论文部分内容阅读
阿尔弗雷德·施密特(Alfred Schmidt,1931-)是法兰克福学派第二代的左翼代表。1931年5月19日,施密特出生于德国首都柏林。1957-1961年间,施密特在法兰克福大学攻读哲学、社会学和历史。1960年,在阿多诺的指导下,他完成了题为《马克思的自然概念》的博士论文。随后执教于法兰克福大学和法兰克福劳动学院。1972年起,任法兰克福学派社会研究所所长。施密特的代表性论著有:《马克思的自然概念》(1960年)、《尼采认识论中的辩证法问题》(1963年)、《康德与黑格尔》(1964年)、《列斐伏尔和现代对马克思的解释》(1966年)、《工业社会的意识形态》(1967年)、《经济学批判的认识论概念》(1968年)、《历史与结构》(1971年)、《论批判理论的思想》(1974年)、《什么是唯物主义》(1975年)、《作为历史哲学的批判理论》(1976年)、《观念与世界意志》(1988年)等。这里的5篇文章,分别从不同角度剖析了《马克思的自然概念》一书的理论得失。张一兵的文章着重探询施密特的方法论,重新考察了马克思主义哲学研究与经济学的关系。段方乐的文章揭示了施密特所阐发的马克思的“自然”概念包含着历史唯物主义和旧唯物主义本体论的双重逻辑,张金鹏的文章着力辨识了这种双重逻辑乃是施密特对马克思政治经济学的理解缺失了生产关系这一重要环节所带来的理论后果。颜岩和夏凡的文章则分析了施密特对“唯物主义”的一般理解和施密特对马克思的新唯物主义的特殊理解。希望这一组笔谈的发表,能够引起国内学界对施密特研究的重视,进而促发我们更好地体悟马克思哲学革命的实质。
Alfred Schmidt (1931-) is the leftist representative of the second generation of the Frankfurt school. May 19, 1931, Schmidt was born in the German capital Berlin. During 1957-1961, Schmidt studied philosophy, sociology and history at Frankfurt University. In 1960, under the direction of Adorno, he completed a doctoral dissertation entitled “The Natural Conception of Marx.” He then taught at the University of Frankfurt and the Frankfurt School of Labor. Since 1972, he has been the director of the Frankfurt Institute of Social Studies. Schmidt’s representative articles are: “Marx’s Concept of Nature” (1960), “Dialectics in Nietzsche Epistemology” (1963), “Kant and Hegel” (1964), “Lefebvre And Modern Interpretation of Marx (1966), Ideology of Industrial Society (1967), Epistemological Concepts of Economic Criticism (1968), History and Structure (1971), Criticism Theory of Thought ”(1974),“ What is Materialism ”(1975),“ Critical Theory as a Historical Philosophy ”(1976),“ Concepts and World Will ”(1988). The five articles here analyze the theoretical merits and demerits of “The Concept of Marx’s Nature” from different perspectives. Zhang Yibing’s essay focuses on Schmidt’s methodology and re-examines the relationship between Marxist philosophy and economics. Duan Fangle’s article reveals that the concept of Marx’s “nature” as illustrated by Schmidt contains the dual logic of historical materialism and the old materialist ontology. Zhang Jinpeng’s article attempts to identify that this dual logic is Schmitt’s The understanding of Marx’s political economy lacks the theoretical consequences of this important part of the relations of production. Yan Yan and Xia Fan’s article analyzes Schmidt’s general understanding of “materialism” and Schmidt’s special understanding of Marx’s new materialism. It is hoped that the publication of this group of written speeches can arouse the attention paid by the domestic academic community to Schmidt’s research and further promote us to better understand the essence of the Marxist philosophy revolution.