青年黑格尔与启蒙--兼论理论与实践的关系

Young Hegel and the Enlightenment --Rethinking the Relationship Between Theory and Practice

根据"Aufkl?rung"及相关词在黑格尔早期(1785-1800)作品中出现的情况可知,启蒙运动构成黑格尔的教育背景,青年黑格尔首先像门德尔松和康德一样肯定启蒙或启蒙运动在科学、艺术、宗教、历史和政治等方面的重要性,同时黑格尔在这段时期对启蒙运动的批判可分为两个阶段:一是青年黑格尔在道德宗教层面批判启蒙理智不能真正推动人们的道德和宗教情感;二是青年黑格尔在历史性、多样性和现实性层面批判启蒙概念的抽象性和同质性。门德尔松、康德与青年黑格尔对启蒙运动的态度有同有异,且都涉及如何处理理论与实践的关系问题。康德和门德尔松的划界方案与黑格尔的和解方案都存在问题,或许更为可取的做法是在划界基础上对理论问题采取理论思维,对实践问题采取实践思维。

By searching for "Aufkl?rung" and its derivatives in the young Hegel’s works(1785-1800), we can find that firstly, the Enlightenment is the background to Hegel’s education, and secondly, like Mendelssohn and Kant, he highly values the important role of the Enlightenment in science, art, religion, history and politics, and thirdly, Hegel’s critique of the Enlightenment during this period can be divided into two stages. In the first stage, when talking about religion and morality, Hegel points out that the Enlightenment and Understanding cannot really promote people’s moral and religious feelings. In the second stage, by emphasizing history, diversity and reality, Hegel criticizes the abstraction and homogeneity of the Enlightenment. Mendelssohn, Kant and the young Hegel not only have common attitudes towards the Enlightenment, they also have different views, which involve the relationship between theory and practice. Both Mendelssohn and Kant’s solution of delimitation between theory and practice and Hegel’s solution of reconciliation is problematic. It is preferable that theory namely that thinking should be put in its proper place of cognizing principles and praxis, namely that thinking should be put in its proper place of dealing with practice,should be thought of thus.