The Pivotal Research Paradigm Shift in the Emergence of Marx's Philosophical Revolution

I. The Problem Posed: The Profound Connection and Mutual Advancement between Marx's Philosophical Revolution and Research Paradigms

一、问题的提出：马克思哲学革命与研究范式的深切关联及其互动共进

To deeply delineate the academic history of contemporary Chinese Marxist innovation, one must engage in a "polyphonic narrative" with methodological self-awareness: examining the profound connection and co-evolutionary thread between the development of thought and the "innovation and shift of research paradigms." To this end, we must "return to the sources to open up the new": re-examine whether, in the intellectual course of launching his philosophical revolution and founding a new worldview, Marx was guided throughout by a research paradigm shift as a matter of methodological self-awareness, and whether this shift played a critically enabling role. This examination opens up a new horizon that has remained hidden. Previous research, while deeply plowing the results, process, and content of Marx's intellectual course in launching the philosophical revolution, neglected to attend to and examine it from the height of methodological self-awareness, and thus failed to discover the innovation and shift of the pivotal research paradigm (hereafter "pivotal paradigm") running through this process, nor did it notice its profound connection with the logic of the philosophical revolution, nor grasp the major, critical role of Marx's research paradigm shift as an intellectual hinge and catalyst for his philosophical revolution—that is, how it internally impelled Marx to move toward the depths of history, to reflect and return to reality itself, and to bring about the emergence of the philosophical revolution and the new worldview.

深描当代中国马克思主义创新学术史，必须以方法论自觉作“复调叙事”：考察思想演进与“研究范式的创新与转换”两者之间的深切关联和共进线索。为此，需要“返本开新”：重新考察马克思在发动哲学革命、创立新世界观的思想历程中，是否贯穿着作为方法论自觉的研究范式转换，以及这一转换是否起着关键性助力作用。这一考察向我们打开了一个隐匿着的新地平。以往的研究在深度耕犁马克思发动哲学革命思想进程的结果、过程与内容之时，忽略了从方法论自觉高度对之加以关注和考察，因而未能发现贯穿这一进程的轴心研究范式（以下简称“轴心范式”）的创新和转换，更未能关注到其与哲学革命逻辑之间存在的深切关联，也没有理解和把握马克思的研究范式转换对于他发动哲学革命所起到的重大的、关键性的思想枢纽作用和催生作用，即内在地推动着马克思走向历史深处、反思并回到现实本身，实现哲学革命和新世界观的出场。

We hold that the philosophical revolution Marx launched inherently contains a shift in research paradigm—that is, the transformation of Marx's research path is precisely the indispensable internal methodological link on which the transition between old and new worldviews depends; it is the internal orientation, fundamental requirement, and key link of the objective process of his worldview transformation itself. To do good work, one must first sharpen one's tools. We need to rediscover Marx's research paradigms, for they lie hidden in the depths of thought within his philosophical revolution and remain undiscovered to this day. We need to re-examine the history of Marxist philosophy and clarify the critically close, mutually advancing relationship between Marx's process of launching the philosophical revolution and founding the new worldview, on the one hand, and the research paradigm shift, on the other.

我们认为，马克思发动的哲学革命内蕴着研究范式的转换，即马克思所采取的研究路径的变革恰恰是新旧世界观转换赖以发生的必不可少的内在方法论环节，是其世界观变革客观进程本身的内在指向、根本要求和关键环节。工欲善其事，必先利其器。我们需要重新发现马克思的研究范式，因为它们隐匿在其哲学革命进程的思维深处，至今依然无人发现。我们需要重新梳理马克思主义哲学史，阐明马克思发动哲学革命创立新世界观的进程与研究范式转换之间关键性的密切共进关系。

Every research paradigm's function necessarily has its optimal domain and finite boundaries. In the process of founding the new worldview, as Marx's research aims and questions continually changed, previously effective research paradigms became ill-suited when applied to new research aims and objects—a "methodological predicament." To resolve this predicament, Marx had to continually re-select and innovate more appropriate research paradigms with methodological self-awareness, so as to smoothly achieve the aim of founding the new worldview. The continual methodological innovation displayed in Marx's philosophical revolution is the concrete manifestation of the research paradigm shift in his philosophical revolution.

每一个研究范式的功能必然有其最佳区域和有限边界。在创立新世界观的过程中，随着马克思的研究目的与研究问题的不断变化，过去行之有效的研究范式在应用于新的研究目的和对象时出现了不适应的情况，即“方法论困境”。为了解决这一困境，马克思必须不断地以方法论自觉重新选择和创新更恰当的研究范式，以顺利达成创立新世界观的目的。马克思哲学革命中所呈现出的方法论的不断创新就是马克思哲学革命研究范式转换的具体表现。

We must examine not only the diachronic shift of research paradigms but also their synchronic interaction. The emergence of Marx's philosophical revolution is a process in which multiple research paradigms coexisted and the dominant pivotal paradigm shifted in sequence. At every stage of Marx's founding of the new worldview, multiple research paradigms existed, whether overtly or covertly, and their respective positions and functions differed markedly; they did not exist in isolation or in a state of equilibrium, but rather influenced and interacted with one another. The so-called pivotal paradigm is the research paradigm that, in a given period, breaks the equilibrium among research paradigms and emerges as dominant. The shift of the pivotal paradigm is closely tied to the transformation of the object of Marx's philosophical research; the replacement of the pivotal paradigm is often accompanied by changes in the phenomena and problems to which Marx's philosophy attended. When new phenomena and new problems shift from a secondary to a primary aspect of research, in order to better conform to and grasp this change, the new paradigm gradually replaces the old and becomes the pivotal paradigm of that period. By sorting through the history of methodological innovation in Marx's philosophical revolution, it is not difficult to see that the movement of Marx's philosophy from its "original state" to its "mature state" is closely tied to the pivotal paradigm shift that occurred in his philosophical revolution. According to the process of pivotal paradigm shift, Marx's philosophical revolution can be divided into at least three periods: the period with the textual-philological interpretive paradigm (hereafter "interpretive paradigm") as the pivotal paradigm, the period with the dialogical paradigm as the pivotal paradigm, and the period with the reflective problematic paradigm as the pivotal paradigm. It is precisely through the sequential emergence of these three pivotal paradigms that Marx's philosophy was able to emerge from Hegel's speculative idealist philosophy and Feuerbach's old materialist philosophy, to found the new worldview, to gain powerful vitality, and to become a "new philosophy" grounded in the real life-world, attentive to real individuals, and pursuing human emancipation and the free and comprehensive development of the human person.

我们不仅要考察研究范式的历时态转换，更要研究其共时态的相互作用。马克思哲学革命的出场过程就是多元研究范式共存、占主导地位的轴心范式依次转换的过程。在马克思创立新世界观的每一个阶段都同时存在着或隐或显的多种研究范式，它们各自的地位和作用有着明显差异，并不处于孤立或同一均衡状态，而是相互影响、相互作用。所谓轴心范式，就是在某一时期打破各研究范式之间的均衡状态，脱颖而出起主导作用的研究范式。轴心范式的转换与马克思哲学研究对象的转变之间紧密相关，轴心范式的更替往往伴随着马克思哲学所关注的现象和问题的改变。当新现象、新问题从研究的次要方面转变为主要方面时，为了更好地顺应和把握这种变化，新范式也就逐渐取代旧范式而成为这一时期的轴心范式。通过对马克思哲学革命的方法论创新史的梳理，我们不难发现，马克思哲学之所以能够由“原初状态”走向“成熟状态”，与马克思哲学革命中发生的轴心范式转换紧密相关。按照轴心范式的转换过程，马克思哲学革命至少可以分为三个时期，即以文本—文献学解读范式（以下简称“解读范式”）为轴心范式时期，以对话范式为轴心范式时期以及以反思的问题学范式为轴心范式时期。正是经历了这三种轴心范式的依次出场，马克思哲学才得以从黑格尔思辨的唯心主义哲学与费尔巴哈旧唯物主义哲学之中脱胎出来，创立新世界观，获得强大的生命力，成为立足现实生活世界、关注现实个人、追求人类解放和人的自由全面发展的“新哲学”。

II. Approach to and Separation from Hegel's Philosophy: The Period with the Textual-Philological Interpretive Paradigm as the Pivotal Paradigm

二、与黑格尔哲学的走近与分离：以文本—文献学解读范式为轴心范式时期

The first pivotal paradigm Marx chose at the outset of his philosophical revolution was the textual-philological interpretive research paradigm, which "refers to the textual criticism and study of texts and documents"; its direct object of research is the "text-document." As the primary carrier for recording and disseminating knowledge, the "text-document" presents the research results of predecessors and contains the crystallized thought of those who came before. Generally speaking, "text" refers mainly to published works, while "document" here refers mainly to manuscripts, reading notes, jottings, preparatory materials, annotations, and correspondence not published during the author's lifetime. "Text-document" is the collective term for the totality of a given author's written expressive materials. For Marx, the entry from jurisprudence into philosophy, and the turn from Kant, Fichte, and Schelling's philosophy to Hegel's philosophy, were all results of research conducted through the philosophical "text-document."

马克思在哲学革命之初选择的第一个轴心范式为文本—文献学解读研究范式，“是指对文本和文献的考订与研究”，它的直接研究对象就是“文本—文献”。“文本—文献”作为记录与传播知识的主要载体，是对前人研究成果的呈现，包含着前人的思想结晶。一般来说，“文本”主要指已经公开出版的论著，而“文献”在此则主要指作者生前未公开发表的手稿、读书笔记、札记、准备资料、批注和通信等。“文本—文献”则是对某一个作者所有文字表达资料总和的统称。对马克思来说，从法学进入哲学，从康德、费希特、谢林哲学转向黑格尔哲学，都是通过对哲学“文本—文献”进行研究的结果。

The textual-philological interpretation of legal works made Marx aware of the necessity of "devoting himself exclusively to philosophy," while the textual-philological interpretation of the works of Hegel and his disciples impelled him to turn from Kant's philosophy, which exalted transcendental freedom and the "ought," to Hegel's philosophy, which transformed the idea of innate freedom into actual necessity—"throwing himself into the arms of the siren" once more, becoming a Hegelian. On the one hand, Marx entered philosophical research through legal research. In his letter to his father, Marx indicated that philosophy and jurisprudence should be connected. In his view, he "had to study jurisprudence, and above all felt the urge to devote himself exclusively to philosophy," for "without philosophy one cannot get to the bottom of things." To this end, Marx not only studied "the works of Heineccius and Thibaut and various documents," but also "attempted to make a philosophy of law run through the entire field of law." On the other hand, as David McLellan pointed out, "Marx's turn to Hegel was accomplished first of all by reading Hegel's works from beginning to end." As a follower of Kant and Schelling, Marx had once opposed Hegel's conceptual rationalism, explicitly stating that he "did not like its grotesque, craggy melody." The turning point in Marx's thought came during his convalescence from lung disease in Strahlau. During this period, Hegel's critique of Kant's moral philosophy attracted Marx, so he "read Hegel's works from beginning to end, and also the works of most of his disciples," and gradually accomplished what he called the major turn "from idealism... toward seeking the idea in reality itself."

对法学著作的文本—文献学解读使马克思意识到“专攻哲学”的必要性，而对黑格尔及其弟子著作的文本—文献学解读则促使他从崇尚先验自由和“应当”的康德哲学转向了将先天自由观念转化为现实必然性的黑格尔哲学，“重新投入海妖的怀抱”，成为一名黑格尔主义者。一方面，马克思是通过法学研究介入哲学研究的。在给父亲的信中，马克思表示，哲学与法学应该是相互联系的。在他看来，“必须攻读法学，而且首先渴望专攻哲学”，“没有哲学就无法深入”。为此，马克思不仅研习了“海奈克齐乌斯和蒂博的著作以及各种文献”，还“试图使一种法哲学贯穿整个法的领域”。另一方面，如戴维·麦克莱伦指出的，“马克思向黑格尔的转变首先是通过从头至尾地阅读黑格尔的著作完成了”。作为康德、谢林的追随者，马克思曾一度反对黑格尔概念性的理性主义，明确表示“不喜欢它那种离奇古怪的调子”。马克思思想转变的契机发生在他患肺病于施特拉劳休养阶段。在此期间，黑格尔对康德道德哲学所作的批判吸引了马克思，因而他“从头到尾读了黑格尔的著作，也读了他大部分弟子的著作”，并且逐渐实现了他所说的“从理想主义……转而向现实本身去寻求观念”的重大转变。

In Marx's early research, the interpretive paradigm is mainly embodied in the writing of his doctoral dissertation (*The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature*, hereafter referred to as the *Doctoral Dissertation*) and related notebooks (*Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy*). In order to write the *Doctoral Dissertation*, Marx conducted a systematic textual-philological study of the works of ancient Greek philosophers. "Throughout 1839 and early 1840, Marx was busy reading and making excerpts for the doctoral dissertation. He gave these notes the general title *Epicurean Philosophy*, while also reading Hegel, Aristotle, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant." The relevant MEGA² materials show that in the *Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy*, while making extensive excerpts of ancient philosophers' discussions of Epicurus, Marx also interspersed commentaries on these excerpts. This indicates that Marx's research was initiated through textual examination, but was not limited to the authenticity of content; rather, it paid greater attention to the ideational character of content. In the *Doctoral Dissertation*, Marx conducted a textual-philological study of the relatively underdeveloped part of the *Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy*, namely the relevant content of Democritean philosophy. "Although the notebooks did touch upon the difference between Democritean and Epicurean philosophy of nature, this difference was not yet the focus of the notebooks, because Marx at that time concentrated on studying Epicurus, the Stoics, and skepticism." Therefore, while the *Doctoral Dissertation* incorporated the records of Epicurean philosophy by Aristotle and his disciple Simplicius and others into the objects of textual-philological study, it also conducted textual-philological research on the records of Democritean philosophy by Eusebius, Simplicius, Themistius, and others.

在马克思早期的研究中，解读范式主要体现于其博士论文（《德谟克利特的自然哲学和伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学的差别》，以下简称《博士论文》）及相关笔记（《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》）的撰写过程中。为写作《博士论文》，马克思对古希腊哲学家的著作进行了系统的文本文献学研究，“整个1839年和1840年初，马克思一直忙于为博士论文而阅读和作摘录。他给这些笔记起的总的标题是《伊壁鸠鲁哲学》，同时还阅读了黑格尔、亚里士多德、莱布尼茨、休谟和康德”。MEGA²相关文献表明，在《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》中，马克思在对古代哲学家有关伊壁鸠鲁的论述作大量摘录的同时，也穿插了对这些摘录的评注。这表明，马克思的研究是基于对文本的考据切入的，但不限于内容真实性，而更加关注内容的思想性。在《博士论文》中，马克思对《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》中相对匮乏的部分，即德谟克利特哲学的相关内容进行了文本—文献学研究。“尽管笔记也接触到德谟克利特与伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的差别。但是，这种差别在笔记中还不是重点，因为马克思此时侧重于研究伊壁鸠鲁、斯多亚派和怀疑论”，所以《博士论文》在将亚里士多德及其门人西姆普利齐乌斯等人对伊壁鸠鲁哲学的记载也纳入文本—文献学研究对象的同时，还对欧塞比乌斯、西姆普利齐乌斯、泰米斯提乌斯等人关于德谟克利特哲学的记载进行了文本—文献学研究。

Marx engaged in and developed philosophical research through the interpretive paradigm, moving from the interpretive paradigm toward textual-philological reflection and critique, and thereby achieving a transcendence of previous old philosophy. As a member of the Young Hegelians, Marx, like Edgar Bauer, Arnold Ruge, and others, held Hegel's philosophy in high regard, believing that "the German philosophy of state and philosophy of right received their most systematic, richest, and final expression in Hegel's works." This affirmation and recognition of Hegelian philosophy led Marx, during his work at the *Rheinische Zeitung*, to attempt to use Hegelian philosophy to analyze and solve problems when urgent discussions were needed on issues such as freedom of the press, the law on theft of wood, and municipal reform. However, as soon as Hegel's vast theoretical system came into contact with real problems, it could neither provide reasonable explanations nor offer answers. This sense of powerlessness prompted Marx, after the *Rheinische Zeitung* was banned, to "retreat from the stage of society to the study," beginning his critique and reflection on Hegel's philosophy of right, and seeking new theoretical weapons.

马克思以解读范式介入和开展哲学研究，由解读范式走向文本—文献学反思和批判，进而实现对以往旧哲学的超越。作为青年黑格尔派的成员，马克思与埃德加尔·鲍威尔、阿尔诺德·卢格等人一样，给予黑格尔哲学很高的评价，认为“德国的国家哲学和法哲学在黑格尔的著作中得到了最系统、最丰富和最终的表述”。对黑格尔哲学的肯定与认可，使马克思在《莱茵报》工作期间，在亟须对出版自由、林木盗窃法、市政改革等问题作出讨论时，尝试运用黑格尔哲学来进行分析和解决问题。然而，黑格尔哲学庞大的理论体系一接触到现实问题，就既无法作出合理解释，也很难提供答案。这种无力感促使马克思在《莱茵报》被查封后，“从社会舞台退回书房”，开始了对黑格尔法哲学的批判与反思工作，并试图寻找新的理论武器。

The interpretive paradigm helped Marx critically analyze the outstanding intellectual achievements of his predecessors while drawing on them, but the role of this paradigm in theoretical construction was limited. This stemmed both from the particularity of the research object and from the particularity of the research method. As for the former, the views expressed in "texts and documents" are not necessarily truth, and the history they present is only a past history, a history in thought. As Marx pointed out in criticizing the errors of the theoretical-political faction of philosophy, "philosophy up to now itself belongs to this world and is a complement of this world, although only an ideal complement." Whether textual-philological interpretation or critique, all that can be achieved is an understanding and critique of this "ideal complement of the real world," which can hardly become the true motive force of theoretical transformation. As for the particularity of the research method, textual-philological research is more of a "monological" type, that is, on the premise of fully possessing "texts and documents," research can be directly carried out without the need for mediation or the assistance of others. Although "the philosophical text is not the true text or work, but a record of a conversation conducted across many eras," in his textual-philological research on classical works, Marx actually completed a kind of "cross-temporal dialogue" with his predecessors, yet this "cross-temporal dialogue" was more of a "question without answer," a "one-dimensional" affair, lacking genuine intellectual collision. This research still remained within texts and documents; even if through deep interpretation, reflective critique, and intellectual combat it strove to transcend the text, in the end it fell back into the text, outside history. German criticism, until its final end, never escaped the philosophical base and the interpretive paradigm. The critique of criticism is precisely to move from the interpretive paradigm toward reflection on reality: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it," and "the whole problem lies in making the existing world revolutionary, practically opposing and changing existing things." This is the inevitable choice for resolving the "methodological dilemma." It can thus be seen that for Marx to truly break through Hegel's philosophical system and construct his own new worldview, he necessarily had to transcend the research paradigms of his predecessors and change the axis-centric paradigm.

解读范式有助于马克思在汲取前人优秀思想成果的同时对这些成果进行批判性分析，但是这一范式在理论建构上的作用是有限的。这既源于研究对象的特殊性，也源于研究方式的特殊性。就前者而言，“文本—文献”表达的观点并不就是真理，其所呈现出的历史也只是过去的、思想中的历史。正如马克思在批判哲学的理论政治派所犯错误时指出的，“迄今为止的哲学本身就属于这个世界，而且是这个世界的补充，虽然只是观念的补充”。无论是文本—文献学解读还是批判，所能实现的只是对这种“现实世界的观念补充”的理解与批判，很难成为理论变革的真正动因。就研究方式的特殊性而言，文本—文献学研究更多是一种“独白式”的，即在充分占有“文本—文献”的前提下，无需通过中介或他人协助就可以直接展开研究。尽管“哲学本文并不是真正的本文或作品，而是进行了诸多时代的一场谈话的记录”，在对经典著作的“文本—文献”研究中，马克思实际上完成了与前人的一种“跨时空对话”，但是这种“跨时空对话”更多的是“有问无答”的、“单向度”的，缺乏真正意义上的思想碰撞。这一研究仍然停留在文本文献之中，即便通过深耕解读、反思批判和打思想仗，力图超越文本，然而最终还是落入文本之中、历史之外。德国的批判直到最后终结，都没有摆脱哲学基地和解读范式。对批判的批判，就是要从解读范式走向现实的反思，“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，问题在于改变世界”，“全部问题都在于使现存世界革命化，实际地反对并改变现存的事物”。这就是解决“方法论困境”的必然选择。由此可见，马克思要想真正突破黑格尔哲学体系，建构自己的新世界观，就必然要超越前人的研究范式，改变轴心范式。

III. The Collision of Old and New Thought: The Period of the Dialogue Paradigm as the Axis-Centric Paradigm

三、新旧思想的撞击：以对话范式为轴心范式时期

Following the interpretive paradigm, the second axis-centric paradigm Marx adopted, namely the dialogue paradigm, refers to "an important paradigm by which various thoughts and cultures can coexist and co-generate." It was not unique to or originally created by Marx's philosophy, but has a profound history within the history of philosophy. In ancient Greece, "dialogue" was already one of the basic paradigms by which philosophers conducted philosophical thinking and research on philosophical problems, from Socrates' "maieutic art" to Plato's *Republic* and *Timaeus*, Aristotle's *Eudemus*, and continuing from the Middle Ages down to Hegel, whom Marx regarded as his teacher—all continuously displayed the infinite charm of this paradigm in dialogue with Hölderlin, Schelling, Goethe, Feuerbach, and others. In the process of Marx's separation from Hegelian philosophy, the dialogue paradigm was directly manifested in Marx's exchanges and confrontations with contemporary thinkers such as Engels, Bauer, Feuerbach, Stirner, and Ruge, as well as with currents and parties such as utopian socialism, classical political economy, and "true socialism." It can be said that it was precisely in dialogue and exchange with his contemporaries that Marx continuously clarified his own thought, completed his critique of Hegelian philosophy, and constructed his new worldview.

继解读范式之后，马克思采取的第二个轴心范式即对话范式，是指“各种思想、文化得以共存、共生的重要范式”。它并非马克思哲学特有或独创，而是具有深厚的哲学史渊源。在古希腊时期，“对话”就是哲学家们进行哲学思考与哲学问题研究的基本范式之一，从苏格拉底的“精神助产术”到柏拉图的《理想国》《蒂迈欧篇》、亚里士多德的《欧德摩斯篇》等，从中世纪一直延续到被马克思视为导师的黑格尔，都是在与荷尔德林、谢林、歌德、费尔巴哈等人的对话中不断展现这一范式的无穷魅力。在马克思与黑格尔哲学脱离的进程中，对话范式直接表现在马克思与恩格斯、鲍威尔、费尔巴哈、施蒂纳、卢格等同时代思想家，以及空想社会主义、古典政治经济学、“真正的社会主义”等思潮与党派的交流和交锋之中。可以说，马克思正是在与同时代人的对话和交流过程中，不断澄清自己的思想，完成了对黑格尔哲学的批判和新世界观的建构。

Although both the interpretive paradigm and the dialogue paradigm emphasize the importance of "dialogue," the "cross-temporal dialogue" conducted by the former (limited by time, since the classical authors may have already passed away) often appears as "one-dimensional" retrospection and "self-questioning and self-answering"; in contrast, the "dialogue" emphasized by the dialogue paradigm is a synchronous, two-way, direct dialogue among multiple subjects with mutual exchange—a collision of thought and spiritual communication of simultaneous presence (co-presence). On the one hand, when Marx and his contemporaries present at the same time developed doubts, confusions, differences of opinion, and theoretical divergences on certain questions or phenomena, they could directly question the thinker himself, thereby gaining inspiration while reducing their own subjective understanding; on the other hand, because the objects of dialogue were contemporaries, their thoughts were always contemporary thought and contemporary ideology, so dialogue with them could enable Marx to move from the history of "texts and documents" to the contemporary era, truly becoming a thinker who walked with the times. In the process of Marx's reflective critique of and separation from Hegel's speculative philosophy, he could no longer devote himself entirely to the interpretation of Hegel's texts and documents, but had to seek a way out through confrontational dialogue and interrogation with a large number of thinkers who followed Hegelian philosophy, and through direct intellectual dialogue with contemporary thinkers who strove to transcend Hegelian philosophy. Therefore, the "dialogue paradigm" of actively engaging in intellectual confrontation and exchange with these thinkers became the axis-centric paradigm by which Marx cast off the shackles of Hegelian philosophy, entered the post-Hegelian era of thought, and became a contemporary thinker. The interpretive paradigm, meanwhile, shifted from the dominant axis-centric paradigm to a subordinate paradigm.

解读范式与对话范式虽然都强调“对话”的重要性，但是前者进行的“跨时空对话”（受到时间的限制，经典作家可能已经逝世）往往呈现为“单向度”追思、“自问自答”的形式；与之不同，对话范式所强调的“对话”是一种同时态的多元主体间双向度的、有来有往的直接性对话，一种同时在场（共在）的思想撞击和心灵交往。一方面，马克思与同时代在场者对某些问题或现象产生疑窦、困惑、观点分歧和理论分野时，能够直接追问思想家本人，从而在获得灵感的同时减少自己的主观性理解；另一方面，由于对话的对象是同时代的人，他们的思想总是当代思想、当代意识形态，所以与他们的对话可以使马克思从“文本—文献”中的历史走向当代，真正成为与时代同行的思想家。在马克思反思批判黑格尔思辨哲学并与之相脱离的进程中，不能再完全专注于黑格尔文本文献的解读，而是要在与一大批追随黑格尔哲学的思想家们展开交锋式对话诘难、与力图超越黑格尔哲学的当代思想家展开直接思想对话中探寻出路。因此，与这些思想家们展开积极的思想交锋和交流的“对话范式”就成为马克思摆脱黑格尔哲学束缚、走向后黑格尔思想时代、成为当代思想家的轴心范式。而解读范式则从主导的轴心范式，转而成为从属范式。

As noted above, the dialogical paradigm in Marx studies existed as a supplementary element to the interpretive paradigm before it became the axis-centric paradigm. The dialogical paradigm was first gestated in the dialogues between Marx and his father, Heinrich Marx, as well as Baron Ludwig von Westphalen. As Eleanor Marx described, old Marx "was a man of considerable talent, a lawyer by profession, whose thought was deeply influenced by eighteenth-century French conceptions of religion, science, and art." Under his father's education, although Marx was born into a religious family, his thought was more deeply shaped by seventeenth- and eighteenth-century French Enlightenment ideas. Besides reading Voltaire, Racine, and others with Marx, old Marx also engaged in intellectual dialogue with him. In the only surviving letter Marx wrote to his father—the "Letter to Heinrich Marx"—Marx not only presented to old Marx an outline he had drafted, including public law, but also explained his intention to devote himself to philosophy and his reasons for shifting from the study of Kant and Schelling to the study of Hegel. Unfortunately, in the year following the writing of this letter, old Marx died of illness, and the intellectual dialogue between Marx and his father could not be sustained. As Marx's friend across generations, Baron von Westphalen, while recommending that Marx read Homer and Shakespeare, also profoundly influenced Marx through his own interest in and concern for real social problems. According to Kovalevsky's recollection, "Marx told me that old Westphalen was enamored of Saint-Simon's doctrine, and that he was the first to speak to the future author of *Capital* about this doctrine." It is thus evident that Marx's eventual departure from Hegel's speculative and abstract philosophical system and his turn toward the socialist path were, to a certain extent, also influenced by Baron von Westphalen.

如前所述，马克思哲学研究中的对话范式在成为轴心范式以前，就已经作为解读范式的补充因素而存在。对话范式最早孕育于马克思与老马克思以及冯·威斯特华伦男爵之间的对话之中。如爱琳娜·马克思所描述的，老马克思“很有才干，是一位律师，思想上深受法国18世纪关于宗教、科学和艺术等概念的影响”。在老马克思的教育下，马克思虽然出生在一个宗教家庭，但他的思想更多受到17、18世纪法国启蒙思想的影响。除了给马克思读伏尔泰、拉辛等人的著作外，老马克思与马克思之间也有着思想性的对话。在唯一保留下来的马克思写给老马克思的书信——《致亨利希·马克思》中，马克思不仅向老马克思呈现了自己拟定的包括公法在内的纲目，还讲述了自己打算专攻哲学，并且由康德、谢林哲学研究转向黑格尔哲学研究的原因。遗憾的是，在写作这封信的第二年，老马克思就因病去世了，马克思与老马克思之间的这种思想性对话也没有能够得到维系。作为马克思的忘年之交，冯·威斯特华伦男爵在推荐马克思阅读荷马和莎士比亚的作品的同时，他自身对社会现实问题的兴趣与关注也深刻影响着马克思。根据科瓦列夫斯基的回忆，“马克思告诉我，老威斯特华伦醉心于圣西门的学说，他是第一个向《资本论》的未来作者谈起这个学说的人”。由此可见，马克思最终能够走出黑格尔思辨抽象的哲学体系，走上社会主义的道路，在一定程度上也是受到了冯·威斯特华伦男爵的影响。

Since Kant's advocacy, "critique" had become a prevalent mode of discourse among the Young Hegelians. Influenced by this mode, Marx's dialogical paradigm first came to the fore in his critical reflection on the Young Hegelians. Although in his interactions with members of the Young Hegelians Marx clarified his own thought and truly entered the gates of Hegelian philosophy, as he himself said, "many opposing views were exposed in the disputes here," and it was the critical reflection on these opposing views that gradually separated Marx's philosophy from Young Hegelian thought. The direct inducement for Marx's transformation from an active participant in the Young Hegelian movement to a critic of the Young Hegelians was his critique of the "Free" group, represented by Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner. During Marx's tenure as editor-in-chief of the *Rheinische Zeitung*, owing to the newspaper's need to maintain neutrality and his recognition that the "Free" group was divorced from real life and absorbed in abstract philosophical disputes, Marx not only refused to publish their articles but also, in a letter to Arnold Ruge, called them "empty talk" and "immoral," demanding that they "indulge less in vague theorizing, less in high-sounding phrases, less in self-admiration, and more in definite opinions, more attention to concrete facts, and more actual knowledge." It can be said that the critique of the "Free" group indicates that Marx's faith in Hegelian philosophy was shaken during this period, which paved the way for his subsequent transcendence of Bauer's philosophy of self-consciousness from the standpoint of Feuerbach's humanist materialism, and for his recognition that all German philosophy "has never left the ground of philosophy... not only its answers, but even the questions it raises, contain mystification."

自康德倡言之后，“批判”在青年黑格尔派中成为一种流行的话语方式。受这一方式的影响，马克思的对话范式首先在其对青年黑格尔派的批判性反思中凸显出来。虽然在与青年黑格尔派成员的交往中，马克思实现了对自身思想的澄清，真正进入黑格尔哲学的大门，但如他所说，“这里在争论中暴露了很多相互对立的观点”，而对这些相互对立观点的批判性反思，使马克思哲学逐渐与青年黑格尔派思想相脱离。促使马克思由青年黑格尔派运动的积极参与者向青年黑格尔派批判者转变的直接诱因，是对以鲍威尔和麦克斯·施蒂纳为代表的“自由人”小组的批判。在马克思担任《莱茵报》主编期间，由于《莱茵报》保持中立的需要，以及对“自由人”小组脱离现实生活、醉心于抽象的哲学争论的认识，马克思不仅拒绝刊载他们的文章，还在给卢格的信中称他们“空谈”“不道德”，要求他们“少发些不着边际的空论，少唱些高调，少来些自我欣赏，多说些明确的意见，多注意一些具体的事实，多提供一些实际的知识”。可以说，对“自由人”小组的批判表明，马克思这一时期对黑格尔哲学的信仰产生了动摇，这为他之后站在费尔巴哈人本学唯物主义的立场上实现对鲍威尔自我意识哲学的超越，认清整个德国哲学“没有离开过哲学的基地……不仅是它的回答，而且连它所提出的问题本身，都包含着神秘主义”作了铺垫。

The dialogical paradigm truly became the axis-centric paradigm in close connection with two of Marx's important interlocutors—Feuerbach and Engels. As early as 1841, Marx had read Feuerbach's *The Essence of Christianity*, but this book did not exert much influence on his thought. The factors that truly turned Marx from Hegelianism to Feuerbachism mainly included two aspects: first, the difficulty of expressing opinions on material interests during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period made Marx realize that the actual state was subservient to private interests, and that this contradicted the rational state advocated by Hegelian philosophy, thereby raising doubts about the Hegelian philosophical system. Second, Feuerbach's *Preliminary Theses for the Reform of Philosophy* and *Principles of the Philosophy of the Future*—which inverted the relationship between subject and object in Hegelian philosophy and revealed and criticized problems in Hegel's logic such as its lack of "essence, nature, and man"—gave Marx great inspiration. Marx held Feuerbach in high esteem, believing that "Feuerbach is the only person who adopts a serious, critical attitude toward Hegel's dialectic... he has truly overcome the old philosophy." Although, compared with Engels and even Ruge, the correspondence preserved between Marx and Feuerbach is relatively sparse, Feuerbach's influence on Marx was crucial. Standing on Feuerbach's humanist materialist ground, Marx, in *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right*, used Feuerbach's "inversion of subject and predicate" to invert the relationship between "state" and "civil society" in Hegelian philosophy; in *On the Jewish Question*, he affirmed the completion of religious emancipation in Feuerbach and extended religious emancipation to human emancipation; in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereafter *Manuscripts*), he drew on Feuerbach's concepts of "species-life" and "species-being" to critique alienated labor and reveal the origin of private property. Moreover, Marx not only invited Feuerbach to contribute to the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* but also sent Feuerbach the introduction he had written for *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right*, soliciting his opinions and suggestions.

对话范式真正成为轴心范式与马克思的两位重要对话者——费尔巴哈和恩格斯——紧密相关。早在1841年，马克思就曾读过费尔巴哈的《基督教的本质》一书，但这本书并没有对他的思想产生太大的影响。真正使马克思由黑格尔主义转向费尔巴哈主义的因素主要包括两个方面：一是《莱茵报》时期对物质利益发表意见的难事使马克思意识到现实国家对私人利益的屈从，以及其与黑格尔哲学所主张的理性国家之间存在的矛盾，并因此对黑格尔哲学体系产生了疑问。二是费尔巴哈的《关于哲学改造的临时纲要》和《未来哲学原理》两本书对黑格尔哲学中主体与客体关系的颠倒，以及对黑格尔逻辑学“没有本质、没有自然、没有人”等问题的揭示和批判给予了马克思极大的启示。马克思对费尔巴哈的评价很高，认为“费尔巴哈是唯一对黑格尔辩证法采取严肃的、批判的态度的人……他真正克服了旧哲学”。尽管与恩格斯乃至卢格等人相较，马克思与费尔巴哈之间留存下来的通信相对较少，但费尔巴哈对马克思的影响是十分关键的。马克思站在费尔巴哈的人本学唯物主义立场，在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，借助费尔巴哈的“主谓颠倒法”，将黑格尔哲学中的“国家”与“市民社会”的关系颠倒过来；在《论犹太人问题》中，肯定了宗教解放在费尔巴哈那里的完成，并将宗教解放推至人类解放；在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》（以下简称《手稿》）中，借助费尔巴哈的“类生活”“类存在物”等概念，批判了异化劳动，揭示了私有制的起源。此外，马克思不仅邀请过费尔巴哈为《德法年鉴》撰稿，还将自己为《黑格尔法哲学批判》所撰写的导言寄送给费尔巴哈，向他征求意见和建议。

If the dialogue with Feuerbach provided Marx with the perspective and method for moving toward a critique of Hegelian philosophy and separating himself from it, then the dialogue with Engels enabled Marx to complete the liquidation of Young Hegelian thought and the construction of the new worldview—historical materialism. Although Marx's formal meeting with Engels came relatively late, both had been members of the Young Hegelians, both had been influenced by Feuerbach's philosophy, and both had diverged from the Young Hegelian tradition during this period. These similar intellectual trajectories laid the foundation for the collaboration between Marx and Engels. According to Engels's recollection, at their first formal meeting, he and Marx discovered that "we were in complete agreement in all theoretical fields, and from that time on our common work began." In the formation of historical materialism, although Engels modestly called Marx the "first violinist" and said that his own task was to "play second fiddle," Engels's *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy*—which elaborated historical materialism and communist thought through a critique of political economy—profoundly influenced Marx. Moreover, *The Holy Family*, which initially expounded historical materialism, *The German Ideology* (hereafter *Ideology*), which first systematically elaborated historical materialism, and the *Communist Manifesto* (hereafter *Manifesto*), which marked the public advent of historical materialism, were all jointly completed by Marx and Engels. Marx chose to travel to England to investigate capitalist society, and the *Manchester Notebooks* and *London Notebooks* he completed during this period genuinely record Engels's profound influence on his intellectual transformation. Marx also gave Engels high praise, explicitly stating, "Since Friedrich Engels published his brilliant outline on the critique of economic categories (in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*), I have been in constant correspondence with him exchanging views," and saying that he always walked in Engels's "footsteps."

如果说与费尔巴哈的对话为马克思走向批判黑格尔哲学并与之相脱离提供了视角与方法，那么与恩格斯的对话则使得马克思能够完成对青年黑格尔派思想的清算，以及新世界观——唯物史观——的建构。马克思与恩格斯的正式会面虽然相对较晚，但两个人都曾是青年黑格尔派的成员，都曾受费尔巴哈哲学的影响，也都在这一时期与青年黑格尔派传统产生了分歧。这些相似的思想发展历程为马克思与恩格斯的合作奠定了基础。据恩格斯回忆，他与马克思在第一次正式会面时就发现，“我们在一切理论领域中都显出意见完全一致，从此就开始了我们共同的工作”。在唯物史观形成过程中，虽然恩格斯谦虚地将马克思称为“第一小提琴手”，称自己要做的事情就是“拉第二小提琴”，但是，恩格斯的《国民经济学批判大纲》通过政治经济学批判阐发唯物史观和共产主义的思想深刻影响着马克思。不仅如此，初步阐发唯物史观的《神圣家族》、第一次系统阐述唯物史观的《德意志意识形态》（以下简称《形态》）以及标志着唯物史观公开问世的《共产党宣言》（以下简称《宣言》）都是由马克思和恩格斯共同完成的。马克思选择到英国考察资本主义社会，其间完成的《曼彻斯特笔记》和《伦敦笔记》都真实记录着恩格斯对于自己思想转变的深刻影响。马克思也曾给予恩格斯以很高的评价，并且明确表示，“自从弗里德里希·恩格斯批判经济学范畴的天才大纲（在《德法年鉴》上）发表以后，我同他不断通信交换意见”，称自己总是踏着恩格斯的“脚印”走。

As an axis-centric paradigm, the dialogic paradigm profoundly influenced Marx's process of breaking free from Hegelian philosophy and moving toward the establishment of a new worldview in three respects. First, it helped accelerate the process of ideological reckoning and rupture with Hegelian speculative philosophy. Marx's break with the Young Hegelians, who clung to Hegelian speculative philosophy, was achieved precisely through extensive and in-depth critical dialogue. Without the progressively deepening role that this dialogic paradigm played in debates over key questions, the process by which Marx cast off Hegelian philosophy would not have been so rapid or so thorough. Second, it helped in the search for an intellectual way out. At this time Marx was clear about "whence he came," but he was still groping in bewilderment as to "whither he was going." The various others beyond Hegelian philosophy became signposts, frames of reference, and coordinate systems. It was only through intellectual collision, exchange, and dialogue with them, through comparison across different frames of reference and coordinate systems, and through selection among different signposts, that Marx could gradually and ever more clearly choose the path toward establishing historical materialism. Third, his acquaintance with Engels clarified the path of transcending the stage in which the dialogic paradigm was dominant, and of truly penetrating reality itself through the paradigm of reflective problematics, studying capital and civil society, and ultimately finding the road that led to the depths of history and to the establishment of a new worldview.

作为轴心范式，对话范式从三个方面深刻影响着马克思摆脱黑格尔哲学、走向新世界观的创立进程。一是助力加速思想清算、与黑格尔思辨哲学决裂的进程。马克思与固守黑格尔思辨哲学的青年黑格尔派的决裂，就是通过广泛深入的批判性对话来实现的。没有这一对话范式在关键问题争论中发挥的不断深化的作用，马克思摆脱黑格尔哲学的进程就不会这样迅速和彻底。二是助力探寻思想出路。马克思此时对于“从何处来”是清楚的，但是对于“向何处去”还在迷惘中探索。摆脱黑格尔哲学的若干他者就成为路标、参照系和坐标系。马克思与之进行思想碰撞、交流和对话，在不同参照系和坐标系上加以比较，在不同路标中加以选择，才能最终日渐明确地选择走向唯物史观的创立道路。三是与恩格斯相识，明确了超越哲学对话范式主导阶段，真正从反思的问题学范式穿透现实本身，研究资本和市民社会，最终找到通向历史深处、创立新世界观的道路。

IV. Penetrating Reality: The Period of the Paradigm of Reflective Problematics as Axis-Centric Paradigm

四、穿透现实：以反思的问题学范式为轴心范式时期

In writing the history of philosophy, many scholars—especially Western scholars—because the young Marx was once a Hegelian, regard Marx's philosophy as an afterecho of the Hegelian philosophical system, or understand Marx as a member of the "Hegelian school," or view Marx as "the last of the great system-builders, the successor of Hegel." The reason for this misreading of the relationship between Marx's philosophy and Hegel's philosophy, and even of the relationship between Marx's philosophy and the whole of Western traditional philosophy, lies in the failure to correctly understand the philosophical revolution that Marx carried out, and the failure to see the directional significance of the paradigm of reflective problematics for Marx's philosophical revolution. In fact, when Marx emphasized in the *Theses on Feuerbach* that "the point is to change the world,"[n] the greatest difference between the "new philosophy" he constructed and all previous philosophy (including Hegel's) was that it no longer took "interpreting the world" as the chief task of philosophical inquiry, but rather took "changing the world" as its theoretical purpose. In *The German Ideology*, Marx again explicitly stressed that "our starting point is the actually active human being,"[n] and therefore historical materialism should be a philosophy that "changes the world" and "proceeds from the real, living individuals themselves." In a certain sense, the process by which the paradigm of reflective problematics gradually replaced the dialogic paradigm as the axis-centric paradigm of Marx's philosophical research was also the process in which historical materialism itself, in order to change the world, continuously innovated in the resolution of real problems.

在书写哲学史时，很多学者尤其是西方学者因为青年马克思曾是一名黑格尔主义者，就将马克思哲学视为黑格尔哲学体系的余音，或是将马克思理解为“黑格尔学派”的一员，或是将马克思视为“大体系缔造者当中的最后一人，是黑格尔的后继者”。造成对马克思哲学与黑格尔哲学的关系，乃至马克思哲学与西方传统哲学之间关系误读的原因就在于，没能正确理解马克思所实现的哲学革命，也没有看到反思的问题学范式对马克思哲学革命的方向性意义。事实上，马克思在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中强调“问题在于改变世界”之时，他所建构的“新哲学”与以往哲学（包括黑格尔哲学）的最大不同就在于不再将“解释世界”作为哲学研究的主要任务，而是将“改变世界”作为理论宗旨。在《形态》中，马克思再一次明确强调，“我们的出发点是从事实际活动的人”，因此，唯物史观应该是“改变世界”“从现实的、有生命的个人本身出发”的哲学。从一定意义上可以说，反思的问题学范式逐步接替对话范式成为马克思哲学研究的轴心范式的过程，也是唯物史观本身为了改变世界而在对现实问题的解决中不断创新的过程。

Like the dialogic paradigm, the paradigm of reflective problematics existed in an auxiliary form before it became the axis-centric paradigm. The powerful vitality of Marx's philosophy derives from its intense "problem-consciousness." Whether in the exploration of "the problem of the manifestation of freedom in the dimension of self-consciousness," the inversion of "the relationship between civil society and the state," the analysis of "the problem of German-style modernization," or the critique of "the phenomenon of the alienation of labor," all of this shows that it was always developed around real problems. "'Taking problems as the center' almost became the important path by which Marx broke through the ossified philosophy of system and moved toward philosophical revolution." However, for Marx, although discovering and attending to the major problems of the development of the times was certainly important, the analysis and critique of the causes of these problems was even more important, because "true critique analyzes not answers but problems." The reason Marx criticized Moses Hess for "smuggling 'his own abstract concepts' into philosophy,"[n] and criticized Bruno Bauer and others for a revolution that "merely opposed words with words... and did not oppose the real existing world,"[n] was that he recognized that in order to achieve the practical aim of "changing the world," one could not merely remain within metaphysical speculative philosophy in analyzing problems—and this was precisely what Hegelian philosophy, Feuerbachian philosophy, and the like could not truly accomplish. The reason the paradigm of reflective problematics could become the axis-centric paradigm was that Marx recognized that whether it was the interpretive paradigm that took "texts and documents" as its object of study, or the dialogic paradigm that took contemporary thinkers as its objects of dialogue, the history within their horizons was only history in "texts and documents," or history in the "thought" of scholars, and the critique they carried out was only a critique of the "mirror image" of history, or a critique of the "copy," that is, it did not truly touch history "itself." The uniqueness of the paradigm of reflective problematics lies in the fact that it takes the "original text" of history as its object of reflection, and conducts research centered on the real problems existing in the "original text" of history.

与对话范式一样，反思的问题学范式在成为轴心范式之前，一直是以辅助形式存在的。马克思哲学的强大生命力来自其强烈的“问题意识”，无论是对“自由在自我意识维度显现问题”的探讨、对“市民社会与国家关系”的颠倒、对“德国式现代化问题”的分析，还是对“劳动异化现象”的批判，都表明它是始终围绕现实问题展开的，“‘以问题为中心’几乎成为马克思突破僵化的体系哲学，走向哲学革命的重要路径”。然而，对马克思来说，发现与关注时代发展的重大问题固然重要，而对这些问题产生原因的分析和批判则更为重要，因为“真正的批判要分析的不是答案，而是问题”。马克思之所以批判莫泽斯把“‘自己的抽象概念’偷偷塞进哲学”，批判鲍威尔等人的革命“只是用词句来反对这些词句……不是反对现实的现存世界”，就是因为他认识到，要想达到“改变世界”的实践目的，就不能仅仅停留在形而上学思辨哲学之中分析问题，而这恰恰是黑格尔哲学、费尔巴哈哲学等无法真正实现的。反思的问题学范式之所以能够成为轴心范式，就是因为马克思认识到，无论是以“文本—文献”作为研究对象的解读范式，还是以同时代思想家作为对话对象的对话范式，其视域中的历史只是“文本—文献”中的历史，或是学者们“思想”中的历史，所进行的批判也只是对历史的“镜像”批判，或者“副本”批判，即没有真正触及历史“本身”。反思的问题学范式的独特性就在于，它将历史的“原本”作为反思对象，是以历史“原本”中存在的现实问题为中心展开研究的。

Marx's discovery of and search for a solution to the "problem of material interests" during his period of work at the *Rheinische Zeitung*[n] was the initial presentation of the paradigm of reflective problematics in his philosophical research. As Marx later noted in his self-reckoning, his earlier discussion of the *Doctoral Dissertation* and his emphasis on "the freedom of self-consciousness" were nothing more than "philosophical struggles with the shadow of reality," "philosophical struggles catering to the taste of the dreamy, spiritless German people."[n] His work at the *Rheinische Zeitung* led Marx from the ivory tower to society, and also led Marx's philosophy from purely speculative philosophical research to philosophical research containing practical implications. In a letter to Richard Fischer, Engels stated, "I have more than once heard Marx say that it was precisely his research on the law on the theft of wood and on the condition of the peasants in the Moselle region that drove him from pure politics to economic relations, and thence to socialism."[n] The reason the problems of the interests of the wood-theft law and the Moselle peasants could move Marx so deeply was, on the one hand, that they directly concerned the relationship between material interests and the state and law, and on the other hand, that the disputes among private interests hidden behind these phenomena of state life made Marx aware of the necessity of real research into economic relations. Franz Mehring, in evaluating Marx's political articles from the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, said that although Marx "stood entirely on the standpoint of a Hegelian," he was "already a radical Hegelian extremely eager to move from the world of illusion to the real world."[n] That is to say, the discovery and discussion of the "problem of material interests" during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, while pulling the perspective of Marx's philosophical research back from the "world of ideas" to the "real world," also rooted in Marx's philosophical research both attention to the condition of the real lifeworld and the exploration of the future fate and prospects of the real lifeworld.

马克思在《莱茵报》工作时期对“物质利益难题”的发现和求解，是反思的问题学范式在其哲学研究中的最初呈现。如马克思后来自我清算时所指出的那样，之前自己对《博士论文》的探讨和对“自我意识的自由”的强调，不过是“同现实的影子所作的哲学斗争”，是“投合耽于幻想、精神委靡的德国民众口味的哲学斗争”。《莱茵报》的工作使马克思从象牙塔走向了社会，也使马克思哲学由纯粹思辨的哲学研究走向了包含实践意蕴的哲学研究。恩格斯在致理查·费舍的信中表示，“我曾不止一次地听马克思说过，正是他对林木盗窃法和摩泽尔河沿岸地区农民状况的研究，推动他由纯政治转向经济关系，并从而走向社会主义”。林木盗窃法和摩泽尔农民的利益问题之所以能够带给马克思如此大的触动，一方面是因为它们直接关系到物质利益与国家和法之间的关系，另一方面是因为隐藏于这些国家生活现象背后的私人利益之间的纠纷使马克思意识到对经济关系进行现实研究的必要性。弗·梅林在评价《莱茵报》时期马克思的政论文章时表示，马克思虽然“完全站在黑格尔主义者的立场上”，但“已经是一个极想从虚幻世界走向现实世界的激进的黑格尔主义者”。这就是说，《莱茵报》时期对“物质利益难题”的发现与探讨，在将马克思哲学的研究视角由“理念世界”拉回“现实世界”的同时，也将对现实生活世界境况的关注以及对现实生活世界未来命运和前途的探讨植根于马克思哲学研究之中。

The publication of Engels's *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* and *The Condition of the Working Class in England* was an important opportunity for the reflective problematic paradigm to stand out in Marxian philosophical research. Although the "difficulty of material interests" during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period had already made Marx aware of the necessity of studying questions of economic relations, as Marx himself said, "the first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical review of the Hegelian philosophy of right." In other words, Marx's initial research on economic relations was carried out through a critique of Hegel's philosophy of right and through the inversion of the relations among "civil society," "the family," and "the state" in Hegel's philosophy—that is, by beginning with a critique of the "copy" of political economy. Marx said of Engels's *The Condition of the Working Class in England* that it arrived "by another road" at the same results as his own; this "other road" refers to the critical path of political economy that Engels adopted in *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* and *The Condition of the Working Class in England*. Engels's critique of political economy—the "original"—not only stimulated Marx's interest in studying political economy but also inspired and propelled Marx's turn from a critique of the "copy" of political economy to a critique of the "original." Under this inspiration, Marx completed "the first rough sketch" of his "epoch-making work, *Capital: A Critique of Political Economy*"—the *Manuscripts*. In the preface to the *Manuscripts*, Marx called Engels's *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* an "original work" and indicated that he had made use of Engels's achievement in his research for the *Manuscripts*. Moreover, in his first work of political economy critique, *The Poverty of Philosophy*, and in his economic magnum opus *Capital*, Marx repeatedly cited and adopted views from Engels's *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* and *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, such as views on the price of labor-power and wages, and a dialectical attitude toward the relationship between competition and monopoly.

恩格斯《国民经济学批判大纲》和《英国工人阶级状况》的发表是反思的问题学范式能够在马克思哲学研究中凸显出来的重要契机。虽然《莱茵报》时期的“物质利益难题”已经使马克思意识到了对经济关系问题进行研究的必要性，但如马克思自己所说，“为了解决使我苦恼的疑问，我写的第一部著作是对黑格尔法哲学的批判性的分析”。换言之，马克思对经济关系的最初研究是通过对黑格尔法哲学的批判，以及对黑格尔哲学中的“市民社会”“家庭”和“国家”三者关系的颠倒来实现的，即从政治经济学的“副本”批判入手展开研究。马克思称恩格斯的《英国工人阶级状况》“从另一条道路得出同我一样的结果”，这里的“另一条道路”就是指恩格斯在《国民经济学批判大纲》和《英国工人阶级状况》中所采用的国民经济学批判道路。恩格斯对国民经济学这一“原本”的批判在激发了马克思研究政治经济学的兴趣的同时，也启发和推动了马克思由政治经济学“副本”批判向“原本”批判的转变。在这一启发下，马克思完成了“划时代巨著《资本论：政治经济学批判》的第一份粗略的草图”——《手稿》。在《手稿》的序言中，马克思称恩格斯的《国民经济学批判大纲》是“有独创性的著作”，并且表明自己在《手稿》的研究中利用了恩格斯的这一成果。此外，马克思在其首部政治经济学批判著作《哲学的贫困》以及经济学巨著《资本论》中也多处提到和采用了恩格斯《国民经济学批判大纲》和《英国工人阶级状况》中的观点，如关于劳动力价格和工资的观点、对竞争和垄断相互关系问题的辩证态度等。

The visit to and investigation of Manchester, England, was an important marker of the reflective problematic paradigm becoming the axis-centric paradigm. After interrupting his first round of economic research, Marx took the opportunity of visiting Engels, who had been posted to Manchester to manage a cotton mill for the family business, to conduct on-the-ground investigation of the actual operational process of large-scale machine industry and the living conditions of workers in the Manchester region. The choice of Manchester as the site of on-the-ground investigation was due both to Engels's sufficient familiarity with Manchester as a reliable guide and to the fact that Manchester was not only a place of capitalist prosperity but also the place where the contradictions of capitalist society were most acute. Compared with London, Manchester, known as the "Cottonopolis," was not only the birthplace of the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution but also the first place to apply the steam engine to the textile industry. Here, while the Industrial Revolution achieved enormous development, the lives of workers at the bottom were extremely destitute. With Engels's introduction, Marx was able to go deep into factories and slums, come into direct contact with the working class, listen to their suffering and demands, and witness with his own eyes the miserable conditions of the workers at the very bottom of society that Engels had described in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*—namely, "in a bend of the Medlock ... there are about 4,000 inhabitants, almost all Irish. The cottages are old, dirty, and tiny; the streets are uneven, sunk, and mostly unpaved, with no sewers. Everywhere stagnant pools, and amid them heaps of garbage, refuse, and disgusting filth constantly emitting stench to pollute the air, which is already foul and oppressive from the black smoke of dozens of factory chimneys." These practical experiences made Marx realize more deeply that a purely "critique of the copy," though capable of producing new concepts, could hardly touch the origin and root of real social problems, and that a profound revelation of the contradictions of capitalist society could only be achieved in a "critique of the original."

对英国曼彻斯特的访问与考察是反思的问题学范式成为轴心范式的重要标识。在中断第一次经济学研究后，马克思借拜访因家族生意而被派驻曼城管理棉纺织厂的恩格斯的机会，对曼彻斯特地区的机器大工业生产的现实运行过程和工人的生活状况进行了实地考察。选择将曼彻斯特作为实地考察对象，既是因为恩格斯对曼彻斯特足够了解，是一名可靠的向导，也是因为曼彻斯特不仅是资本主义的繁荣之地，而且是资本主义社会矛盾最为尖锐的地方。相较于伦敦而言，被称为“棉都”的曼彻斯特不仅是19世纪工业革命的发源地，也是最早将蒸汽机运用于纺织业的地方。在这里，工业革命在获得巨大发展的同时，底层工人的生活却是非常困顿。在恩格斯的引荐下，马克思得以深入工厂、贫民窟，与工人阶级直接接触，倾听他们的苦难与诉求，亲眼见证恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中所描述的生活在社会最底层的工人的悲惨境况，即“在梅德洛克河的一个河湾里……一共约有4000人住在这里，几乎全是爱尔兰人。小宅子都很破旧，肮脏，小得不能再小；街道坑坑洼洼，高低不平，大部分没有铺砌，也没有污水沟。到处都是死水洼，高高地堆积在这些死水洼之间的一堆堆的垃圾、废弃物和令人作呕的脏东西不断地发散出臭味来染污四周的空气，而这里的空气由于成打的工厂烟囱冒着黑烟，本来就够污浊沉闷的了”。这些实践经历让马克思更加深刻地认识到，纯粹的“副本批判”虽然能够提出新概念，但难以触及社会现实问题的本源和根源，而对资本主义社会矛盾的深刻揭示只能是在“原本批判”中实现。

As Marx himself said, "the general result at which I arrived and which, once won, served as a guiding thread for my studies." Historical materialism was both constructed by Marx in the process of reflecting on and critiquing real problems and a theoretical weapon used by Marx to reflect on and critique real problems. Only after the initial formation of historical materialism did Marxian philosophy have scientific theoretical guidance for reflecting on and studying real problems. After interrupting his economic research for various reasons, including the publication of the *Neue Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx resumed his economic research in 1850. As Marx wrote in a letter to Engels, "I am working like mad all night at summarizing my economic studies, so that I may at least get the fundamentals clear before the deluge." During this period, he spent long hours in the British Museum, reading almost all the political economy literature and related materials in its collection. Therefore, compared with the *Manuscripts*, whose main research methods were textual analysis and logical deduction, the research for *Capital* was conducted on the basis of a large amount of empirical material. In the process of writing *Capital*, Marx looked up a great deal of economic data and applied these data as evidence in the concrete argumentation, truly completing the closed loop of research from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract back to the concrete. Unfortunately, due to health reasons, Marx published and revised only the first volume of *Capital* during his lifetime; the editing and publication of the second and third volumes were mainly completed by Engels.

正如马克思所说的，“我所得到的，并且一经得到就用于指导我的研究工作的总的结果”。唯物史观既是马克思在对现实问题的反思与批判过程中建构的，也是马克思用于反思与批判现实问题的理论武器。在唯物史观初步形成后，马克思哲学对现实问题的反思与研究才有了科学的理论指导。在因《新莱茵报》出版等诸多事宜中断经济学研究后，马克思在1850年重新开始了经济学研究。如马克思在给恩格斯的信中表示的，“我现在发狂似地通宵总结我的经济学研究，为的是在洪水之前至少把一些基本问题搞清楚”。在此期间，他长时间地待在大英博物馆，研读了馆中收藏的几乎所有政治经济学文献和相关资料。因此，相较于以文本分析和逻辑演绎为主要研究方法的《手稿》而言，《资本论》的研究是在大量实证材料的基础上进行的。在《资本论》的写作过程中，马克思查找了大量的经济学数据，并将这些数据作为证据应用到具体的论证中，真正完成了由具体到抽象、再由抽象到具体的研究闭环。遗憾的是，由于身体的原因，马克思生前仅出版和修订了《资本论》第一卷，《资本论》第二卷、第三卷的整理和出版主要是由恩格斯来完成的。

With the reflective problematic paradigm as the axis-centric paradigm and historical materialism as the theoretical weapon, Marx, while studying the laws of operation of the capitalist social economy, also carried out critical reflection on real political questions represented by the French Bonapartist coup, the Paris Commune movement, and the Russian path of development. In *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, Marx summarized and commented on the experience from the February Revolution of 1848 to the coup of Louis Bonaparte in 1851. By investigating the causes of the failure of the bourgeois revolution and the republic, Marx pointed out that for the proletarian revolution to achieve victory, it was necessary not only to smash the old state machinery but also to win the support of the peasants. In *The Civil War in France*, Marx analyzed the historical role and causes of the failure of the Paris Commune of 1871, affirming not only the proletarian dictatorship character of the Commune but also elaborating in detail on the Commune's experience in construction from the perspectives of smashing the "centralized state power," establishing a "government of the producers," having "responsible agents" exercise governmental functions, and realizing a "cheap government," regarding the Paris Commune as a "model" of the regime of the proletarian dictatorship. In the *Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvennye Zapiski* and the *Letter to Vera Zasulich*, in response to Zasulich's question whether Russian social development should follow the "old path" of capitalist social development or could leap over the "Caudine Forks of capitalism" to transition directly to communist society, Marx explicitly restricted the capitalist path of development elaborated in *Capital* to the countries of Western Europe, indicating that, provided the natural development of the rural commune was guaranteed, it could become the fulcrum for the regeneration of Russian society.

以反思的问题学范式为轴心范式，以唯物史观作为理论武器，马克思在对资本主义社会经济运行规律进行研究的同时，也对以法国波拿巴政变、巴黎公社运动、俄国发展道路为代表的现实政治问题进行了批判性反思。在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中，马克思对从1848年二月革命到1851年路易·波拿巴政变期间的经验进行了总结和评述。通过追究资产阶级革命和共和国失败的原因，马克思指出，无产阶级革命要想取得胜利，不仅需要打碎旧的国家机器，还需要获得农民的支持。在《法兰西内战》中，马克思对1871年巴黎公社的历史作用与失败原因进行了分析，不仅肯定了巴黎公社的无产阶级专政性质，还从打碎“中央集权的国家政权”、建立“生产者自治政府”、“严格承担责任的勤务员”行使政府职能、实现“廉价政府”等方面对巴黎公社的建设经验作出了详细的阐述，将巴黎公社视为无产阶级专政政权的“范本”。在《给〈祖国纪事〉杂志编辑部的信》和《给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信》中，针对查苏利奇关于俄国社会的发展是走资本主义社会发展的“老路”，还是能够跨越“资本主义的卡夫丁峡谷”直接过渡到共产主义社会的提问，马克思将《资本论》中阐述的资本主义发展道路明确限制在了西欧各国，表示在保证农村公社自然发展的情况下，它可以成为俄国社会新生的支点。

V. The Research Paradigm Picture of the "One Body with Two Wings": Several Implications

五、 “一体两翼”的研究范式图景：几点启示

Revisiting the original context of the process of Marx's philosophical revolution from the height of methodological self-awareness undoubtedly has important implications for a more accurate understanding and grasp of the history of Marxist philosophy and for the innovative development of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times.

从方法论自觉的高度重访马克思哲学革命进程的原初语境，对于更准确地理解和把握马克思主义哲学史、对于马克思主义中国化时代化创新发展，无疑都具有重要启示。

First, methodological self-awareness and the creation of a new worldview are closely linked and mutually reinforcing. The shift in the axis-centric paradigm—from the interpretive paradigm to the dialogical paradigm and then to the reflective problematological paradigm—not only propelled Marx’s philosophy from “immaturity” to “maturity” but also delineated the intrinsic innovative landscape of Marx’s philosophical revolution. During the period when the interpretive paradigm served as the axis-centric paradigm, Marx took “texts and documents” as his research object. Through textual-documentary studies of the works of ancient Greek philosophers, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and others, he entered philosophy via jurisprudence, achieving an important transition from the study of Kantian and Schellingian philosophy to the study of Hegelian philosophy. During the period when the dialogical paradigm served as the axis-centric research paradigm, the interpretive paradigm withdrew from the axis position and existed in Marx’s philosophical research in a subsidiary form, jointly constituting with the dialogical paradigm a paradigm landscape in which the dialogical paradigm was primary and the interpretive paradigm supplementary. Within this paradigm landscape, Marx, through dialogue, exchange, and intellectual confrontation with contemporary thinkers, completed his critique of Hegelian philosophy and his settling of accounts with the Young Hegelians, initially constructing historical materialism. During the period when the reflective problematological paradigm served as the axis-centric paradigm, the reflective problematological paradigm, together with the interpretive paradigm and the dialogical paradigm, constituted a research paradigm landscape of “one body with two wings”—that is, a distinctive paradigm configuration with the reflective problematological paradigm as the “one body” and the interpretive and dialogical paradigms as the “two wings.” This research paradigm landscape of “one body with two wings” endowed Marx’s philosophy with robust vitality while also enabling Marx’s philosophy, in a genuine sense, to complete the important transition from “critique of the copy” to “critique of the original,” ensuring that Marx’s philosophy could always stand at the forefront of the times, answering the questions of the times and the questions of the people.

第一，方法论自觉与新世界观创立两者之间是紧密关联、互动共进的。由解读范式到对话范式再到反思的问题学范式，这一轴心范式的转换既推动着马克思哲学由“稚嫩”走向“成熟”，也勾勒出了马克思发动哲学革命内在的创新图景。在以解读范式为轴心范式时期，马克思以“文本—文献”作为研究对象，通过对古希腊哲学家、康德、谢林、黑格尔等人著作的文本—文献学研究，由法学介入哲学，实现了由康德、谢林哲学研究向黑格尔哲学研究的重要转变。在以对话范式作为轴心研究范式时期，解读范式从轴心位置上退出，以辅助性形式存在于马克思的哲学研究之中，与对话范式共同构成以对话范式为主、以解读范式为辅的范式图景。在这一范式图景下，马克思通过与同时代思想家的对话、交流、思想交锋，完成了对黑格哲学的批判、对青年黑格尔派思想的清算，初步建构起唯物史观。在以反思的问题学范式为轴心范式时期，反思的问题学范式与解读范式、对话范式共同构成了“一体两翼”的研究范式图景，即以反思的问题学范式为“一体”、以解读范式和对话范式为“两翼”的独特范式格局。“一体两翼”的研究范式图景在赋予马克思哲学以强大生命力的同时，也使马克思哲学在真正意义上完成了由“副本批判”向“原本批判”的重要转变，保障了马克思哲学能够始终站在时代前沿，回答时代之问、人民之问。

Second, research paradigms as methodological self-awareness undergo not only diachronic shifts but also synchronic alternations. No research paradigm is the sole presence, nor is it a metaphysics that, once it appears, is eternally present. The complementarity and inclusiveness of the various research paradigms are evident. We must never dogmatically assert the absoluteness or unconditionality of the appearance and presence of any given research paradigm. On the contrary, the appearance and presence of every research paradigm and axis-centric paradigm are historically conditioned and closely linked to the purposes of theoretical innovation.

第二，作为方法论自觉的研究范式不仅存在着历时态转换，更存在着共时态的交替。每个研究范式都不是唯一的在场，更不是一经出场就永恒在场的形而上学。各个研究范式的互补性和包容性显而易见。我们决不能教条地判定某个研究范式的出场和在场的绝对性或无条件性。相反，每一个研究范式、轴心范式的出场和在场都是有历史条件的，都与理论创新目的紧密关联。

Third, since Marx’s philosophy was introduced into China, it has not only provided scientific theoretical guidance for China’s revolution and development but has also continuously integrated with China’s actual conditions, continuously adapting to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, becoming the “soul-line” of theoretical innovation. Because the construction of the disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics requires the realization of research paradigm innovation, and because the realization of such research paradigm innovation must seek “inspiration” from the research paradigm innovation within Marx’s philosophy itself, the research paradigm landscape of “one body with two wings”—as the guarantee of Marx’s philosophical vitality and the embodiment of its intrinsic logic of innovation—should receive attention and can become an important breakthrough point for constructing an autonomous knowledge system of contemporary Chinese Marxist philosophy.

第三，马克思哲学传入中国以来，不仅为中国的革命与发展提供了科学的理论指导，也不断与中国实际相结合，不断中国化时代化，成为理论创新的“魂脉”所在。由于中国特色哲学社会科学学科体系、学术体系、话语体系的构建要求实现研究范式创新，而这种研究范式创新的实现需从马克思哲学本身的研究范式创新之中寻找“灵感”。因此，作为马克思哲学生命力保证和内在创新逻辑体现的“一体两翼”研究范式图景应该受到关注，并且能够成为构建当代中国马克思主义哲学自主知识体系的重要突破点。

Online editor: Tong Xin

网络编辑：同心