The Focus and Breakthrough in Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation Research

Marx’s doctoral dissertation, *The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature*, embodies the results of his specialized philosophical reading and reflection during his time at the University of Berlin. The second historical-critical edition of the *Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe* (hereinafter referred to as MEGA²) Part IV, Volume 1, published for the first time Marx’s *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers* from his Berlin period, calling them the “Berlin Notebooks.” At the same time, the editors, according to the time of writing, split the *Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy* previously published in the old *Marx-Engels Collected Works* into two parts: the *Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy* and the *Fragments on Epicurean Studies*. In this way, Marx’s notebooks from the Berlin period were “split into three.” The author believes that MEGA² provides important documents for the study of Marx’s thought during his Berlin period, but the above arrangement and naming methods are not ideal. Following the conventional practice of Marx text research, all of Marx’s notebooks from the Berlin period can be collectively referred to as the “Berlin Notebooks,” and re-periodized and studied by synthesizing their time of writing and content. In this way, the full picture of the *Berlin Notebooks* and their supporting role in advancing Marx’s doctoral dissertation research will be more completely presented.

马克思的博士论文《德谟克利特的自然哲学和伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学的差别》，体现了他在柏林大学时期进行哲学专题阅读与思考的成果。《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版第二版（以下简称“MEGA2”）第四部分第1卷首次出版了马克思在柏林期间的《古典哲学家著作摘录》，并称之为“柏林笔记”。同时，编者按照写作时间，将旧版《马克思恩格斯全集》出版过的《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》拆分成《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》和《伊壁鸠鲁研究片断》两部分。这样，马克思在柏林期间的笔记就被“一分为三”。笔者认为，MEGA2为马克思柏林时期思想的研究提供了重要文献，但上述编排方式和命名方式并不理想。按照马克思文本研究的常规做法，可以将马克思在柏林时期的全部笔记统称为“柏林笔记”，综合其写作时间和内容，加以重新分期和研究。这样，《柏林笔记》的全貌及其对马克思推进博士论文研究的支撑作用将得到更加完整的呈现。

Marx’s doctoral dissertation research began in the winter semester of 1838. From approximately early 1839 to the summer semester of 1839, he completed the first set of excerpt notebooks, the content of which roughly corresponds to the first five booklets of the old *Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy*. This batch of notebooks reflects that Marx had already formed a clear theme in the early stages of his doctoral dissertation research and achieved certain breakthroughs in his views. This set of notebooks revolves entirely around one theme: Epicurus’s philosophical thought. Marx mainly excerpted two documents: first, Book X of *Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers*, which is the most important document systematically introducing Epicurus’s life and thought; second, Lucretius’s *De Rerum Natura*, which is an important development of Epicurean philosophy. Through relatively complete excerpts of these two documents, Marx systematically grasped the basic content of Epicurean philosophy. At the same time, Marx also attempted to engage in dialogue with critics of Epicurean philosophy from different eras. He excerpted not only the commentaries on Epicurus by the Platonist Plutarch and the Sceptic Sextus Empiricus, but also the commentaries on Epicurus in contemporary German histories of philosophy, making a few comments, among which he particularly opposed Plutarch’s misreading and critique of Epicurus. Most notably, Marx both inherited and, even more so, broke through Hegel’s views on the history of philosophy. In his *Lectures on the History of Philosophy*, Hegel proposed that the Hellenistic philosophical schools, including Epicurus, all “attained the freedom of self-consciousness through thought,” which gave Marx important inspiration. Marx also pointed out in his notebooks that Epicurus “affirmed the freedom of self-consciousness.” However, Hegel had a very low opinion of Epicurus’s philosophy of nature, considering it “completely some dispensable thoughts.” Marx, on the other hand, placed special emphasis on this part, believing that self-consciousness is embodied in Epicurus’s theory of celestial phenomena, and that his detached attitude toward celestial bodies reflects “the absolute freedom of spirit.” This view laid the foundation for Marx to further establish his own research focus and writing approach.

马克思的博士论文研究是从1838年冬季学期开始的。从大约1839年初到1839年夏季学期，他完成了第一组摘录笔记，其内容大体对应旧版《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》前5册。这批笔记反映出马克思在博士论文研究初期就已经形成了明确主题，并在观点上有一定的突破。这组笔记全部围绕一个主题：伊壁鸠鲁的哲学思想。马克思主要摘录了两份文献，一是《名哲言行录》第10卷，这是系统介绍伊壁鸠鲁生平与思想最重要的文献，二是卢克莱修的《物性论》，这是对伊壁鸠鲁哲学的重要发展。通过对这两份文献比较完整的摘录，马克思系统把握了伊壁鸠鲁哲学的基本内容。同时，马克思还尝试与不同时代伊壁鸠鲁哲学的批评者对话。他既摘录了柏拉图主义者普卢塔克和怀疑主义者恩披里柯对伊壁鸠鲁的评述，也摘录了当时德国的哲学史著作中对伊壁鸠鲁的评述，并作出少量评论，其中尤为反对普卢塔克对伊壁鸠鲁的误读和批判。最值得一提的是，马克思对黑格尔关于哲学史的观点既有所继承，更有所突破。黑格尔在《哲学史讲演录》中提出，包括伊壁鸠鲁在内的希腊化哲学各派别都“通过思维获得自我意识的自由”，这给了马克思重要启发。马克思在笔记中也指出，伊壁鸠鲁“肯定自我意识的自由”。但是，黑格尔对伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学评价很低，认为其“完全是一些可有可无的思想”。而马克思特别重视这一部分，认为自我意识体现在伊壁鸠鲁的天象理论之中，他对天体的超然态度反映出“精神的绝对自由”。这一观点为马克思进一步确立自己的研究重点和写作思路奠定了基础。

From mid-1839 to early 1840, in the process of comparing Epicurean philosophy with other philosophical schools of the Hellenistic period, Marx paid more attention to the atomistic aspect of Epicurus’s philosophy of nature, compared it with Democritean atomism, and discovered the special significance of the law of atomic swerve. This was a refocusing and further breakthrough in the process of Marx’s doctoral dissertation research. During this period, Marx left behind a new set of excerpt notebooks, the extant parts of which correspond to the last two booklets of the old *Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy*. There were likely other notebooks from the same period, but they have been lost. At the same time, he added several supplements at the end of the first, second, and fourth booklets of his earlier notebooks, which MEGA² has included in the *Fragments on Epicurean Studies* and published separately. From the newly added notebooks, it can be seen that Marx originally seemed to want to understand the evaluations of Epicurean philosophy by the Stoics and Sceptics of the Hellenistic period, as well as the overall relationship between Hellenistic philosophy and earlier philosophy. However, in the process of excerpting, what repeatedly aroused his interest for commentary was Epicurus’s philosophy of nature, especially the atomistic views. His excerpts of Stobaeus and Clement of Alexandria particularly illustrate this point. Marx proposed: “Epicurus’s philosophy of nature is basically that of Democritus, and his moral rules are similar to the moral views of the Cyrenaics.” However, within this “basic” theoretical similarity, Marx also discovered a key point where Epicurus differed from Democritus: the law of atoms swerving from the straight line. In fact, Hegel also mentioned this view of Epicurus in his *Lectures on the History of Philosophy*, but he merely identified it as Epicurus’s emphasis on contingency. Marx, however, developed a new understanding of this, believing that the significance of Epicurus’s atomic swerve theory lay in advocating an anti-deterministic freedom. At the end of his earlier first notebook, Marx supplemented: “The atom, as the immediate form of the concept, objectifies itself only in immediate conceptlessness, which also applies to philosophical consciousness; this principle is the essence of philosophical consciousness.” The meaning of this passage is that the atom originally had only abstract formal determinations, and the swerve does not even have fixed determinations, but it is precisely in this unfixed, contingent activity that atoms repel each other, thereby transforming themselves into objects with specific determinations, manifesting as “a movement that breaks the bonds of fate.” In short, the swerve of the atom is not only anti-deterministic and contingent, but also genuinely individual and free. And this is precisely the point of convergence between the atomic swerve and “philosophical consciousness”: philosophical consciousness should also be individual and free. This view constitutes the core of Marx’s doctoral dissertation, and the content of the notebooks from this period is also explicitly adopted within it.

从1839年年中到1840年初，马克思在比较伊壁鸠鲁哲学与希腊化时期其他哲学流派的过程中，更加关注伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的原子论方面，并将其与德谟克利特原子论加以比较，发现了原子偏斜规律的特殊重要意义。这是马克思博士论文研究过程中的再聚焦与再突破。在这一时期，马克思留下了一组新的摘录笔记，现存部分对应旧版《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》后2册，同时期很可能还有其他笔记，但已经遗失。同时，他又在之前的第1、2、4册笔记结尾处，留下了几段增补，MEGA2将其列入《伊壁鸠鲁研究片断》单独出版。从新增笔记中可以看出，马克思似乎本来想要了解希腊化时期的斯多亚派、怀疑派对伊壁鸠鲁哲学的评价，以及希腊化哲学与之前哲学的总体关系。但是在摘录过程中，反复引起他评论兴趣的是伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学，特别是原子论的观点。他对斯托贝和亚历山大里亚的克莱门的摘录尤其说明了这一点。马克思提出：“伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学基本上是德谟克利特的，而道德规则与昔勒尼派的道德观相似。”不过，马克思在这种“基本”的理论相似之中也发现了伊壁鸠鲁不同于德谟克利特的一个关键点，即原子脱离直线而偏斜的规律。其实，黑格尔在《哲学史讲演录》中也提到过伊壁鸠鲁这一观点，但他只是将其指认为伊壁鸠鲁对偶然性的强调。而马克思对此产生了新的理解，他认为伊壁鸠鲁原子偏斜论的意义在于倡导反决定论的自由。马克思在之前第1册笔记的结尾处补充道：“原子作为概念的直接形式，只在直接的无概念性（Begriffslosigkeit）中将其自身对象化了（vergegenst?覿ndlicht），这也适用于哲学意识，这个原则就是哲学意识的本质。”这段话的意思是说，原子本来只具有抽象的形式规定性，而偏斜甚至没有固定的规定性，但原子恰恰是在这种不固定的、偶然性的活动中彼此排斥，从而将自身变成了具有特殊规定性的对象，表现为“打破命运束缚的运动”。简言之，原子的偏斜不仅是反决定论的、偶然的，而且也是真正个体性的、自由的。而这正是原子偏斜与“哲学意识”的相通之处：哲学意识也应该是个体性的、自由的。这一观点构成了马克思博士论文的核心，且这一时期的笔记内容也在其中得到明确采用。

In the first half of 1840, Marx had already clearly defined the topic of his doctoral dissertation as a comparison between Democritean and Epicurean philosophy of nature, whereas his previous excerpts had all revolved around Epicurean philosophy. This required him to supplement a batch of literature on Democritean philosophy of nature. Judging from Marx’s later doctoral dissertation, almost all the Democritean materials he cited came from Aristotle’s works (including *De Anima*, *Metaphysics*, *Physics*, *On Generation and Corruption*, etc.) and related literature such as the *Commentaries on Aristotle* by Simplicius and Themistius. Based on this, it can be inferred that Marx must have systematically excerpted these works of Aristotle. However, only an incomplete set of notes on Aristotle’s *De Anima* has been preserved. Therefore, what other notes Marx made during this period, and whether they contained his new views on Democritean philosophy, is now unknown.

1840年上半年，马克思已经将博士论文的选题明确为德谟克利特自然哲学与伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学之比较，而他此前的摘录都是围绕伊壁鸠鲁哲学展开的，这就需要他增补一批关于德谟克利特自然哲学的文献。从后来马克思的博士论文来看，他所引证的德谟克利特的资料几乎都来自亚里士多德的著作（包括《灵魂论》《形而上学》《物理学》《论产生和消灭》等）以及西姆普利齐乌斯、泰米斯提乌斯的《亚里士多德注释》等相关文献。据此推测，马克思应该系统摘录过亚里士多德的这些著作。然而，目前保存下来的只有一组不完整的亚里士多德《灵魂论》笔记。因此，马克思在这一时期究竟还作了哪些笔记，其中是否包含他关于德谟克利特哲学的新观点，已经不得而知了。

From the second half of 1840, Marx formally wrote his doctoral dissertation and completed it early the following year. In April 1841, he sent the dissertation together with an application letter to the University of Jena, and later received his doctorate from that university. However, the manuscript of the dissertation sent to Jena has been lost; the version of the doctoral dissertation that survives today was transcribed by someone else before the end of March 1841. Marx later made revisions to this draft and drafted a new preface, indicating that he intended to publish the article at the time. Unfortunately, this manuscript is also not preserved in its entirety. From the extant content, it can be seen that Marx further closely linked Epicurus’s atomic theory with ethics. In his view, it is precisely self-consciousness that plays a role in the law of atomic swerve. Marx pointed out that the reason Epicurus did not acknowledge the eternity of celestial phenomena was precisely because “self-consciousness regards celestial phenomena as its mortal enemy.” The motion in the atomic world is interpreted by Marx as a struggle between form and matter, and the combative form “is precisely self-consciousness itself.” In this struggle, “abstract, individual self-consciousness objectifies its own nature (vergegenständlicht).” Thus, Marx saw from Epicurus’s atomic theory and theory of celestial phenomena “the absoluteness and freedom of self-consciousness,” and “the objectification of self-consciousness” reflects the spiritual essence of Marx’s doctoral dissertation, namely, through struggle against the material world, to attain the cognition and realization of individual freedom.

从1840年下半年开始，马克思正式写作博士论文，并于次年初完成了论文。1841年4月，他将论文随申请信一同寄往耶拿大学，后获得该校博士学位。但是这份寄往耶拿的论文手稿已遗失，目前留存下来的博士论文版本是1841年3月底前由他人誊抄的。马克思后来对这一稿作了修改，并草拟了新的序言，说明他当时有意发表这篇文章。可惜，这份文稿也保存得并不完整。从现存的内容可以看到，马克思进一步将伊壁鸠鲁的原子论与伦理学紧密关联起来，在他看来，原子偏斜的规律中恰恰有自我意识在发挥作用。马克思指出，伊壁鸠鲁之所以不承认天象的永恒性，正是因为“自我意识把天象看作它的死敌”。原子世界中的运动被马克思解读为形式同质料的斗争，而富有斗争性的形式“就是自我意识本身”。在这种斗争中，“抽象的、个别的自我意识将它的本性对象化了（vergegenst?覿ndlicht）”。可见，马克思从伊壁鸠鲁的原子论和天象理论中看到了“自我意识的绝对性和自由”，而“自我意识的对象化”反映出马克思博士论文的精神实质，即通过与物性世界的抗争，获得对个体自由的认知与实现。

Between January and March 1841, while completing or about to complete his doctoral dissertation, Marx also left behind a new set of excerpt notes, containing works by Leibniz, Hume, Spinoza, and Rosenkranz’s *History of Kant’s Philosophy*. MEGA² [8]8 MEGA² refers to the second historical-critical edition of the complete works of Marx and Engels (*Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe*), a major scholarly project for publishing their writings. includes these notes together with the aforementioned notes on Aristotle’s *De Anima* under “Excerpts from Works of Classical Philosophers.” In fact, this new set of notes differs markedly from the previous notes in terms of paper, cover, column format, and other aspects, and its connection to the content of Marx’s doctoral dissertation is also not obvious. Therefore, it is more likely that Marx prepared these as material for subsequent qualification examinations for a teaching post.

1841年1—3月间，马克思在完成或即将完成博士论文之际，还留下一组新的摘录笔记，内容是莱布尼茨、休谟、斯宾诺莎的著作以及罗森克朗茨的《康德哲学史》。MEGA2将这些笔记和前述亚里士多德《灵魂论》笔记一并列入《古典哲学家著作摘录》。其实，这组新笔记不仅在纸张、封面、分栏方式等方面明显不同于之前的笔记，而且与马克思博士论文内容的联系也不明显。因此，这更有可能是马克思为参加后续的教职资格考试而作的准备。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗