论文部分内容阅读
赫森的“牛顿《原理》的社会经济根源”一文对科学史的解读作了马克思主义方向探索。至于赫森的尝试是否正统,学界尚无定论。最近,唐文佩博士的论文(《马克思主义科学史的早期尝试——以“赫森论点”为例》载《科学技术哲学研究》2011年第2期)认为赫森科学史的主旨偏离了马克思主义传统,仅在科学内史的解读方面保持一致,原因在于马克思和赫森都未涉足科学内史领域。在笔者看来,赫森科学史的主旨依然延续了马克思主义方向,但在科学内史方面,由于赫森坚持从牛顿的阶级立场论证《原理》的宗教神学情结,这在一定程度上偏离了马克思主义传统。因此,笔者以完全相异的观点对此提出质疑,以期展开更深入的讨论。
Hesse’s “Newton ” principle of “social and economic root ” article on the interpretation of the history of science made the direction of Marxism exploration. As for Hussein’s attempt to be orthodox, the academic community is not conclusive. Recently, Dr. TANG Wen-Pei’s thesis (“The Early Attempt in the History of Science in Marxism - Taking Hussein’s Argument for Example”, Science in Philosophy of Science and Technology, No. 2, 2011) found that the thrust of Hesse’s history of science deviated The Marxist tradition is only consistent in the interpretation of the history of science because both Marx and Hesse are not involved in the field of scientific history. In the author’s opinion, the thrust of Hesse’s history of science still continues Marxist direction. However, in the history of science, Hesse insists on demonstrating the religious theological complex of “Theories” from Newton’s class standpoint, which departs to a certain extent Marxist tradition. Therefore, I challenged this with totally different viewpoints in order to start a more in-depth discussion.