The Theoretical Connotation and Practical Orientation of Marxist Epistemology

Since the 20th century, traditional Marxist epistemology has encountered certain challenges under the discourse of contemporary Western cognitive science. In response, research on Marxist epistemology must, while consolidating the fundamental principles of Marxist philosophy, adhere to taking "seeking truth from facts" as the fundamental requirement of Marxist epistemology, focus on the concrete historical relationship between the cognitive subject and the cognitive object, and provide an epistemological foundation for articulating Chinese experience and Chinese stories. As Engels pointed out, Marxism "does not provide ready-made dogmas, but a starting point for further research and a method for that research"; the same applies to epistemology. Against the current backdrop of the times, developing Marxist epistemology requires further in-depth understanding and research into its theoretical connotation and practical orientation in three aspects.

自20世纪以来，传统马克思主义认识论在当代西方认知科学话语下遭遇了一定的挑战。对此，马克思主义认识论研究有必要在夯实马克思主义哲学基本原理的同时，坚持将“一切从实际出发”作为马克思主义认识论的根本要求，关注认知主体与认知对象之间的具体历史关系，为讲好中国经验与中国故事提供认识论基础。诚如恩格斯指出的，马克思主义“提供的不是现成的教条，而是进一步研究的出发点和供这种研究使用的方法”，在认识论方面亦是如此；在当前时代背景下，发展马克思主义认识论需要在三个方面进一步深入理解和研究其理论内涵与实践旨向。

The Theoretical Connotation of Marxist "Active Reflection Theory"

马克思主义“能动的反映论”的理论内涵

Whether it is contemporary Anglo-American cognitive science or French structuralist epistemology, both focus the study of epistemology on the cognitive structure and mediating system of the individual subject, thereby emphasizing the selectivity and constructiveness of the individual subject's cognitive structure, even moving toward subjectivist constructivism. Admittedly, Marxist epistemology, as an active reflection theory, while criticizing the "intuitive reflection theory" of old materialism, affirms the importance of the subject's cognitive structure as a premise of cognition. However, active reflection theory, while confirming cognitive activity, further emphasizes that the mediating system of cognition possesses socio-historical attributes and is a product of the continuous development of social history.

无论是当代英美认知科学还是法国结构主义认识论，它们都将认识论研究的焦点放在个体主体的认识结构和中介系统上，从而强调个体主体认识结构的选择性和建构性，甚至走向主体建构论。诚然，马克思主义认识论作为能动的反映论在批判旧唯物主义“直观反映论”的同时，肯定了作为认识前提的主体认识结构的重要性。然而，能动的反映论在确证认知能动性的同时，更强调了认识的中介系统具有社会历史属性，是社会历史不断发展的产物。

First, active epistemology holds that the individual's perceptual organs, as cognitive mediators, are also "social organs." The development of human cognition and perception is inseparable from the development of human perceptual activity; "the formation of the five senses is the product of all world history up to the present." [1]1 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Thus, Marx's research starting from perceptual activity provides a new path for answering epistemological questions. In Marx's view, industrial practical activity and the objective existence it generates constitute "an open book of the essential powers of man, a psychology of man sensuously presented before us." [2]2 Ibid. The human perceptual mediator is precisely not a fixed system, but a social organ that is continuously generated through perceptual objectifying activity, i.e., practice.

首先，能动的认识论认为，作为认知中介的个人感知器官同时也是“社会的器官”。人的认知与感知的发展离不开人的感性活动的发展，“五官感觉的形成是迄今为止全部世界历史的产物”。由此，马克思从感性活动出发展开的研究，为认识论问题的解答提供了一条崭新的路径。在马克思看来，工业实践活动及其生成的对象性存在，“是一本打开了的关于人的本质力量的书，是感性地摆在我们面前的人的心理学”。人的感知中介恰恰不是固定不变的体系，而是随着感性对象化活动即实践不断生成的社会器官。

Second, active epistemology emphasizes that the abstract categories and linguistic systems serving as cognitive mediators also possess socio-historical attributes. The abstract categories and linguistic systems through which the subject cognizes the perceptual world have always been a focus of Western epistemological research. Marx does not deny the mediating role of abstract categories in cognition, but he also confirms that the abstract categories through which humans cognize the external world are precisely products of social history; as Marx pointed out in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), "even the most abstract categories, despite their validity for all epochs precisely because of their abstractness, are themselves, in the specific character of this abstraction, likewise a product of historical conditions." [3]3 Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858). At the same time, Marx emphasizes that the formation of abstract categories is inseparable from the role of language, and language is precisely a product of social practice: "Language is as old as consciousness; language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other people as well, and therefore it exists for me personally as well." [4]4 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846). Thus, while affirming the activity of the subject's cognition, Marxist active reflection theory scientifically identifies the socio-historical attributes of the subject's cognitive mediator, which precisely provides an effective path for the further development of contemporary epistemology.

其次，能动的认识论强调，作为认知中介的抽象范畴和语言系统同样具有社会历史属性。主体借以认识感性世界的抽象范畴和语言系统一直是西方认识论研究的重点。马克思并不否认抽象范畴的认识中介作用，但他也同时确证了人借以认识外部世界的抽象范畴恰恰是社会历史的产物；正如马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中所指出，“哪怕是最抽象的范畴，虽然正是由于它们的抽象而适用于一切时代，但是就这个抽象的规定性本身来说，同样是历史条件的产物”。同时，马克思强调，抽象范畴的形成离不开语言的作用，而语言恰恰是社会实践的产物：“语言和意识具有同样长久的历史；语言是一种实践的、既为别人存在因而也为我自身而存在的、现实的意识。”可见，马克思主义能动的反映论在肯定主体认识的能动性的同时，科学指认了主体认知中介的社会历史属性，这恰恰为当前认识论的深入发展提供了一条有效的路径。

The Theoretical Value of "Practice is the Source of Knowledge"

“实践是认识的来源”的理论价值

With the establishment of historical materialism, Marx, taking practice as the fulcrum, advanced the study of epistemology from the two aspects of the cognitive object (the object) and the cognitive subject, emphatically stressing that "practice is the source of knowledge," which holds significant value for current epistemological research.

伴随着唯物史观的确立，马克思以实践为支点，从认知对象（客体）和认知主体两方面推进认识论的研究，着重强调了“实践是认识的来源”，这一点对于当下认识论研究具有重要价值。

Regarding the cognitive object, Marx took "sense certainty" as the breakthrough point for epistemological research. Contemporary Western epistemology often studies the role of "sense data" in cognition and regards perceptual objects as given givens. From the perspective of historical materialism, perceptual objects as cognitive objects are "by no means something given directly from all eternity, remaining ever the same, but are the product of industry and the state of society, a historical product," [5]5 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology*. and "this continuous sensuous labor and creation, this production, is the foundation of the whole sensuous world as it now exists." [6]6 Ibid. The cognitive object is neither a given datum nor a purely natural product, but a result of practice. As Engels identified, "the most essential and immediate basis of human thought is precisely the change in nature brought about by man, not nature alone." [7]7 Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*.

就认知对象而言，马克思以“感性确定性”作为认识论研究的突破口。当代西方认识论往往研究“感觉材料”在认知中的作用，并将感性对象视为既定的所与物。在唯物史观视角下，作为认知对象的感性对象都“决不是某种开天辟地以来就直接存在的、始终如一的东西，而是工业和社会状况的产物，是历史的产物”，而“这种连续不断的感性劳动和创造、这种生产，正是整个现存的感性世界的基础”。认知对象既不是既定的所予物，也不是纯自然的产物，而是实践的结果。诚如恩格斯所指认的，“人的思维的最本质和最切近的基础，正是人所引起的自然界的变化，而不仅仅是自然界本身”。

Regarding the cognitive subject, Marx pointed out in the *Grundrisse*: "The object of art creates a public that has artistic taste and is capable of enjoying beauty—and so does any other product. Production thus produces not only an object for the subject, but also a subject for the object." [8]8 Marx, *Grundrisse*. The social reproduction process not only changes the objective conditions of social history, but also changes the cognition of the producer; it not only changes the producer's perception, but even changes his higher mental mechanisms; thus, "he develops new qualities, produces and transforms himself through production, creates new powers and new ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs and new language." [9]9 Ibid. In this perspective, the expansion of the cognitive subject's perceptual categories is inseparable from the expansion of the categories of social practice.

就认识主体而言，马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中指出，“艺术对象创造出懂得艺术和具有审美能力的大众，——任何其他产品也都是这样。因此，生产不仅为主体生产对象，而且也为对象生产主体”。社会的再生产过程，不仅改变着社会历史的客观条件，而且也改变着生产者的认知，不仅改变着生产者的感知，甚至还改变着他的高级心智机制；由此，“他炼出新的品质，通过生产而发展和改造着自身，造成新的力量和新的观念，造成新的交往方式，新的需要和新的语言”。在此视域下，认知主体的感知范畴的扩大离不开社会实践范畴的扩大。

Whether in the study of the cognitive object (the object) or the cognitive subject, Marx has infused epistemology with the thickness of social history from the perspective of the spatiotemporal changes of practice; this is precisely the scientific dimension that contemporary Western cognitive science lacks.

无论是对于认知对象（客体）还是认知主体的研究，马克思都从实践的时空变迁角度为认识论注入了社会历史的厚度；这一点无疑是当代西方认知科学所缺乏的科学维度。

The Practical Orientation of "the Second Leap in the Movement of Cognition"

“认识运动中的第二次飞跃”的实践旨向

Marxist epistemology regards the development from cognition to practice as the second leap in the movement of cognition. This means that Marxist epistemology does not stop at revealing the laws of cognition itself. In fact, Marx studies cognitive issues with practice as the orientation, and thus absolutely does not fall into the traps of "scholasticism" and "theoreticism" on epistemological questions: "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question." [10]10 Marx, *Theses on Feuerbach* (1845), Thesis II.

马克思主义认识论将从认识到实践的发展视为认识运动中的第二次飞跃。这意味着，马克思主义认识论不止于揭示认识规律本身。事实上，马克思以实践为旨向研究认识问题，因而也绝不在认识论问题上陷入“经院哲学”和“理论主义”的陷阱：“关于思维——离开实践的思维——的现实性或非现实性的争论，是一个纯粹经院哲学的问题。”

In this dimension, Marxist epistemology is practice-oriented, emphasizing the second leap in the movement of cognition, preventing the results of cognition from remaining at the level of abstract theory, because "abstractions taken in isolation from real history have no value whatsoever." [11]11 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology*. Neither the laws of cognition themselves nor the results of scientific cognition are the ultimate destination of Marxist epistemology. On the contrary, taking practice as the destination of cognition, Marxist epistemology not only concerns itself with scientific modes of cognition, but also with the process by which the results of scientific cognition move toward the sensuous objectification of concrete social objects; the latter is always inevitably influenced by specific historical conditions. It is in this sense that Marx believed that "very similar events occurring in different historical contexts lead to completely different results," [12]12 Marx, letter to the editorial board of *Otechestvennye Zapiski* (1877). and therefore he opposed treating "general historical-philosophical theories" as a "master key" for analyzing any history, and "absolutely does not provide recipes or formulas applicable to all historical epochs," [13]13 Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy* (1847). but rather seeks truth from facts in exploring the conditions under which laws operate. It is also in this sense that "seeking truth from facts" is precisely the fundamental requirement of Marxist epistemology.

在此维度，马克思主义认识论以实践为导向，重视认识运动中的第二次飞跃，防止认识成果停留于抽象理论层面，因为“抽象本身离开了现实的历史就没有任何价值”。无论是认识规律本身还是科学认识的成果，二者都不是马克思主义认识论的最终归宿。相反，以实践作为认识的归宿，马克思主义认识论不仅关注科学的认识方式，而且关注科学的认识成果走向社会具体对象的感性对象化过程，后者总是无法避免地受到特定历史条件的影响。也正是在这个意义上，马克思认为，“极为相似的事变发生在不同的历史环境中就引起了完全不同的结果”，因而他反对将“一般历史哲学理论”视为一把分析任何历史的“万能钥匙”，也“绝不提供可以适用于各个历史时代的药方或公式”，而是实事求是地探索规律得以发生作用的条件。也是在这个意义上，“一切从实际出发”正是马克思主义认识论的根本要求。

Under the current Western epistemological paradigm, the “second leap” from cognition to practice emphasized by Marxism is precisely the vacant zone of its theoretical research. Confined by this vacancy, Western epistemological research is often limited to speculative debates on the cognitive models of individual subjects, and even further mystifies epistemological issues. However, “all mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.” [14]14 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 5. Further deepening the study of Marxist epistemology requires theoretical research to step beyond purely speculative discussions of the relationship between the cognitive subject and the object, and to describe and narrate the historical relationship between the cognitive subject and the cognitive object under specific conditions. As Marx said, “Where speculation ends—in real life—there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men.” [15]15 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 5, p. 37. This demands that we further base ourselves on China’s concrete practical process, pay attention to the specific experience of the cognitive subject in the process of understanding and transforming the cognitive object, and thus seek truth from facts [seeking truth from facts] on the basis of “concrete facts.” Narrating Chinese experience and telling the Chinese story well—this is precisely the extended requirement of Marxist epistemology oriented toward practice.

在当前西方认识论范式下，马克思主义所强调的从认识到实践的“第二次飞跃”恰恰是其理论研究的空缺地带。囿于这一空缺，西方认识论研究往往限于对个体主体认知模式展开思辨性争论，甚至将认识论问题进一步神秘化。然而，“凡是把理论引向神秘主义的神秘东西，都能在人的实践中以及对这种实践的理解中得到合理的解决”。进一步深化马克思主义认识论研究需要理论研究跨出对认识主体与对象关系问题的纯思辨性探讨，在具体条件下描述、叙述认知主体与认识对象的历史关系。诚如马克思所言，“思维终止的地方，在现实生活面前，正是描述人们实践活动和实际发展过程的真正的实证科学开始的地方”，这要求我们进一步基于中国具体实践过程，关注认知主体在认识和改造认知对象过程中的具体经验，从而基于“实事”而求“是”。叙述中国经验，讲好中国故事，这恰恰是以实践为旨向的马克思主义认识论的延伸性要求。

Web editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗