We Should Pay Attention to Marx’s Critique of Religious Teleology

The renowned American Marxist theorist J. B. Foster holds that, generally speaking, “rational materialism as a complex worldview” includes the following three aspects: first, ontological materialism, which emphasizes the one-sided dependence of social existence on physical existence; second, epistemological materialism, which emphasizes the independent existence of the objects of scientific research; third, practical materialism, which emphasizes the essential role of human transformative forces in the process of social formation change and reproduction. Many people believe that Marx’s materialism is primarily “practical materialism.” But in fact, Marx expounded his practical materialism within “a more general materialist conception of nature and science,” that is, while discussing practical materialism, he “accepted both ‘ontological materialism’ and ‘epistemological materialism.’”

美国著名的马克思主义理论家J．B．福斯特认为，一般说来，作为一种“复杂世界观的理性的唯物主义”包括以下三个方面的内容：其一，本体的唯物主义，即强调社会存在对物理存在的单方面的依赖；其二，认识论的唯物主义，即强调科学研究对象的独立存在；其三，实践唯物主义，即强调人类的变革力量在社会形态变革和再生产过程中的本质作用。许多人都认为马克思的唯物主义主要是“实践唯物主义”。但实际上马克思是在“更普遍的唯物主义自然观和科学观中”来论述他的实践唯物主义的，也就是说马克思在论述实践唯物主义的同时，“既接受了‘本体论的唯物主义’也接受了‘认识论的唯物主义’”。

J. B. Foster also proposes that Marx’s materialism was formed as early as his youth, and that Marx embarked on the path of materialism mainly through his critique of religious teleology. In this process, the materialist theory of Epicurus had an important influence on Marx. He arrived at this conclusion through his study of Marx’s “doctoral dissertation.” Here we examine his study of Marx’s “doctoral dissertation” to see how he argues for this view.

J．B．福斯特还提出，马克思的唯物主义早在青年时期就已形成，而且马克思主要是通过批判宗教目的论走上唯物主义道路的。在这过程中，伊壁鸠鲁的唯物主义的理论对马克思产生了重要的影响。他是借助于对马克思的“博士论文”的研究得出这一结论的。我们在这里探讨一下他对马克思的“博士论文”的研究，看看他是如何论证自己的这一观点的。

I

一

In J. B. Foster’s view, as early as his youth, that is, during the period when Marx was a “Left Hegelian,” he began to reflect on the conflict between speculative philosophy and materialism, striving to transcend the idealism of the “Left Hegelians.” Therefore, Marx’s materialist conception of nature actually began to take shape in his youth, specifically embodied in his study of Marx’s doctoral dissertation *The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature*.

在J．B．福斯特看来，马克思早在青年时期，即马克思作为“左翼黑格尔派”时期，就开始思考思辨哲学与唯物主义之间的冲突，力图超越“左翼黑格尔派”的唯心主义。因此，实际上马克思的唯物主义自然观早在马克思的青年时期就已开始形成，具体就体现在研究马克思的博士论文《德谟克利特和伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的差异》中。

Among so many ancient Greek philosophers, why did Marx have a special fondness for Epicurus, calling him “the greatest Greek Enlightenment thinker”? J. B. Foster believes the reason lies in the fact that Epicurus was the greatest materialist thinker of ancient Greece. He firmly opposes those who regard Marx’s doctoral dissertation as “a description of Epicurean self-consciousness in Hegelian terms,” thereby obliterating “the connection between Epicureanism and the English and French materialist traditions of the Enlightenment.” He emphasizes that Marx’s doctoral dissertation “is not merely a curious work from his period of Hegel’s influence” but actually already transcends Hegel’s viewpoint and “comes to terms with the Epicurean materialist dialectic.” Moreover, Marx’s doctoral dissertation, by “drawing great inspiration from Epicurus,” “made an indirect effort” to “understand the questions posed to Hegelian philosophy by the English and French materialist tradition of the Enlightenment.”

在古希腊这么多的哲学家中，为什么马克思对伊壁鸠鲁情有独钟，把伊壁鸠鲁称为“最伟大的希腊启蒙思想家”? J．B．福斯特认为，原因就在于伊壁鸠鲁是古希腊最伟大的唯物主义思想家。他坚决反对有人把马克思的博士论文看作是“一种用黑格尔的术语来描述伊壁鸠鲁的自我意识”，而抹杀“伊壁鸠鲁主义与启蒙时代英法唯物主义之间的关联”。他强调，马克思的博士论文“不仅仅是他在黑格尔的影响时期留下的奇异之作”，而且实际上已超越了黑格尔的观点而与“伊壁鸠鲁的唯物主义辩证法达成一致”。不仅如此，马克思的博士论文通过“极大地从伊壁鸠鲁那里吸取灵感”，“以间接的努力”“去理解英法启蒙的唯物主义传统向黑格尔哲学提出的问题”。

Marx was devoted to Epicurean materialism. Specifically, which content of Epicurean materialist theory was Marx most interested in? J. B. Foster believes that Marx was most interested in Epicurus’s opposition to religious teleology. Marx highly affirmed Epicurus’s critique and negation of teleology.

马克思衷情于伊壁鸠鲁的唯物主义，那么具体地说马克思主要对伊壁鸠鲁唯物主义理论中的哪一内容最感兴趣呢? J．B．福斯特认为，马克思对伊壁鸠鲁反对宗教目的论最感兴趣。马克思高度肯定伊壁鸠鲁对目的论的批判与否定。

J. B. Foster criticizes some people who, in studying Marx’s doctoral dissertation, neglect or even ignore Marx’s admiration for Epicurus’s opposition to religious teleology. In fact, Marx’s philosophical journey began precisely with this admiration for Epicurus’s opposition to religious teleology. Understanding Marx’s philosophical views in his youth must start from analyzing Marx’s admiration for Epicurus’s opposition to religious teleology. He believes that in his doctoral dissertation, Marx, influenced by Epicurus, first put forward a critique of religion, “calling for the expulsion of all supernatural, teleological principles from nature.” Marx even regarded the opposition to religious teleology as the main characteristic of Epicurean philosophy. Based on Epicurus’s views, Marx pointed out that it is “in fear, especially in the irremovable inner fear,” that “man is passive like an animal,” and “man’s self-determination is completely deprived.” This fear is brought about by religion, and making man passive like an animal is religion’s greatest sin. Precisely because, as Marx revealed, Epicurus’s philosophy is opposed to religion, “Epicurus made the gods disappear from the world,” all supporters of Christianity hated Epicurus so much that they cursed him as a “pig.” Marx and Engels pointed this out in *The German Ideology*: “Lucretius sings the praises of Epicurus as the hero who first overthrew the gods and trampled religion underfoot; therefore, from Plutarch to Luther, all the holy fathers have called Epicurus the foremost atheist philosopher, a pig. And for this reason, Clement of Alexandria says that when Paul vehemently opposed philosophy, he meant only the philosophy of Epicurus.”

J.B.福斯特批评一些人研究马克思的博士论文，忽视甚至无视马克思在这里对伊壁鸠鲁反对宗教目的论的赞赏，实际上马克思的哲学历程正是从赞赏伊壁鸠鲁反对宗教目的论开始的。了解马克思青年时期的哲学观点就得从剖析马克思赞赏伊壁鸠鲁反对宗教目的论入手。他认为，马克思在博士论文中受到了伊壁鸠鲁的影响，第一次提出了对宗教的批判，“呼吁把一切超自然的、目的论的原则从自然中赶走”。马克思甚至把与宗教目的论的对立视为伊壁鸠鲁哲学的主要特征。马克思根据伊壁鸠鲁的观点指出，正是在“恐惧中，特别是在无法消除的内心的恐惧中”，“人像动物那样受动”，“人的自我决定完全被剥夺”，而这种恐惧则是宗教所带来的，使人像动物那样受动是宗教的最大的罪过。正因为正如马克思所揭示的那样伊壁鸠鲁的哲学是与宗教相对立的，“伊壁鸠鲁使上帝从世界上消失了” ，所以基督教的一切支持者都如此地痛恨伊壁鸠鲁，直至把他咒骂为“猪”。马克思和恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中指出了这一点：“卢克莱修歌颂伊壁鸠鲁是最先打倒众神和脚踹宗教的英雄；因此从普卢塔克直到路德，所有的圣师都把伊壁鸠鲁称为头号无神论哲学家，称为猪。也正因为这一点，亚历山大里亚的克雷门才说，当保罗激烈反对哲学时，他所指的只是伊壁鸠鲁的哲学。”

What J. B. Foster wants to illustrate is that Marx gradually formed his own materialism in the process of admiring Epicurus’s opposition to religious teleology. Here Marx “regards the essence of Epicurean materialism as his conception of the mortality of both the human and the cosmos.” In his view, this is the “key to Marx’s study of Epicurus.” The fact that Epicurus expelled the gods from nature deeply influenced Marx and became the cornerstone of Marx’s conception of nature. He believes that the following words of Marx are very revealing: “As long as a single drop of blood pulses in its world-conquering, absolutely free heart, philosophy will always cry out to its opponents with the words of Epicurus: ‘The impious is not he who rejects the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who imposes the opinions of the multitude on the gods.’” In J. B. Foster’s view, what Marx valued was precisely the materialist light and enlightenment that Epicurus brought to humanity in the process of opposing religious teleology. He says: “For Marx, Epicurus symbolizes the bringing of light or enlightenment, an enlightenment that says ‘no’ to the religious conception of nature, a materialism, and a form of naturalism and humanism. Epicurean philosophy values the world of sensation and experience, and also sees the role of reason in explaining this world, so that in explaining the world with reason, there is no need for gods that exist in the interstices of the world.”

J．B．福斯特要想说明的是，马克思在赞赏伊壁鸠鲁反对宗教目的论的过程中逐步形成了自己的唯物主义。马克思在这里“把伊壁鸠鲁唯物主义的本质看作他关于人类宇宙都有死的观念”。在他看来，这是马克思“研究伊壁鸠鲁的钥匙”。伊壁鸠鲁把神赶出自然界这一点深深地影响了马克思，这成为马克思的自然观的基石。他认为马克思的下述话语是非常能说明问题的：“只要哲学还有一滴血在自己那颗要征服世界的、绝对自由的心脏里跳动着，它就将永远用伊壁鸠鲁的话向它的反对者宣称：‘渎神的并不是那抛弃众人所崇拜的众神的人，而是把众人的意见强加于众神的人。’”在J．B．福斯特看来，马克思看重的正是伊壁鸠鲁在反对宗教目的论的过程中给人类所带来的唯物主义的光明和启示，他这样说道：“对马克思来说，伊壁鸠鲁象征着带来了光明或启示，这种启示就是对自然宗教观说‘不’，就是一种唯物主义，也是自然主义和人文主义的一种形式。伊壁鸠鲁哲学重视感觉和经验世界，也看到了理性在解释这一世界中有其作用，从而在用理性在对世界做出解释时无需在世界之间的夹缝中生存着的诸神。”

J. B. Foster certainly also notes that when Marx affirmed Epicurus’s opposition to religious teleology, he was still a member of the Young Hegelians, and Marx’s doctoral dissertation, which expresses his affirmation of Epicurus’s opposition to religious teleology, was only a “transitional work.” But in his view, this does not indicate that Marx’s views at that time had nothing to do with materialism. The key point is that Marx, like other members of the Young Hegelians, regarded Hegelianism as a revolutionary philosophy and emphasized that the revolutionary nature of Hegelian philosophy was mainly embodied in its “anti-religious essence” and in its “integration of reason in the state of ideas into radical Enlightenment thought.” It is precisely for this reason that Marx, as a member of the Young Hegelians, could become devoted to Epicurus’s opposition to religious teleology and embark on the path of materialism. He points out that it is precisely because the transcendence of Hegel’s doctrine incorporates all previous philosophical systems as parts of its own development that “it was possible for Marx to largely identify Epicurus’s revolutionary self-consciousness with English and French materialism.” Marx’s critique of religion took the form of a critique of the philosophy of nature in German ideology, while also enthusiastically absorbing the naturalistic and materialist views of Epicurus and others. He states very affirmatively: “In fact, the contradiction between materialism and speculation is not completely insoluble; Marx has resolutely embarked on the path of materialism, and he is so steadfast that, although his thought is speculative (or idealist) in external form, it is increasingly consistent with materialism in essence.”

J．B．福斯特当然也注意到，马克思在肯定伊壁鸠鲁反对宗教目的论之时还是个青年黑格尔派的成员，而表述马克思肯定伊壁鸠鲁反对宗教目的论的马克思的博士论文还只是一部“过渡时期的著作”。但在他看来，这并不表明马克思当时的观点与唯物主义无缘。全部的关键在于，马克思和其他的青年黑格尔派成员一样，都把黑格尔主义视为是一种革命的哲学，并都强调黑格尔主义哲学的革命性主要体现在其“反宗教实质”，体现在其“将观念状态的理性融入激进的启蒙思想”。正因为如此，作为青年黑格尔派成员的马克思才有可能钟情于伊壁鸠鲁对宗教目的论的反对，走上唯物主义的道路。他指出，正是由于黑格尔学说的超越性把在这之前的所有哲学体系都当作自身发展的一部分，从而“马克思才有可能在很大程度上将伊壁鸠鲁的革命性的自我意识和英法唯物主义视为一致”。马克思对宗教的批判采取了批判德意志意识形态中的自然哲学的形式，同时也热情地吸收伊壁鸠鲁等人的自然主义和唯物主义的观点。他十分肯定地说道：“事实上，唯物主义和思辨之间的矛盾并不是完全不可解决的，马克思已果断地走上了唯物主义的道路，他是如此地坚定不移，以至于尽管他的思想就外在形式而言是思辨的（或者说唯心的），但在本质上却越来越与唯物主义相一致。”

II

二

J. B. Foster holds that there may be little dispute over the fact that Marx, in his doctoral dissertation, gradually formed his materialism by affirming Epicurus’s critique of religious teleology. The problem lies in the fact that the theme of Marx’s doctoral dissertation is to analyze the differences between Epicurus’s natural philosophy and Democritus’s atomism, and to discuss how Epicurus’s natural philosophy transcends the mechanistic and deterministic tendencies of Democritus’s atomism. Democritus’s atomism represents the materialism of ancient society, or rather, it is the typical form of ancient materialism. So, does Epicurus’s transcendence of this materialism mean, as many understand it, that Epicurus departed from materialism? Correspondingly, does Marx’s affirmation of Epicurus’s transcendence mean, as many understand it, that Marx’s own stance was not purely materialist, and thus that his affirmation of Epicurus’s critique of religious teleology cannot be fully understood from a materialist standpoint? This is precisely what J. B. Foster seeks to clarify. He emphasizes that Marx actually analyzed dialectically Epicurus’s transcendence of Democritus’s atomism—a transcendence of its mechanistic and deterministic tendencies, not a transcendence of its entire materialist view of nature. Therefore, the philosophical outlook Marx formed through analyzing the differences between Epicurus’s natural philosophy and Democritus’s atomism was not idealist but materialist. He stresses that Marx, following Epicurus in transcending mechanism and determinism, gradually developed toward a dialectical materialism, which can be called “practical materialism.” But it must be understood that because Marx’s following of Epicurus in transcending mechanism and determinism was based on a correct understanding of Epicurus’s transcendence, the materialism Marx formed through this analysis, though no longer mechanical materialism, is still rooted in a “realist ontology,” that is, a “materialist view of nature.”

J．B．福斯特认为，对于马克思在博士论文中通过肯定伊壁鸠鲁对宗教目的论的批判逐步形成了唯物主义这一点，可能不会引起多大异议。问题在于，马克思的博士论文的主题是分析伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学与德谟克利特的原子论的差异，是论述伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学如何超越德谟克利特的原子论的机械论和决定论倾向的。而德谟克利特的原子论代表了古代社会的唯物主义，或者说是古代社会唯物主义的典型。那么，伊壁鸠鲁超越这种唯物主义是不是就意味着像许多人所理解的那样伊壁鸠鲁离开了唯物主义? 与此相应，马克思肯定伊壁鸠鲁的这种超越是不是也就意味着像许多人所理解的那样马克思所持的立场也并不是纯粹的唯物主义，从而不能完全在唯物主义的立场上来理解他对伊壁鸠鲁对宗教目的论的批判的肯定? 这正是J．B．福斯特所要着重说明的。他强调的是，实际上马克思是辩证地分析伊壁鸠鲁对德谟克利特原子论的超越，是对其机械论和决定论倾向的超越，并不是对其整个唯物主义自然观的超越。因此马克思通过分析伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学与德谟克利特的原子论的差异，所形成的哲学观也并不是唯心主义而是唯物主义的。他强调，马克思追随伊壁鸠鲁对机械论和决定论的超越，逐渐向一种辩证的唯物主义发展，可以把这种辩证的唯物主义称为“实践唯物主义”。但须知由于马克思追随伊壁鸠鲁超越机械论和决定论，是建立在正确地理解伊壁鸠鲁的这种超越的基础上的，所以马克思通过这一分析所形成的自己的唯物主义尽管已不是机械的唯物主义，但这种唯物主义仍然是以“实在论本体论”即“自然的唯物主义观” 为根基的。

Indeed, as J. B. Foster points out, the previously dominant interpretation of Epicurus was that he was merely an imitator of Democritus, while Marx’s contribution was to reveal the difference between the two: “The dominant interpretation of Epicurus was that within German Romanticism he was regarded as nothing more than a poor imitator of Democritus, who had merely added ‘arbitrary whims’ to Democritus’s theory. Marx, on the contrary, argued that Epicurus’s philosophical system, by treating the empirical world as the ‘objective appearance’ of the atomic world, rather than merely Democritus’s ‘subjective hypothesis,’ diverged from the more skeptical philosophical system of Democritus.”

确实，诚如J．B．福斯特所指出的那样原先对伊壁鸠鲁占统治地位的解释是认为他只是德谟克利特的模仿者，而马克思的贡献则揭示了两者的区别：“对伊壁鸠鲁占统治地位的解释就是德国浪漫主义内部的那种解释，即认为他只不过是德谟克利特可怜的模仿者，他只不过是在德谟克利特的理论中增添了‘任意的怪想’而已。马克思与此相反，他认为伊壁鸠鲁的哲学体系通过把经验世界视为原子世界的‘客观现象’，而不仅仅是德谟克利特的‘主观的假设’，从而与更具怀疑论的德谟克利特的哲学体系分道扬镳了。”

J. B. Foster further points out: “Epicurus’s philosophy contains the view that the world of atoms (imperceptible to the senses) and knowledge of sensory reality are both evoked by the inner needs of human reason, which is embodied in abstract individuality and freedom (i.e., self-determination). Marx’s view is that in Epicurus, Democritus’s one-sided determinism is transcended. For Democritus, necessity is everything, while Epicurus recognized the possibility of contingency, chance, and freedom.” J. B. Foster believes that Marx’s discussion, beginning with the “theory of the swerve of atoms,” shows that he had already seen the main difference between Epicurus’s philosophy and Democritus’s atomism. Marx determined that Epicurus’s emphasis on the “swerve of atoms” had already enabled him to “create a realm of chance and the possibility of escaping determinism.” Marx was indeed fascinated by Epicurus’s “swerve of atoms,” fascinated by how Epicurus’s philosophy “swerved” away from all restricted modes of existence, depicting a world of freedom and self-determination. Epicurus believed that the “law of atoms” was “repulsion,” the collision of atoms, entirely devoid of any form of “fixity.” This idea deeply attracted Marx, who asserted that Epicurus “first grasped the essence of repulsion,” and that Epicurus’s “swerve” “broke the bonds of fate.”

J．B．福斯特进一步指出：“伊壁鸠鲁哲学中包含着这样的看法，即认为原子（这种原子是感觉所不能察觉的）世界和感觉实在的知识都由人类理性的内在需求所唤起，而这种理性体现在抽象的个性和自由（即自我决定）之中。马克思的观点是，在伊壁鸠鲁那里，德谟克利特的单向决定论被超越了。对德谟克利特来说，必然性就是一切，而伊壁鸠鲁则认识到了偶然性、意外性和自由的可能性。”J．B.福斯特认为，马克思的论述从“原子偏斜说”开始，就表明他已看到了伊壁鸠鲁哲学与德谟克利特原子论的主要区别之所在。马克思认定伊壁鸠鲁强调“原子偏斜”已使他“创造了一个偶然的王国和逃离决定论的可能性”。马克思确实着迷于伊壁鸠鲁所说的“原子偏离”，着迷于伊壁鸠鲁哲学“偏离”了存在的所有受限制的方式，描绘了一个自由和自我决定的世界。伊壁鸠鲁认为“原子规律”就是“排斥”，是原子间的碰撞，它完全没有任何形式的“固定不变”。这一思想深深地吸引了马克思，他断言伊壁鸠鲁“最先把握了排斥的本质”，伊壁鸠鲁的“偏斜”“打破了命运的束缚”。

J. B. Foster holds that because Epicurus transcended the mechanistic tendency of Democritus’s atomism, he thereby overcame a serious defect of ancient materialism—this is a major discovery by Marx. Ancient materialism always reduced thought to “passive sensation,” which itself, as Democritus said, was “merely the product of an incomprehensible force.” It was precisely because ancient materialism had this defect that “idealism earned the honor of providing the ‘active’ aspect of ‘dialectical sensation,’” and “it was Marx who clearly saw that this activity had already appeared in Epicurean materialism, emerging together with the concept of sensation linked to change and ‘passing away.’” According to Marx’s research, the entire foundation of Epicurus’s philosophy lies in regarding perception as a temporal process. Marx believed that “only in Epicurus are phenomena understood as phenomena, that is, as the alienation of essence, which itself manifests as this alienation in its actuality.” Marx recognized that in Epicurus, “there was already an understanding of the existence of alienated self-consciousness, an abstract understanding that knowledge involves both sensation and intellect,” and one can even find the view that “our perception of the world develops continuously with the evolution of the circumstances that govern survival.” Marx once called this aspect of Epicurus’s theory the “dialectics of sensory certainty,” a phrase that J. B. Foster highly praises.

J．B．福斯特认为，由于伊壁鸠鲁超越了德谟克利特的原子论的机械论倾向，从而克服了古代唯物主义一个严重缺陷，这是马克思的一个重大发现。古代唯物主义总是把思想归结为“被动的感觉”，而这种感觉本身又像德谟克利特所说的那样“仅仅是一种无从把握的力量的产物”。正是由于古代唯物主义有这样一种缺陷，“唯心主义获得了这样的荣誉：它为‘辩证的感觉’提供了‘能动’的方面”，“而正是马克思清楚地看到了这种能动性早在伊壁鸠鲁唯物主义中就已经出现了，是与变化和‘逝去’相联系的感觉的概念一同出现的”。根据马克思的研究，伊壁鸠鲁整个哲学的基础在于把知觉看作为一个暂时的过程。马克思认为“只有在伊壁鸠鲁那里，现象才被理解为现象，即被理解为本质的异化，这种异化本身是在它的现实性中作为这种异化表现出来的”。马克思认识到，在伊壁鸠鲁那里，“已经有了对异化的自我意识的存在之理解，有了对知识既牵涉到感觉也牵涉到理智的抽象的理解”，甚至还可以发现这样的观点：“我们对世界的觉知是随着支配生存的环境的演变而不断发展的”。马克思曾经把伊壁鸠鲁这一方面的理论称为“感觉确信的辩证法”，J．B.福斯特对这一说法高度赞赏。

III

三

Indeed, J. B. Foster devotes considerable space to explaining how Marx affirmed Epicurus’s transcendence of the mechanistic and deterministic tendencies of Democritus’s atomism. However, this is not the main purpose of J. B. Foster’s discussion. What he seeks to emphasize is that Marx’s greatness and wisdom lie in the fact that, while affirming this point about Epicurus, he stressed that Epicurus’s transcendence was carried out on the basis of adhering to materialism. In his view, the importance and practical significance of explaining the latter aspect are in no way less than those of explaining the former, because, judging from the current actual situation, the most dangerous thing is not failing to recognize Marx’s affirmation of Epicurus’s transcendence of mechanism and determinism, but rather failing to recognize Marx’s affirmation of Epicurus’s adherence to a materialist stance while carrying out this transcendence.

确实J．B．福斯特花了大量篇幅用以说明马克思是如何肯定伊壁鸠鲁哲学对德谟克利特的原子论的机械论和决定论倾向超越的，但是这并不是J．B．福斯特论述的主要宗旨之所在。他要着重说明的是，马克思的伟大与高明之处是在对伊壁鸠鲁的这一点做出肯定的同时，强调伊壁鸠鲁的这一超越是在坚持唯物主义的基础上的超越。在他看来，对后一方面的说明的重要性和现实意义一点也不亚于对前一方面的说明，因为从当下实际情况来看，最危险的并不是认识不到马克思对伊壁鸠鲁超越机械论和决定论的肯定，而是认识不到马克思对伊壁鸠鲁进行这种超越时坚守唯物主义立场的肯定。

J. B. Foster believes that Marx profoundly recognized that transcending the mechanism and determinism of old materialism could proceed in two directions: one is to move toward idealism through this transcendence; the other is to insist on transcending on the basis of materialism. What Marx sought to explain is that Epicurus’s transcendence generally belongs to the latter type. Here Marx puts forward three main grounds: First, in opposing mechanism and determinism, Epicurus naturally emphasized contingency. But while emphasizing contingency, Epicurus did not negate necessity. Epicurus regarded human actions as products of human freedom, but stressed that this freedom is not only a matter of contingency but also of necessity. Epicurus opposed all rigid determinism, because if one insists on a determinist viewpoint, life itself becomes meaningless, but at the same time Epicurus also “defended materialism.” “Epicurus never sought to completely negate necessity, but only to emphasize the possibility of freedom, to break free from the bonds of this necessity,” “which means, as he said, that everything possible has a cause.” Second, Epicurus proposed the “swerve of the atom,” emphasizing that the “swerve of the atom” is precisely what endows the atom with freedom. If one further deduces from the freedom of the atom that the atom has a soul, that is, to add “a certain degree of spiritual factor” to the atom, then such an addition would move toward “non-materialist principles.” Clearly, although Epicurus emphasized the swerve and freedom of the atom, he did not go on to propose that the atom has a soul, that the atom is something spiritual. In Marx’s view, only those who emphasize that the swerve of the atom “has no cause to explain” would consider those holding determinist views as “illogical,” “because the atom itself is without cause,” and Epicurus was not such a person. Third, while opposing mechanism and determinism, Epicurus also opposed religious teleology. His transcendence of mechanism and determinism must be understood in conjunction with his overall theoretical stance of criticizing religious teleology. “Marx emphasized that the distinctive features of Epicurean philosophy are to a large extent manifested, on the one hand, in its opposition to the determinism of Democritean physics, and on the other hand, in its opposition to religious teleology.” As long as these two forms of opposition are examined in connection with each other, it can be seen that Epicurus’s transcendence of mechanism and determinism was not intended to move toward religious teleology and idealism, but rather to transcend on the basis of adhering to materialism.

J．B．福斯特认为，马克思深刻地认识到，超越旧唯物主义的机械论与决定论可以沿着两个方向进行：一是通过这种超越走向唯心主义；二是坚持在唯物主义的基础上超越。马克思所要说明的是伊壁鸠鲁的超越从总的来说是属于后一种超越。这里马克思提出了三个主要的根据：第一，伊壁鸠鲁反对机械论和决定论，当然强调了偶然性。但是伊壁鸠鲁在强调偶然性的同时，并没有否定必然性。伊壁鸠鲁把人类所做的事情视为是人类自由的产物，但强调这种自由不仅仅是偶然事件，而且也是必然事件。伊壁鸠鲁反对一切僵硬的决定论，因为如果坚持决定论的观点，生命本身将变得毫无意义，但伊壁鸠鲁与此同时也“捍卫唯物主义”。“伊壁鸠鲁从来没有力图完全否定必然性，而只是强调自由的可能性，打破这种必然性的束缚”，“这意味着如同他所说的：一切可能均是有起因的”。第二，伊壁鸠鲁提出了“原子的偏斜”，强调“原子的偏斜”就是赋予原子自由。如果从原子的自由进一步引出原子是有灵魂的，也就是给原子“加入一定程度的精神因素”，那么这样一添加就走向了“非唯物主义的原则”。显然伊壁鸠鲁尽管强调了原子的偏斜与自由，但并没有进而提出原子是有灵魂的，原子是精神性的东西。在马克思看来，只有那些强调原子的偏斜“没有原因可说明”的人，才会认为持有决定论观点的人是“不符合逻辑的”，“因为原子本身就是没有原因的”，而伊壁鸠鲁并不是这样的人。第三，伊壁鸠鲁在反对机械论和决定论的同时，又反对宗教目的论。必须结合他批判宗教目的论的总的理论立场来认识他对机械论和决定论的超越。“马克思强调，伊壁鸠鲁哲学的显著特征在很大程度上一方面表现为与德谟克利特物理学的决定论的对立，另一方面又表现为与宗教目的论的对立。”只要把这两种对立联系起来探讨，就可知道伊壁鸠鲁超越机械论和决定论并不是要走向宗教目的论和唯心主义，而是在坚持唯物主义立场上的超越。

J. B. Foster focuses on explaining that the reason Marx so strongly emphasized that Epicurus transcended mechanism and determinism while adhering to materialism was precisely to demonstrate that Epicurus was a materialist. And in the process of affirming that Epicurus was a materialist, Marx also formed his own materialist views. Epicurus’s materialism was internalized into Marx’s materialism. Marx “had internalized Epicurus’s materialism into his own thinking,” just as he “had internalized Hegel’s dialectics into his own thinking.” J. B. Foster believes that by the time Marx completed his doctoral dissertation, he had already acquired a stance that materialism should possess, and this stance was not identical to that of the 18th-century French materialists; it was characterized by being non-mechanistic and non-deterministic while simultaneously anti-teleological. This clearly benefited from the study of Epicurean philosophy, especially from the dialectical analysis of Epicurus’s transcendence of mechanism and determinism. J. B. Foster states: “His [Marx’s—author’s note] encounter with Epicureanism and the English and French materialists brought him into a face-to-face relationship with what he and Engels later called the ‘materialist conception of nature.’”

J．B．福斯特着重说明的是，马克思之所以如此地强调伊壁鸠鲁是在坚守唯物主义的基础上超越机械论与决定论的，就是为了说明伊壁鸠鲁是个唯物主义者。而马克思在肯定伊壁鸠鲁是个唯物主义者的过程中，也就形成了自己的唯物主义观点。伊壁鸠鲁的唯物主义内化为马克思的唯物主义。马克思“已把伊壁鸠鲁的唯物主义内化到他自己的思考之中”，这正好像他“把黑格尔的辩证法内化到他自己的思考之中”一样。J．B．福斯特认为，到马克思完成他的博士论文时，他已经具有了唯物主义应该具有的立场，而且这种立场与18世纪法国唯物主义者的立场不尽相同，它带有非机械论和非决定论同时又反目的论的特征。显然这得益于对伊壁鸠鲁哲学的研究，特别是得益于对伊壁鸠鲁超越机械论与决定论所做出的辩证分析。J．B．福斯特这样说道：“他（指马克思——引者注）同伊壁鸠鲁主义和英法唯物主义者们的相遇，使他和恩格斯后来所说的‘唯物主义自然观’形成了面对面的关系。”

J. B. Foster believes that Marx’s materialist conception of nature originated from Epicurus’s philosophy, but even at that time, Marx’s materialist conception of nature was more thorough than Epicurus’s. This is mainly manifested in Marx’s criticism that Epicurus, in transcending mechanism and determinism, sometimes went too far in certain contexts, thereby giving people the impression of having departed from the materialist stance. As mentioned earlier, Epicurus generally transcended mechanism and determinism while adhering to materialism, but at times Epicurus showed slight wavering and ambiguity. J. B. Foster argues that precisely because Marx was unequivocal in adhering to the materialist conception of nature, he absolutely could not tolerate or overlook Epicurus’s slight wavering and ambiguity in this regard. He primarily refers to Marx’s criticism in his doctoral dissertation of Epicurus’s opposition to “real possibility.” Marx said that Epicurus was a materialist; if he had any fault, it was mainly manifested in abstracting possibility, and this abstract possibility exaggerated contingency and free will, thereby opposing “real possibility,” which acknowledges necessity. As a result, Epicurus sometimes despised empirical science and ridiculed empiricism, which obviously conflicted with his materialist stance. In J. B. Foster’s view, we can fully grasp from Marx’s criticism of Epicurus just how steadfast Marx was in adhering to materialism at that time!

J．B.福斯特认为，马克思的唯物主义自然观来源于伊壁鸠鲁的哲学，但即使在当时，马克思的唯物主义自然观也要比伊壁鸠鲁的来得彻底。这主要表现在马克思批评伊壁鸠鲁超越机械论和决定论时在有些场合走过了头，从而给人们造成了离开了唯物主义立场的印象。如前所述，伊壁鸠鲁从总的来说是在坚守唯物主义的前提下超越机械论和决定论的，但有时候伊壁鸠鲁出现了稍许动摇和模糊。J．B．福斯特认为，正因为马克思在坚持唯物主义自然观方面是毫不含糊的，从而他对伊壁鸠鲁在这方面的稍许动摇与模糊也绝不容忍，决不放过。他所主要指的是马克思在博士论文中曾批评过伊壁鸠鲁反对“真实的可能性”。马克思说，伊壁鸠鲁是个唯物主义者，如果说他有什么过错的话，那主要表现在把可能性抽象化，这种抽象的可能性夸大了偶然与自由意志，从而反对了“真实的可能性”，而“真实的可能性”是承认必然性的。这样一来，伊壁鸠鲁有时就轻视实证科学，并嘲笑经验主义，而这显然与其唯物主义的立场产生冲突。在J．B.福斯特看来，我们完全可以从马克思对伊壁鸠鲁的这一批评中领悟马克思当时坚守唯物主义已经何等坚定!

We believe that J. B. Foster’s study of Marx’s “Doctoral Dissertation” is extremely relevant to the present. In today’s world, many people, including some researchers who wave the banner of Marxism, have doubts about the following two most fundamental issues: First, is Marx really a materialist? Second, is Marx’s materialism opposed to religious teleology? They go to great lengths to “manufacture” a Marx who does not believe in materialism and whose theory is compatible with religious teleology. J. B. Foster’s research, with irrefutable facts, has clarified these two fundamental issues, or rather, has brought order out of chaos on these two most fundamental issues.

我们认为，J．B.福斯特对马克思的“博士论文”的研究是极有现实意义的。在当今世界，许多人包括一些打着马克思主义旗号的研究者都在如下两个最基本的问题上产生了怀疑：其一，马克思究竟是不是唯物主义者? 其二，马克思的唯物主义是不是与宗教目的论相对立的? 他们千方百计地在“制造”一个不信奉唯物主义、其理论与宗教目的论相容的马克思。而J．B．福斯特的研究，也无可辩驳的事实澄清了这两个基本问题，或者说，在这两个最基本的问题上进行了拨乱反正。

Online Editor: Jia Fei

网络编辑：嘉扉