哲思式的古典学研究何以可能?——“尼采与维拉莫维茨之争”的来龙去脉

19世纪下半叶,尼采与维拉莫维茨就德国古典学的现实生态展开了一场“学术争论”,具体呈现为两种学术取径,即强调“哲学—美学”体验的人文主义和研究“整体历史”的历史—实证主义的对立。在研究方法上,两者分别为侧重联系古代与现实的哲思式路径和侧重客观标准的科学式路径。尽管这场学术风波源于《悲剧的诞生》有违传统规范的“未来语文学”构想,尼采却未直接回应维拉莫维茨有失斯文的书评,因而难称真正的“争论”。然而鉴于当事者在相关领域影响深远,事件本身不仅牵涉学者的个人气质和治学理念,更关乎人文学科在德国乃至欧洲的整体发展趋势。因而分析此次“争论”的来龙去脉,有助于更全面地认识近代学术的发展历程,揭示其对现代人文研究的启示性意义。

The Historical Forms of Materialism and the Philosophical Domain of Historical Materialism

Natural materialism, humanistic materialism and historical materialism are the three historical forms of materialism. The ＂material＂ in historical materialism is a social thing which is ＂perceptible and imperceptible by the senses＂ and connotes social relations; and the ＂history＂ in historical materialism is the realm in which contradictions between man and nature and between man and society are able to unfold, so historical materialism is ＂actually a critical view of the world＂ that inherently contains dialectics in a ＂rational form.＂ The formulation of historical materialism opened a new path for the development of materialism and even philosophy as a whole. In the course of its critique of capitalist society, which unfolds with capital as a core category, historical materialism sublates abstract existence and discovers real social existence, thus putting an end to metaphysics, which is grounded in abstract ontology.