现代哲学语境中历史唯物主义的“哲学革命”

现代哲学有一种思潮就是“终结哲学”,马克思也明确提出了“消灭哲学”的口号,因此也具有了现代哲学之维,但无论是“终结哲学”还是“消灭哲学”,都面对一个“显白”的理论难题:当我们“终结”或“消灭”了哲学之后,又该怎样来言说“哲学革命”呢?以海德格尔、维特根斯坦、罗蒂为代表的“终结哲学”的现代哲学思潮又回归到了哲学的地基上,以哲学本身来“终结哲学”,这既吊诡又反讽。反观马克思,他的“消灭哲学”就是“实现哲学”,而且是实现于政治经济学批判当中,这才是真正的彻底的“哲学革命”。

Society and State in Marcuse and Hegel

In the 40s and the 50s of the last century existed a largely shared conviction amongst the majority of social scientists in the US regarding the explanation of the theoretical philosophical roots of National Socialism. Contrarily to European writers, who searched its philosophical origins in irrational philosophical traditions, in the US, they relied upon the perception that Hegel＇s Philosophy of State was the most relevant ideological basis of National Socialism. Hegel＇s idea for the need of a strong state, seemed to clearly support the hypothesis. Herbert Marcuse, exiled in the United States, bad to confront himself with this conviction that academic colleague shared. This theoretical hypothesis was in tune to the Zeitgeist and the political context, in which anticommunism was growing stronger by the day and where the cold war was developing. Associating Hegel and National Socialism implied, for most of the hypothesis defenders yet another vantage point： it could discredit also Marx, for the tights links between his philosophical thinking and Hegel＇s one. For Marcuse this hypothesis was even more problematic knowing that in Germany, national socialist philosophers had rejected Hegel from the very first day their party came to power. In this article we try to analyze Marcuse＇s respective philosophical argument. The point of departure of this reconstruction is the philosophical interpretation of Hegel＇s theory of the State. Further than the historical context, the debate on Hegel and his theory of the State, is very relevant for today＇s debates, dominated by neoliberal ideologies, which often are starting from similar theoretical errors than the mentioned. In both cases exists a lack of understanding of the classic bourgeois content within the concept of the State, based on the French Revolution.

Wittgenstein and Kuhn on Paradigm

Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty develops a revolutionary conception of knowledge, of philosophy of language, and of philosophy of science. Very close to language-games is a concept that is important but did not attract much attention, the one of paradigm. In this paper this concept is analyzed together with notions such as context, use, reference, language-games, reality, science, truth, method, propositions, among others by means of which a new view of epistemology emerges. As for Kuhn, paradigm is his most known notion and his biggest contribution to innovate the history of science. I contrast these two conceptions and conclude that they have different uses, and that some difficulties that emerge from Kuhn＇s concept of paradigm would be dissolved if we take into consideration Witt^enstein＇s aooroaches of language and the uses it has in our life forms.

Cultural logic of Marx's philosophical revolution and its implications in modern times

Inflated nationalism, extreme statism and a purely speculative form of expression were the three main components of the modem mainstream culture of the German nation. Only through a scientific critique of these three main components could a new philosophy develop. That is the cultural logic of Marx＇s philosophical revolution, which emerged and developed through a critique of historiography, socialism and political economy, rather than in an isolated framework of traditional philosophy. The cultural logic of Marx＇s philosophical revolution offers two lessons for us in developing Marxist philosophy in China. First, to fail to understand and study Marxism as a whole and conduct dialogue and interaction across all fields of Marxism would be a deviation from the cultural logic of Marx＇s philosophical revolution and the path of development of Marxist philosophy. Second, the core task of Marxist philosophical studies is the Sinicization of Marxist philosophy in China. This involves making methodological summaries of contemporary scientific findings and reflecting upon the most important issues of Chinese-style socialism, providing at the philosophical level and from the perspective of world history a scientific interpretation of the process, mechanisms, characteristics, patterns and trends of contemporary Chinese social development that will yield a guide for practice.

An Important Problem in the Holistic Study of Marxist Doctrine ——The Inner Logic and Implications of Marx＇s Philosophical and Economic Revolution

The inner logical connections between Marx＇s philosophical and economic revolutions are a crucial issue in the study of Marx＇s theory in its totality. They unfold in the course of Marx＇s critique of political economy, which goes beyond the domain of political economy, and his critique of philosophy, which goes beyond the domain of philosophy. Specifically, Marx formulated his methodology for political economy in his critique of philosophy and at the same time expanded the achievement of his initial completion of a philosophical revolution in his critique of political economy. Finally, in these two ＂interactive＂ critiques, he basically accomplished his economic revolution and perfected both the substance and form of his philosophical revolution. The inner logic connecting Marx＇s philosophical and economic revolutions offers important implications for research on Marxist philosophy in contemporary China. That is to say, the integrity of the theory of Marx （and Engels）, the founder（s） of Marxism, in fact implies a fundamental methodological requirement for later generations in studying and developing Marxist philosophy, namely, that they should always keep in mind the holistic nature of theory. Therefore, we need to have a cross-disciplinary consciousness which consists of critical awareness, problem awareness and awareness of the times.

The ＂Living Wisdom＂ of China＇s Development Experience

The deepening and widening of globalization have profoundly modified the world＇s political, economic and cultural landscapes as we know them. It calls for not only a green revolution in our ways of production and ways of life, but also a restructuring of the ＂knowledge-oriented＂ model of intellectual production that has served as bedrock to support the single-minded mentality of developmentalism. One of the possible routes to arrive at a new Weltanschauung is what I have termed as the ＂living wisdom＂ that can help to explicate the inexplicables by existing social theories. I argue in this paper that the Chinese living wisdom offers a nutshell view of how traditional resources can be made accessible for us to respond to current unprecedented chaJJenges facing htunamty. It is as much a best oppommky in the ＂metropolitan moment＂ for a ＂China＇s representation＂ as for other civilizations, cultures and nations, such as the ＂eco--social time＂ in primitive societies, the ancient European philosophies on ontology and cosmology, and the rejection of sagehood and intellect by Zhuangzi.