马克思在何种意义上批判黑格尔辩证法的总体性

In What Sense Does Marx Criticize the Totality of Hegel’s Dialectics

摘要:

马克思依据主客体统一的思想内涵, 从生存论、 方法论和论证方式三重视角对黑格尔辩证法的总体性进行了批判。 在生存论上, 马克思揭示黑格尔辩证法以形式批判性遮蔽现实活动非批判性的实质, 驳斥其主客体未经现实批判就达至 _“ 绝对统一_” 的虚假形式。 在方法论上, 马克思在分析黑格尔实现主客体统一所依托的 _“中介_” 时, 批判其肆意移用 _“自我意识_” 代替劳动发挥 _“ 中介_” 作用而导致的逻辑断裂。 在论证方式上, 马克思通过审视黑格尔将 _“ 自我意识_” 的辩证运动直接沿用到剖析现实社会总体性的运思逻辑, 批驳其基于概念展开 _“先验思索_” 的叙述结构。 马克思在三重意义上对黑格尔的批判深刻揭示了黑格尔辩证法的总体性超脱于现实根基、 沉浸于思辨逻辑的局限, 彰显了马克思辩证法的总体性的理论旨趣和现实关怀。

Abstract:

Marx criticizes the totality of Hegel_’s dialectics from three perspectives：existentialism，methodology and argumentation mode. In terms of existential theory，Marx reveals that Hegel_’s dialectics covered the _“non-critical_” essence of its real activities with formal criticism，and believes that Hegel eliminated the contradiction between the state and civil society in reality，which is rooted in the mystical characteristics of Hegel_’s state. Hegel believes that spiritual activities regard reality as a category and all human practices as critical dialectical thinking activities. Disregarding the characteristics of existentialism that the state and civil society，as the substantive existence，change according to the dialectical movement of the subject_’s activity mode，Hegel_’s dialectics also avoids the criticism of the contradiction between the universal interest and the individual interest，revealing the illusory form that the subject and object directly reach the _“unity_” through the _“same_” path without critical movement in the conceptual system. In terms of methodology，when analyzing the _“medium_” that Hegel relies on to achieve the unity of subject and object，Marx criticizes the logical rupture caused by Hegel_’s willfully shifting the role of _“self-consciousness_” instead of labor to play the role of _“medium_”. He believes that Hegel shifts the theoretical perspective to the universal truth of _“absolute freedom_” in order to ensure the _“absolute unity_” of subject and object. The dialectical movement that has caused the _“intermediary_” method to shift from labor to _“self-consciousness_” results in the logical incoherence of the nature of freedom recognized by _“self-consciousness_”，because Hegel causes a logical break when he replaces labor as _“intermediary_” with _“self-consciousness_”. In terms of argumentation methods，Marx，by examining Hegel_’s direct application of the dialectical movement of _“self-consciousness_” to the operational logic of analyzing the totality of real society，criticizes Hegel for being trapped in the _“internal reflection_” of consciousness and failing to demonstrate the understanding that is compatible with the _“external reflection_” of the object，indicating that Hegel covers up the subject_’s actual understanding of external reality. In the final analysis，it is caused by his epistemological insistence on _“absolute unity_”. Marx_’s perspective and criticism of the totality of Hegel_’s dialectics reflect his concern about the process of dialectical unity of the subject through objectified activities and objects in history，indicating that he tries to elaborate the totality thinking of man_’s continuous reflection and reconstruction of himself as a historical existence in practice，and demonstrating a practical argumentation mode of _“thinking from the back_” and a realistic extension of the critical perspective. By criticizing the dimensions of existentialism，methodology and argumentation mode，Marx draws a clear line with Hegel_’s totality theory of dialectics，and unifies the subject and the object concerned by the totality of dialectics on the basis of the relational existence generated by practice，reflecting a perspective extending from philosophical criticism to political economy criticism.