。     

阿尔都塞对斯宾诺莎的回溯

在第二国际之后,阿尔都塞更为明确地将辩证唯物主义的史前史从德国古典哲学前溯至斯宾诺莎。通过有关研究,阿尔都塞确证了马克思哲学的"科学历史结构",认为拒绝开端与主体,使马克思接近斯宾诺莎并克服了黑格尔的思辨辩证法,成就了肯定辩证法。回溯斯宾诺莎的目的是"摆脱哲学与政治之间的可疑的区分",并确证其"哲学实践"理论,为当代激进理论的复兴开放理论资源。     

“偶然相遇的唯物主义”及其当代理论效应的批判性考察——基于阿尔都塞对精神分析学的再判断

阿尔都塞晚期以“偶然相遇”的方式对唯物主义作出了极具创新性的理解，这一思想转变集中体现在他对精神分析学的再判断之中。一方面，阿尔都塞对精神分析中的结构主义要素进行了批判，并从“偶然性”出发强调了精神分析的唯物主义特质。另一方面，他把精神分析作为一种内在动力，推进了“相遇的唯物主义”的发展和成熟。由精神分析所体现和催化的“偶然的唯物主义”意味着对以意识哲学为代表的同一性学说的深度反思和批判，“偶然相遇的唯物主义观”的形成则加深了对客观现实性的聚焦和关切。总体而言，阿尔都塞基于精神分析学对“偶然相遇的唯物主义”的探讨，既构成了西方当代唯物主义和“后马克思主义”的重要思想资源，又同时呈现出疏离马克思主义哲学基本原理及其规律性认识的局限性。     

美学革命:打开意识形态的枷锁——从阿尔都塞的意识形态理论到马尔库塞的新感性

阿尔都塞理论体系中影响最深远的是他的意识形态理论。他借用拉康的镜像理论和伪个人主体的观念,改造了传统的马克思主义意识形态理论,提出意识形态国家机器的概念。他指出意识形态将个人传唤为主体和个人对意识形态的自动臣服,作为对人本主义哲学自欺行径的一种反驳。面对意识形态对个人的辖制,尤其是它通过文学艺术对人产生的一种隐性的控制,马尔库塞提出的新感性可以对摆脱意识形态桎梏产生一定的启示作用。意识形态无处不在,但是我们可以通过美学革命将其导向对人的正确引导。     

对黑格尔哲学的新探索——《黑格尔走向<逻辑学>的道路》简评

1984年莫斯科“科学”出版社出版了一本研究黑格尔的最新著作:《黑格尔走向<逻辑学>的道路。系统性原则和历史主义原则的形成》。全书分三篇:第一篇“从系统性和历史主义问题看黑格尔哲学发展的最初阶段”;第二篇“《精神现象学》中的系统性思想和历史主义思想;     

《回到马克思》的阿尔都塞情结

张一兵教授《回到马克思》一书 ,是一部从经济学语境出发探求马克思哲学思想的重要的学术著作。然而 ,细读该书 ,我们却愈发感到其中渗透着浓烈的阿尔都塞情结 ,现就其中的具体问题 ,求教于张一兵教授。一、从《1 84 4年手稿》到《关于费尔巴哈》的解读在《回到马克思》中 ,张一兵认为 ,在马克思《1 84 4年经济学哲学手稿》中有“两种完全异质的理论逻辑和话语并行” ,一条是人本主义异化逻辑线索 ,另一条是从现实出发的客观逻辑线索 ,不过只有人本主义异化逻辑线索才“在这一文本中始终占主导地位 ,即统摄性的权力话语” ,从现实出发的客观…     

胡塞尔现象学的历史主义批判及其启示

该文从胡塞尔在《哲学作为严格的科学》中对历史主义的批判入手,继而分析他在《欧洲科学的危机与超越论的现象学》中对历史主义问题的阐述,最后对胡塞尔的历史哲学观点及其对我们的启示进行简单的总结。     

Wilhelm Windelband and the problem of relativism

This paper analyzes the shifts in Wilhelm Windelband’s ‘critical philosophy of values’ as it developed hand in hand with his understanding of relativism. The paper has two goals. On the one hand, by analyzing the role that relativism played in his philosophical project, it seeks to contribute to a better understanding of Windelband's intellectual development in the context of historicism and Neo-Kantianism. On the other hand, by highlighting Windelband’s contribution to the understanding of relativism, it sheds light on an important episode in the history of that problem. The paper distinguishes between three phases in Windelband’s thinking and shows that his views about relativism changed in close connection with his conception of history. The early Windelband thought that historicism was compatible with absolute validity because he was firmly convinced of historical progress. The mature Windelband rejected progress as a means for justifying validity and put the problem of relativism into sharp relief. In response to the failure of his mature philosophy to fend off relativism, the later Windelband strengthened the role of history again. The paper concludes that Windelband’s significance lies not in his arguments against relativism, but rather in having furthered philosophical understanding of the problems at stake.     

The gift of Mexican historicism

The focus of this paper is Mexican historicism. It has three objectives: first, to introduce English-speaking readers to the nature and history of Mexican historicism; second, to defend Mexican historicism against the charges of relativism usually raised against historicism in general and “Mexican” philosophy in particular; and third, to argue for what I call the transcendental, or alternatively, “liberatory,” nature of Mexican historicism—a nature with philosophical and political consequences. The hope is that by making the clarifications and determinations made here, the tradition of Mexican philosophy, of which Mexican historicism is a key moment, may find its place in the increasingly pluralistic US philosophical landscape.     

言·意·理——朱熹的《四书》诠释方法:语言——文献

《四书》是先秦的历史文本 ,理学是两宋的时代思潮 ,它们之间存在着历史时代的差异。朱熹将《四书》诠释过程规定为 :先达之言→圣人之意→天地之理 ,就是希望通过“语言———文献”的诠释方法 ,来解决《四书》诠释中历史性与时代性的差别问题。朱熹的《四书》学诠释获得了巨大的成功 ,这不仅是由于他的理学适应了两宋以后思想文化变革发展的时代性需要 ,同时也因为他的《四书》学重新发现了那已经失传的儒学学统。     

Cultural roots of Russian sophiology

Conclusion The development of Russian culture predetermined three propensities which form the intellectual framework of Russian national philosophy—historicism, mysticism and aestheticism. The most significant conceptions of Russian philosophy, united by the idea and image of Sophia, are defined by this framework. There is no contradiction in Russian philosophy between rational and mystical modes of thought because they are complementary in this tradition. It is, however, necessary to redefine the conception of rationality. I would like to finish with Solovyov's words: “The idea of a nation is not what it thinks of itself in time, but what God thinks of it in eternity”. I am very grateful to Dr. Graeme Marshall for his support and help.     

What,After All,Is the Work of Culture?

This paper offers an overview of Joseph Margolis’s philosophy of culture, highlighting how Margolis’s radical historicism is not inconsistent with our realistic intuitions regrading facts and objectivity. While Margolis identifies interpretation as the work of culture, the paper suggests that a much more basic sense of human labor needs to be thematized more fully than Margolis does in any defensible account of culture. Margolis of course appreciates work in this sense, but he does not consistently make it integral to his conception of culture. Even so, what he so forcefully defends is, as one commentator has put it, “beautiful. It’s also erudite, elegant, and insightful (and frightfully, dialectically intricate).”     

Nietzsche on Nobility and the Affirmation of Life

In this paper I explore Nietzsche's thinking on the notions of nobility and the affirmation of life and I subject his reflections on these to criticism. I argue that we can find at least two understandings of these notions in Nietzsche's work which I call a 'worldly' and an 'inward' conception and I explain what I mean by each of these. Drawing on Homer and Dostoyevsky, the work of both of whom was crucial for Nietzsche in developing and exploring his notion of worldly nobility and affirmation, I then go on to argue that Nietzsche provides us with no concrete examples of worldly nobles and that, given his historicism, he cannot. Thus Nietzsche's thinking here is broken-backed. I turn, therefore, to explore the inward notions of nobility and affirmation. Discussing Montaigne and Napoleon in the context of Nietzsche's philosophy, I argue that we can make good sense in Nietzschean terms of someone's affirming his own life in an inward sense. This, however, opens up the difference between someone's affirming his own life and his affirming life überhaupt, and I argue that Nietzsche needs to be able to make sense not just of the former but also of the latter. Referring once again to Dostoyevsky, I suggest that Nietzsche can only do so by accepting the idea that all human beings possess dignity qua human beings. This thought is, however, one that he rejects. Thus Nietzsche's reflections in this area cannot be rendered finally plausible since they depend upon something which can find no room in his philosophy.     

由康有为论近代人道主义与传统儒学的关系

中国近代人道主义与传统儒学的关系是一个令人深思的问题。康有为用人道主义思想否定了封建道德纲常对人的束缚 ,但并不否定儒学 ,而是认为用人道主义阐释的儒学是真正孔子儒学。过去一般认为康有为这是打着孔子的旗号宣传自己的人道主义思想 ,其实不完全如此 ,康有为实际上是用人道主义改造传统儒学 ,试图使儒学在近代蜕变为人道主义化的新形态儒学。同时 ,康有为也用传统儒学改造了西方人道主义思想 ,否定了西方人道主义中的个人主义观念。康有为的这些思想代表着中国近代思想启蒙的重要特点 ,显示了人道主义思想与中国传统儒学在近代的相互融合、相互影响。     

Between Darwin and Hegel: On Dewey's Concept of Experience

"Experience" is so central to Dewey's philosophy that one must,first of all,understand what he means by the term.Diverging from the traditional conception of experience,Dewey's understanding involves two dimensions,namely,naturalism and historicism;in this,it can be seen as the unification of Darwinism and Hegelianism.Without attending to its dimension of naturalism,one would ignore experience's basic character,namely that of receptivity,while without attending to the aspect of historicism,one would ignore experience's dimension of meaning,its character of spontaneity.Dewey's notion of experience is unique.Its true value can be seen more clearly in comparison with the conceptions of experience advanced by Quine and McDowell.     

SPECTERS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY: Charles Taylor and the Problem of Historicism

This paper identifies and analyzes the problem of historicism in Charles Taylor's work overall, but with particular emphasis on his most recent publication, A Secular Age. I circumscribe the problem of historicism through reference to the nineteenth‐century German philosophical tradition in which it developed, in particular in the thought of Wilhelm Dilthey. I then trace the structural similarities between the notions of history to be found in the thought of Taylor and Dilthey and how these structural similarities raise worries associated with the problem of historicism. I argue that the structural aporia of historicism evident in Taylor's work brings to light a live philosophical problem that is basic to theoretical debates in the study religion.