马克思和施蒂纳

作者以《德意志意识形态》中的"圣麦克斯"部分和《唯一者及其所有物》为文本支撑,通过对马克思、施蒂纳、费尔巴哈三人思想关系的细致考察,指出:其一、正是施蒂纳对费尔巴哈的人本学唯物主义的批判,使马克思意识到费尔巴哈人本主义的危险所在,即马克思既要反驳费尔巴哈的人本主义,又要防止自己陷入施蒂纳的极端个人主义;其二、正是施蒂纳对费尔巴哈的批判迫使马克思改变自己的哲学立场,最后使马克思转而批判了费尔巴哈也批判了施蒂纳本人。     

现时代的危机和希望:尼采论虚无主义

虚无主义浓缩了尼采对时代精神的诊断和对西方文化的批判,是尼采后期思想的逻辑起点。本论文对尼采著作和遗稿中关于虚无主义的论述做了清理和分析,指出在尼采思想中,虚无主义既是时代的危机又为新的未来打开了可能性。     

马克思与虚无主义问题

马克思的目的是要说明人对价值的需要无须超越历史就能得到满足。认为善(good)内在于历史上与断言善是与历史相同的并非一回事。马克思并不是一个历史主义者——如罗森所使用的术语——因为他没有把善与"所发生之事"等同起来。罗森认为,马克思必定主张在历史中发生的任何事情都是可允许的。马克思的标准是人,而不是历史中在马克思的特定意义上算作人类的(行动)的所有行动。实际上在历史进程中,绝大多数个体是以一种非人的方式把自己对象化的。这就是马克思把前共产主义时期描述为"前历史"的原因,因为那是这样一段时间,在其中社会存在是人类活动的无意识的产物。只有当诸个体自觉地决定其生活并把物质世界置于合作性控制之下,恰当意义上的历史才真正开始。     

谁是虚无主义的“极致”?——海德格尔存在论视域中的马克思与尼采思想比较

根据海德格尔的存在论,马克思和尼采思想都是形而上学的完成,都是现代技术的形而上学基础,都属于追问存在者而遗忘了存在的西方形而上学传统,因而都是虚无主义的极致。但是实际上,马克思思想已经不再追问存在者之为存在者的真理,因而不是形而上学的完成;也不再强调人的表象意志,因而不是现代技术的形而上学基础;更没有主张人对自然的征服,因而不是遗忘存在的形而上学。马克思思想因此和尼采思想存在根本区别,从而不可能是虚无主义,遑论"虚无主义的极致"。     

马克思与尼采对“现实”的理解

对于马克思主义哲学来说，关注现实、从现实出发、研究现实问题，是一个非常重要和非常基础性的问题。可什么是“现实”？如何才能走向“现实”呢？这个问题值得深入探究。从黑格尔、谢林、费尔巴哈、马克思、赫斯甚至施蒂纳，一直到尼采，都强调回归“现实”、从“现实”出发的重要性。     

虚无主义问题：从尼采到鲍德里亚

虚无主义是尼采对西方文化的诊断.尼采认为,要摆脱虚无主义就必须进行价值重估,重申权力意志的创造性力量.虽然海德格尔与德鲁兹对尼采的评价大不相同,但在对权力意志的创造性特征的理解上,他们具有相似性.鲍德里亚认为,这种创造性的思想仍然是一种现代性的思想,它以"真实"为条件,创造就是将真实呈现出来.这种创造性的理念仍然是合乎资本逻辑的意识形态.在"超真实"时代,虚无主义遵循的是一种消失的逻辑.只有这种逻辑,才能摆脱现代意识形态的效应,并以此为基础来探索现代文化的替代模式.     

虚无主义、语言和创造性：尼采与德里达的界限

尼采和德里达对虚无主义危机做出了不同的回应.这是因为作为主体解读活动及其结果,虚无主义危机本身表现出两可性:一方面,形而上学的真理意志已经演变为一种桎梏,带来了虚无主义的"虚无化"或人类创造性和历史的终结;另一方面,危机也构成主体走出形而上学的条件.德里达更注重对前者进行否定性批判,揭开了形而上学追求超验真理所带的虚无性,或追问本源所掩盖的"本源"缺失.尼采开启了这种批判,不过他更渴望逆转这种潮流,进行更具建设性的重构,而不只是把主体抛在丧失了"意义"的空场上.其目的是脱离消极的虚无主义,复兴各种冲动在主体创造性中的作用.     

西谷启治的虚无主义论及海德格尔批判

二战后的日本弥漫着何去何从的虚无氛围。面对此历史现实的京都学派哲学家西谷启治,以自身的虚无情境出发检视源自欧洲的虚无主义之历史脉络,借以追寻克服虚无主义的道路。在欧洲虚无主义的历史脉络中,尼采与海德格尔的虚无主义最为重要。因为两者的虚无主义,皆不离人类的实存。唯一不同的是,尼采从自身实存出发,海德格尔则从其存在论出发。然而,先于西谷对两者提出批判的是同学派哲学家田边元。田边以其忏悔道哲学立场分判尼采与海德格尔的哲学属于智者哲学,两者的虚无主义论述尚未完全脱离理性主体立场,因此无法走向彻底的否定即肯定无即有之道路。田边这一思路为西谷对尼采与海德格尔的批判提供了一个指引。西谷主张以空的立场来克服两者的虚无主义立场便是明证。     

资本逻辑与虚无主义的批判

伯曼指出:对于现代资产阶级社会的虚无主义力量,马克思的理解要比尼采深刻的多。然而,尼采和虚无主义的内在关系已经昭然于天下,马克思的相关思想却因种种原因而被遮蔽和耽搁了。现代人精神上的死亡状况表明,从马克思哲学的角度探寻虚无主义蔓延的根源乃是一个迫切任务。     

尼采超人的罪性问题

尼采1881年8月悟出了永恒复返思想,这是尼采思想成熟的决定性标志,由此,尼采心中的查拉图斯特拉和超人形象才清晰起来。查拉图斯特拉,超人的先知,宣讲永恒复返学说的教师。查拉图斯特拉的宣讲是为了培养未来的高贵的人民,从这样的人民中产生出超人,尼采在旧约的远古犹太民族中曾经看到过这样的人民。尼采思考的罪性问题是超人精神限度的一个根本问题,罪性就是人的有限性问题,超人要成为超人,必须面对罪性问题。     

Nihilism,Nietzsche and the Doppelganger Problem

Nihilism, Nietzsche and the Doppelganger Problem Was Nietzsche a nihilist? Yes, because, like J. L. Mackie, he was an error-theorist about morality, including the elitist morality to which he himself subscribed. But he was variously a diagnostician, an opponent and a survivor of certain other kinds of nihilism. Schacht argues that Nietzsche cannot have been an error theorist, since meta-ethical nihilism is inconsistent with the moral commitment that Nietzsche displayed. Schacht’s exegetical argument parallels the substantive argument (advocated in recent years by Wright and Blackburn) that Mackie’s error theory can’t be true because if it were, we would have to give up morality or give up moralizing. I answer this argument with a little bit of help from Nietzsche. I then pose a problem, the Doppelganger Problem, for the meta-ethical nihilism that I attribute to Mackie and Nietzsche. (If A is a moral proposition then not-A is a moral proposition: hence not all moral propositions can be false.) I solve the problem by reformulating the error theory and also deal with a variant of the problem, the Reinforced Doppelganger, glancing at a famous paper of Ronald Dworkin’s. Thus, whatever its demerits, the error theory, is not self-refuting, nor does it require us to give up morality.     

Bloom and His Critics: Nietzsche, Nihilism, and the Aims of Education

The central questions raised by Allan Bloom's The Closing of theAmerican Mind are often overlooked. Among the most important ofBloom's themes is the impact of nihilism upon education. Bloom condemnsnihilism. Interestingly, we find among his critics two alternativejudgments. Richard Schacht, citing Nietzsche, asserts that nihilism,while fruitless in and of itself, is a necessary prerequisite tosomething higher. Harry Neumann, affirming the accuracy of nihilism,declares that both Bloom and Nietzsche reject nihilism out of ignoranceborn of weakness. All three philosophers understand that the purpose ofeducation emerges from one's position on nihilism. If nihilism is true,then it is senseless and cowardly to teach one's students that there aregrounds for moral judgments. On the other hand, if one believes thatthere is an objective higher and lower in moral matters, then one cannotat the same time consistently endorse nihilism or the atheism upon whichit rests. There is reason to believe that a consistent nihilism isimpossible and hence that the concept is bankrupt. But then something istrue, and there are grounds for moral judgment. Education must respondaccordingly. But even Bloom with his emphasis on the Great Books fallsshort of what is required. An education which aims to defeat nihilismmust, at the very least, hold out the promise that through thecultivation of reason one may indeed arrive at the truth.     

Robert G. Morrison,Nietzsche and Buddhism: A Study in Nihilism and Ironic Affinities

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion -     

Heidegger and Nietzsche; the Question of Value and Nihilism in relation to Education

This paper is a philosophical analysis ofHeidegger and Nietzsche's approach tometaphysics and the associated problem ofnihilism. Heidegger sums up the history ofWestern metaphysics in a way which challengescommon sense approaches to values education.Through close attention to language, Heideggerargues that Nietzsche inverts thePlatonic-Christian tradition but retains theanthropocentric imposition of values. Ihave used Nietzsche's theory to suggest aslightly different definition of metaphysicsand nihilism which draws attention to theontological parameters of human truths as astruggle between competing sets of conflictingor contradictory values (perspectives) thatopens space for rethinking and re-educatinghuman possibilities. How this openness willshow up in educational theory and practice isonly beginning to be evoked. The twophilosophers indicate an approach to issues ofmorality, decision making and knowledgeproduction which may surprise and disconcerttraditional views. As the forefathers ofpost-structuralist thinking, Nietzsche andHeidegger offer a critique of Humanism whileretaining the Renaissance tradition ofpositioning education as the well spring ofvalues in society. It is through the generationof new knowledges, the development of critiqueand the nurturing of character that societyreformulates itself in relation to the earth.The ethical evaluation of these new forms ofknowledge is crucial to the creative and caringregeneration of the human environment, asopposed to the corrosive adoption ofconsumerism and usury.     

Nihilism: Beyond Optimism and Pessimism

Studies in Philosophy and Education - Is the youth culture, or more precisely aparticular kind of it, to be characterized as “nihilistic”? And is this a threat or ablessing for...