马克思主义哲学研究范式辨误

Discriminating Mistakes in Marxist Philosophy Research Paradigm

近年来,关于马克思主义哲学研究范式的讨论已经成为学术界关注的热点问题之一,并取得了一些有价值的研究成果。然而,综观研讨现状,也有一些阻碍研讨深入推进的理论误区。这些误区包括:当学术界借用库恩的"范式"概念谈论当下"哲学研究范式"的创新时,学者们所使用的"哲学研究范式"这个概念还是不是库恩意义上的"范式"?当学者们抛弃了库恩赋予"范式"概念的本质规定性而侈谈"哲学研究范式"的时候,这种所谓的"哲学研究范式"究竟是"研究范式"抑或是"研究路径"?对这两个前提性问题的不同理解直接衍生出对如下实质性问题的不同回答,即"文本研究"与"问题研究"是否构成真正的对立以及我们有无必要甚至是否可能确立一种统一的哲学研究范式?尽管对这些问题进行深入的反思尚待时日,但指认出这些理论误区并表明观点,也许有助于马克思主义哲学研究范式讨论的深度推进。

In recent years, in close connection with the major practical problems in China＇s development of economic and society, and in the large background of innovation in Marxist theory, the discussion of Marxist philosophy research paradigm has become one of the interesting topics in academic, and made some valuable research results. However, when we look insight into the discussions, we also found a number of obstacles errors in deep discussions which holdup the promoting in this theory. In short, these errors include the following： When we use Kuhn＇s ＂paradigm＂ concept to talk about current ＂philosophy research paradigm＂ of innovation, the ＂paradigm of philosophy＂ we used is also the sense of Kuhn＇s ＂paradigm＂ or not？ When we abandoned Kuhn＇s ＂paradigm＂ concept to talk about ＂paradigm of philosophy＂, this kind of ＂paradigm of philosophy＂ is ＂paradigm＂ or ＂study path＂？ These two different interpretations directly result in different answers to substantive questions. For example, whether ＂research texts＂ and ＂research problem＂ would constitute a real opposition, as well as if we truly need, and even do we have the possibility to establish a unified philosophical paradigm？ Even though we can not conduct an in-depth answers of these reflections, but preliminary, referring to recognize these errors and showing that our theoretical point of view, would be very helpful for paradigm of Marxist philosophy to promote the depth in discussion.