马克思“历史科学”的当代解读

发布时间：2018-08-08 20:05

【摘要】：如何阐释"唯一的""历史科学"这一概念,学界主要表现为两种不同的解读模式。一种是传统哲学教科书的解读方式,将"历史唯物主义"解释成"辩证唯物主义"在社会历史领域的"推广和运用"。但由于"两种唯物主义"对"物"的指认不同,导致了"历史与自然关系"的割裂,依然未能超越旧唯物主义的解读模式。另一种是黑格尔主义的解读方式,通过与黑格尔历史哲学的比较,阐释"历史科学"的科学内涵。但这种解读方式将"历史科学"这一概念当成一个思辨性的东西,混淆了历史科学与思辨历史哲学的界限,从而弱化了历史科学的科学性。因此,我们有必要重新考察这两种解读模式,在澄清两种解释模式的理论困难的过程中,指明只有在《资本论》的语境中,才能实现历史与自然关系的内在统一,划清历史科学与思辨历史哲学的界限,从而深化对马克思关于"历史科学"这一概念的理解。
[Abstract]:How to interpret the concept of "unique" and "historical science" is mainly manifested in two different modes of interpretation. One is the interpretation of traditional philosophy textbooks, which interprets "historical materialism" as "promotion and application" of dialectical materialism in the field of social history. However, due to the different identification of "things" between "two kinds of materialism", the "relationship between history and nature" is divided, and it still fails to transcend the interpretation mode of the old materialism. The other is the way of interpretation of Hegel's doctrine, which explains the scientific connotation of "historical science" by comparing with Hegel's philosophy of history. However, this way of interpretation takes the concept of "historical science" as a speculative thing, confuses the boundary between historical science and speculative historical philosophy, and thus weakens the scientific nature of historical science. Therefore, it is necessary for us to re-examine the two modes of interpretation. In the course of clarifying the theoretical difficulties of the two modes of interpretation, we should point out that only in the context of Capital can we realize the internal unity of the relationship between history and nature. In order to deepen Marx's understanding of the concept of "historical science", the boundary between historical science and speculative historical philosophy is drawn.
【作者单位】：吉林大学哲学基础理论研究中心暨哲学社会学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金项目“历史唯物主义中的语言学问题研究”(17BZX025) 吉林大学基本科研业务费项目“唯物史观的认知隐喻学研究”(2017BS006)
【分类号】：A811

【相似文献】