“两次转变论”的文本依据及其方法论意义——兼答王东教授等

The Formation and Its Meaning of "Two Transformations of Marx’s Philosophy"——Answers to Wang Dong and some-other people by the way

马克思早期思想发展的“两次转变论”解读模式有一个从提出到完善和进一步深化的过程。这一解读模式不同于普列汉诺夫的“三阶段说”。“两次转变论”的关键,是认为马克思1843年底思想转变后并未直接达到实践的(辩证-历史的)唯物主义,中间存在一个以《1844年经济学—哲学手稿》为典型代表的“费尔巴哈式的人本学唯物主义”阶段。马克思此时虽然在论域等方面超出了费尔巴哈,但在整个思维范式上仍然是费尔巴哈式的。同时,在这一阶段,马克思对黑格尔辩证法的批判不是完全拒斥,其中也有肯定的成分,但这种肯定也是在费尔巴哈式的思维范式统摄之下的。必须强调的是,在对马克思、恩格斯哲学发展转变过程的研究中,要注意避免六种倾向:即把猴体颠倒为人体的倾向;目的论、烛引式的倾向;用权威来解释权威的倾向;用文本来解释文本的倾向;绝对化、简单化的倾向;理论和实践、理论立场和政治立场相割裂的倾向等。

The argument that there are two conversions during the development of the earlier thought of Marx has a course from the putting forth of the argument to the development and the further deepening of it. The molder of Two Conversions on the interpretation to the earlier thought of Marx is difference to the view of Three Phases addressed by Plekhanov. The essence of the argument of Two Conversions is this that in the later 1943 after the first conversion of Marx, he did not achieved the Historical Materialism, during the first conversion and the second conversion, there is a phase of Feuerbaehian Humanist-Material- ism, the 1844 Manuscript is the typical text of it. Although Marx had surpassed Feuerbaeh on some aspects such as the fields of the theory, but the molders of the his thoughts were still Feuerbachian. At the same phase, the critics of Marx to the dialectics of Hegel are not negative in each aspect, there are some positive points among them, but that is still under the domination of Feuerbaehian theoretical molders. Follows the answers and interpretations to the questions on the argument of Two Conversions, there is the methodologically signifieanees of the argument of Two Conversions to Text-Interpretation.