On the Generative Logic of Marx’s Philosophy from the Perspective of Discourse

Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping has attached great importance to the construction of the discourse system, repeatedly emphasizing the need to accelerate the building of a philosophical and social science discourse system with Chinese characteristics. In his report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, he proposed to “accelerate the building of a disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.” [1]1 Xi Jinping, “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects” (report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, October 16, 2022). In his speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences, General Secretary Xi Jinping stressed: “Contemporary Chinese philosophy and social sciences began with the entry of Marxism into China and have gradually developed under the guidance of Marxism.” [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences” (May 17, 2016). As is well known, Marx’s philosophy brought about a revolutionary transformation in the history of human thought, which was in fact also a revolution in philosophical discourse. So-called discourse refers to a system of linguistic symbols organized according to a certain logical structure. As a new discourse system, Marx’s philosophical discourse differs from the previous discourse system of traditional Western metaphysics. How was Marx’s philosophical discourse generated, and what logic does it follow? Today, as we seek to construct an academic discourse system guided by Marxism, it is necessary to return to the original context of Marx’s philosophical discourse, explore its generative logic, and provide theoretical support and intellectual backing for the construction of the discourse system of contemporary Chinese philosophy and social sciences.

党的十八大以来，习近平总书记高度重视话语体系建设，多次强调要加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学话语体系。在党的二十大报告中，他就提出要“加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学学科体系、学术体系、话语体系”。在哲学社会科学工作座谈会上的讲话中，习近平总书记强调指出：“当代中国哲学社会科学是以马克思主义进入我国为起点的，是在马克思主义指导下逐步发展起来的。”众所周知，马克思哲学实现了人类思想史上的革命性变革，这其实也是一场哲学话语的革命。所谓话语即按照一定逻辑架构组织起来的语言符号系统。作为一套崭新的话语体系，马克思哲学话语不同于以往的西方传统形而上学的话语体系。马克思哲学话语如何生成，又遵循着何种逻辑?今天，我们要构建以马克思主义为指导的学术话语体系，有必要回到马克思哲学话语的原生语境，探究其生成逻辑，为当代中国哲学社会科学话语体系构建提供理论支撑和智力支持。

I. The Unity of Speculative Logic and Real Logic

一、思辨逻辑与现实逻辑的统一

What are speculative logic and real logic? Before discussing the generative logic of Marx’s philosophical discourse, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between the two. In traditional Western philosophy, there are three main modes of thinking logic: Heraclitus’s logic of empirical existence in the mode of naive dialectical thinking, Aristotle’s formal logic in the mode of metaphysical thinking, and Hegel’s speculative logic in the mode of speculative thinking. Heraclitus’s logic of empirical existence follows the factual logic of existence, while Aristotle’s formal logic and Hegel’s speculative logic belong to the conceptual logic of thought. However, Aristotle’s formal logic is limited to examining the forms and laws of thought, severing the intrinsic connection between the form and content of thought. Hegel’s speculative logic, through the sublation of formal logic (which also includes the sublation of Kant’s transcendental logic built upon formal logic), transforms “substance” into “subject,” achieving the unity of the content and form of thought. Unlike Hegel, Marx believed that the logic of thought should conform to and be consistent with real logic. As for reality, we should not grasp it as an objective or intuitive perceptual existence, but rather understand and grasp it from the perspective of practice. Practice elevates humanity from nature (the humanization of nature), and then through practice generates the existence of the life-world, that is, the existence of the human world as determined by practice (the naturalization of humanity). Therefore, the logic by which thought grasps reality should conform to the thinking logic of the real world’s own survival and development, which is what Marx called the real logic starting from actual practical life activities. This logic of Marx’s way of thinking inherits and transcends the factual logic of the naive dialectical mode of thinking, the conceptual logic of the metaphysical mode of thinking, and the conceptual logic of the speculative mode of thinking. Marx turned Hegel’s “inverted speculative logic” right side up again, truly achieving the unity of content and form.

何谓思辨逻辑和现实逻辑?在论述马克思哲学话语生成逻辑之前，我们有必要理清二者的关系。在西方传统哲学中主要有三大思维逻辑：赫拉克利特的朴素辩证思维方式的经验存在逻辑、亚里士多德的形而上学思维方式的形式逻辑，以及黑格尔的思辨思维方式的思辨逻辑。赫拉克利特的经验存在逻辑遵循的是存在的事实逻辑，亚里士多德的形式逻辑和黑格尔的思辨逻辑则属于思维的概念逻辑。但是，亚里士多德的形式逻辑只限于对思维形式和思维规律的考察，割裂了思维形式和思维内容的内在关联。而黑格尔的思辨逻辑是通过对形式逻辑的扬弃(其中还包括对康德在形式逻辑之上建立的先验逻辑的扬弃),将“实体”变“主体”,实现了思维内容与思维形式的统一。与黑格尔不同，马克思认为，思维的逻辑应符合于现实的逻辑，并与之相一致。对于现实，我们不应将其作为客体的或直观的感性存在去把握，而应从实践去理解和把握。实践将人从自然界提升出来(自然的人化),然后又通过实践生成生活世界的存在，即由实践规定的属人世界的存在(人化的自然)。因此，思维把握现实的逻辑，就应符合现实世界自身生存和发展的思维逻辑，也就是马克思所说的从现实生产生活实践出发的现实逻辑。马克思这种思考问题的逻辑，是对朴素辩证思维方式的事实逻辑、形而上学思维方式、思辨思维方式的概念逻辑的继承和超越。马克思将黑格尔“颠倒的思辨逻辑”重新颠倒回来，真正实现了内容与形式的统一。

It should be noted that Marx’s emphasis on real logic does not mean he disregards factual logic or conceptual logic; rather, he discusses factual logic and conceptual logic from the starting point of actual practical life activities. Conceptual logic is an important feature of human thought’s grasp of existence and a significant manifestation of the practical subject’s agency. People’s understanding, abstraction, and evaluation of reality all require the participation of conceptual logic. Only in this way can living reality be truly reflected. Thus, speculative logic and real logic are by no means a binary opposition; rather, they can be a dialectical unity starting from practice. So, how does the generation of Marx’s philosophical discourse achieve the unity of speculative logic and real logic?

需要注意的是，马克思强调现实逻辑，不是不讲事实逻辑，也不是不讲概念逻辑，而是从现实的生产生活实践出发来讲事实逻辑与概念逻辑。概念逻辑是人的思维把握存在的一个重要特征，也是实践主体能动性的一个重要体现。人们理解现实、抽象现实、评价现实，都离不开概念逻辑的参与。只有这样，才能真正反映活生生的现实生活。可见，思辨逻辑与现实逻辑绝非二元对立的关系，而是可以从实践出发的辩证统一关系。那么，马克思哲学话语的生成是如何实现思辨逻辑与现实逻辑统一的呢?

First, Marx’s philosophical discourse itself is the dialectical unity of speculative logic and real logic. The formation of any philosophical discourse system is constructed through the logical system of core concepts and basic categories. Borrowing from the French thinker Deleuze’s idea that “philosophy is the creation of concepts,” [3]3 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, *What Is Philosophy?* (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), p. 5. the construction of philosophical discourse is a creation of concepts and categories. However, unlike the “self-determination of concepts” in speculative philosophy, Marx’s concepts are extracted from actual practical life activities; concepts themselves are created in the process of actual practical life activities. His philosophical discourse is the conceptual grasp and reflection of the historical process of practice, the conceptual movement of real logic. This inherently contains the dialectical unity of speculative logic and real logic.

首先，马克思哲学话语本身就是思辨逻辑与现实逻辑的辩证统一。任何一种哲学话语体系的形成，都是通过核心概念和基本范畴的逻辑体系来建构的。借助法国思想家德勒兹的“哲学就是创造概念”来说，哲学话语的建构就是概念和范畴的一种创造。不过，与思辨哲学的“概念自我规定”不同，马克思的概念是从现实的生产生活实践中提炼所得的，是在现实生产生活实践中创造概念本身的。其哲学话语是对实践历史过程概念的把握和反映，是现实逻辑的概念运动过程。这就内在地包含了思辨逻辑与现实逻辑的辩证统一。

As a discourse system that both concerns itself with reality and is committed to changing the world, Marx’s philosophical discourse emerges within the inherent tension between speculative logic and real logic. In Marx’s view, “It is not enough for thought to strive for realization; reality must itself strive toward thought.” [4]4 Karl Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 183. The generation of philosophical discourse cannot be separated from “human beings with practical force” nor from the “material” of the real world. Categories such as “relations of production,” “mode of production,” “mode of intercourse,” “material practice,” “economic base,” “superstructure,” “material activity,” and “social structure” are merely theoretical expressions of the social relations of production. This theoretical abstraction from the concrete to the abstract, from life to concept, requires the support of conceptual logic and the exercise of the practical subject’s subjective initiative. In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx pointed out: “People establish corresponding social relations according to their material productivity. It is these same people who, according to their social relations, create corresponding principles, ideas, and categories.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 166. This process of “creation” is a process of seeking upward and downward, abstracting ideas and categories from the human world, thereby achieving the perfect fusion of speculative logic and real logic.

作为一套既关注现实又致力于改变世界的话语体系，马克思的哲学话语出场于思辨逻辑与现实逻辑的内在张力之中。在马克思看来，“光是思想竭力体现为现实是不够的，现实本身应当力求趋向思想。”哲学话语的生成离不开“具有实践力量的人”,也离不开现实世界的“素材”。“生产关系”“生产方式”“交往方式”“物质实践”“经济基础”“上层建筑”“物质活动”“社会结构”等范畴，不过是生产的社会关系的一种理论表现。这种从具体到抽象，从生活到概念的理论抽象，就需要概念逻辑的支撑，并借助实践主体的主观能动性的发挥。在《哲学的贫困》中，马克思曾指出：“人们按照自己的物质生产率建立相应的社会关系，正是这些人又按照自己的社会关系创造了相应的原理、观念和范畴。”这一“创造”过程，就是上下求索的过程，从属人的世界中抽象出观念、范畴，这实现了思辨逻辑与现实逻辑的完美融合。

In the process of constructing a philosophical discourse system, speculative logic and real logic should maintain a reasonable tension. If speculative logic is absolutized, and reality is understood as the existence of thought, constructing a purely speculative, abstract philosophical discourse using conceptualized, logical, and abstract language, then “since we want to treat these categories only as ideas, as self-generated thoughts independent of real relations, we can only seek the origin of these ideas in the movement of pure reason,” [6]6 Ibid., p. 165. which would be no different from Hegel and would align with the Young Hegelians. If only factual logic is emphasized, and existence is understood as intuitive perceptual existence, merely providing factual descriptions of real life, then how would this differ from everyday discourse? After completing the revolution in his philosophical discourse, Marx always maintained a reasonable tension between speculative logic and real logic in the construction of his discourse system.

在哲学话语体系建构过程中，思辨逻辑与现实逻辑应保持合理张力。如果将思辨逻辑绝对化，将现实理解为思维的存在，用概念化、逻辑化、抽象化的语言来建构一种纯粹思辨的、抽象的哲学话语，“既然我们只想把这些范畴看做是观念、不依赖现实关系而自生的思想，那么，我们就只能到纯粹理性的运动中去找寻这些思想的来历了”,这就与黑格尔无异，与青年黑格尔派同流了；如果只强调事实逻辑，将存在理解为直观的感性存在，对现实生活仅仅进行事实描述，这与日常话语又有何区别呢?马克思在其哲学话语革命完成后，在话语体系的建构中始终保持着思辨逻辑与现实逻辑的合理张力。

Secondly, the generation of Marx’s philosophical discourse is in fact a process of transformation from speculative logic to realistic logic. As is well known, during his university years, Marx revered Hegel’s speculative philosophy, and it was under the domination of this speculative logic that he explored the relationship between philosophy and religion, and between philosophy and reality, in his doctoral dissertation, demonstrating the free individuality of self-consciousness and constructing his own initial form of discourse—speculative discourse. The practical explorations during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period soon made Marx aware of the defects and drawbacks of this speculative logic, namely that the law of the state, as demonstrated by speculative logic, was utterly incapable of safeguarding the interests of the peasants. Subsequently, Marx underwent the baptism of Feuerbach’s humanism, shifting from Hegel’s speculative logic to Feuerbach’s humanist logic, and launched a critique of the speculative philosophy of Hegel and the Young Hegelians. However, Marx did not stand entirely on Feuerbach’s humanist position; rather, he engaged in speculative thinking on the basis of humanist logic, constructing a discourse system co-dominated by both logics. The corresponding discourses of this period include such terms as “civil society determines the state,” “man is the world of man,” “political emancipation,” “material force,” “human emancipation,” “alienated labor,” “the alienation and restoration of man’s essence,” and so on. These discourses are mainly embodied in works such as *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, and *The Holy Family*.

其次，马克思哲学话语的生成其实就是从思辨逻辑向现实逻辑转变的过程。众所周知，在大学时代，马克思崇尚黑格尔的思辨哲学，也正是在这种思辨逻辑的支配下，他在其博士论文中探讨了哲学与宗教、哲学与现实的关系，论证了自我意识的自由个性，建构起自己最初的话语形式——思辨话语。《莱茵报》时期的现实探索，使马克思很快意识到这种思辨逻辑的缺陷和弊端，即思辨逻辑所论证的作为国家的法，根本无法维护农民的利益。随后，马克思受到费尔巴哈的人本主义的洗礼，从黑格尔的思辨逻辑转向了费尔巴哈的人本主义逻辑，并展开了对黑格尔以及青年黑格尔派思辨哲学的批判。但是，马克思并不是完全站在费尔巴哈的人本主义立场之上，而是站在人本主义逻辑之上进行思辨的思维，建构一种受两种逻辑共同支配的话语体系。这一时期与之相对应的话语，如“市民社会决定国家”“人是人的世界”“政治解放”“物质力量”“人类解放”“异化劳动”“人的本质的异化与复归”等。这些话语主要体现在《黑格尔法哲学批判》《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《神圣家族》等著作之中。

With the deepening of practical engagement, coupled with the intensification of economic research, in *Theses on Feuerbach* Marx criticized the defects of both old materialism, including Feuerbach’s, and idealism, and established his own realistic logic—that is, starting from “concrete, sensuous man” and from practice to understand all philosophical problems. It was precisely under this realistic logic that Marx constructed his own system of philosophical discourse, including such important categories as “productive forces and the sum of productive forces,” “mode of production,” “relations of production,” “forms of intercourse,” “economic base,” “superstructure,” “material activity,” “material practice,” “social structure,” “the world-historical existence of individuals,” “associated individuals,” “revolution,” “man creates environment and environment creates man,” and so on. Most of these are embodied in *The German Ideology* and subsequent works. In sum, the generation of Marx’s philosophical discourse is a process of continuous transformation from speculative logic to realistic logic, and also a process of the unification of the two.

随着现实实践的深入，再加上经济学研究的深入，在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中，马克思批判了包括费尔巴哈在内的旧唯物主义和唯心主义的缺陷，并确立起自己的现实逻辑，即从“具体的、感性的人”出发，从实践出发去理解一切哲学问题。也正是在这种现实逻辑之下，马克思构建了一套自己的哲学话语体系，诸如“生产力和生产力的总和”“生产方式”“生产关系”“交往方式”“经济基础”“上层建筑”“物质活动”“物质实践”“社会结构”“各个个人的世界性的存在”“联系起来的个人”“革命”“人创造环境与环境创造人”等一系列重要范畴，这些大多体现在《德意志意识形态》及其之后的著作中。总之，马克思哲学话语的生成是从思辨逻辑不断向现实逻辑转变的过程，也是二者实现统一的过程。

II. The Unity of Implicit Logic and Explicit Logic

二、隐性逻辑与显性逻辑的统一

Althusser, in reading *Capital*, proposed the “symptomatic reading” method, which requires that when reading Marxist works, one should not stop at the “direct reading” of the surface words of the text, but rather “take as clues the traces that symptomatically reveal certain thoughts hidden in the text.” Here, we do not delve into what Althusser’s “problematic” in his “symptomatic reading” refers to, but instead borrow his so-called “deep structure” and “surface structure” to explore the generative logic of Marx’s philosophical discourse. In fact, Althusser’s “deep structure” and “surface structure” manifest themselves in the process of the generation of Marx’s philosophical discourse as the unity of implicit logic and explicit logic.

阿尔都塞在读《资本论》时曾提出“症候阅读法”,这一方法要求在读马克思主义著作时，不能停留在文本表面词句的“直接阅读”,而“在于把隐藏在文本里的某些思想症候地显示出来的痕迹作为线索去阅读”。在这里，我们不深究阿尔都塞“症候阅读法”中的“总问题”所指为何，而是借其所谓的“深层结构”和“表层结构”来探讨马克思哲学话语的生成逻辑。其实，阿尔都塞的“深层结构”与“表层结构”在马克思哲学话语生成过程中就表现为隐性逻辑与显性逻辑的统一。

As the name suggests, the explicit logic of discourse generation refers to the “black and white words” of discourse mapped in the text, that is, the concepts, categories, terms, and modes of thinking that appear on the surface of the text. In his doctoral dissertation, Marx took “self-consciousness” as the core, borrowed Hegel’s concepts such as “determinate being,” “reason,” “freedom,” “subject,” and “object,” and through the logical deduction of concepts, ultimately arrived at the free character of self-consciousness. During the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, Marx still used “idea” to demonstrate everything, still employing speculative discourse, for example, “to elucidate the state from the reason of human relations,” “rational freedom,” “rational law,” “universal freedom,” “particular freedom,” and so on. After Marx’s philosophy was influenced by Feuerbach’s humanism, in *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, and *The Holy Family*, there emerged terms such as “man’s essence,” “species,” “objectification,” “man’s sensuousness,” “species-relation,” “species-essence,” “species-life,” “species-form,” “man himself,” and propositions such as “man is the highest essence of man,” “man is the world of man,” “human emancipation,” “material force,” “the struggle of the proletariat,” and so on. These terms and propositions bear a distinct humanist coloring. With the deepening of practice and the development of thought, Marx gradually abandoned the terms of Hegel and Feuerbach and formed his own system of categories—categories transformed by historical materialism—such as “productive forces,” “relations of production,” “mode of production,” “class,” “state,” “consciousness,” “practice,” and so on. The shift from speculative discourse to humanist discourse, and then from humanist discourse to new materialist discourse, is the explicit manifestation of the generation of Marx’s philosophical discourse.

顾名思义，话语生成的显性逻辑就是指话语映射在文本中的“白纸黑字”,就是话语显现在文本表面的概念、范畴、术语以及运思方式。在博士论文中，马克思以“自我意识”为核心，借用黑格尔的“定在”“理性”“自由”“主体”“客体”等概念，通过概念的逻辑推演，最终得出自我意识的自由特性。《莱茵报》时期，马克思用“理念”来论证一切，依然还是思辨的话语，比如“从人类关系的理性来阐明国家”“理性自由”“理性的法”“普遍自由”“特殊自由”等。马克思哲学在受到费尔巴哈人本主义的影响后，在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《黑格尔法哲学批判》《神圣家族》中涌现的就是“人的本质”“类”“对象化”“人的感性”“类关系”“类本质”“类生活”“类形式”“人本身”等术语，以及“人是人的最高本质”“人就是人的世界”“人类解放”“物质力量”“无产阶级的斗争”等命题。这些术语和命题带有明显的人本主义色彩。随着实践的深入和思想的发展，马克思逐渐抛弃了黑格尔和费尔巴哈的术语，并形成了自己的范畴体系——经过唯物史观改造后的范畴，比如，“生产力”“生产关系”“生产方式”“阶级”“国家”“意识”“实践”等。从思辨话语向人本主义话语转变，再从人本主义话语向新唯物主义话语转变，这是马克思哲学话语生成的显性表现。

It should be noted here that although some concepts did not change in form, their connotations had already become different from before, undergoing a qualitative change, as in the case of the concepts of “man’s essence” and “species.” During the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period, Marx had used concepts such as “man’s essence” and “species,” with the result that Marx’s real thoughts were misunderstood by German theorists. As Marx himself said: “This path was indicated in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, namely, in the articles ‘Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’ and ‘On the Jewish Question.’ But at that time, since all this was expressed in philosophical phrases, the customary philosophical terminology encountered there, such as ‘man’s essence,’ ‘species,’ etc., gave the German theorists an opportunity to misunderstand the real course of thought and to think that everything here was merely a refurbishing of their worn-out theoretical cloak.” To a certain extent, the transformation of concepts and categories can reflect the change of discourse, but sometimes there is a lack of synchronization. After Marx later reread *The Holy Family*, which was written using Feuerbach’s terms, he said: “I was pleasantly surprised to find that we have no reason to be ashamed of this book, although the cult of Feuerbach now produces a very comical impression on one.” It can be seen that the transformation of discourse sometimes lags behind changes in thought, especially the renewal of concepts and terms, which is even slower. However, the two ultimately return to the same level.

这里需要说明的是，虽然有些概念在形式上没有发生变化，但是其在内涵上已经不同以往，发生了质的改变，比如在“人的本质”和“类”的概念上。在《德法年鉴》时期，马克思曾使用“人的本质”“类”等概念，结果是马克思的真实思想遭到德国理论家误解。正如马克思所说：“这一道路已在‘德法年鉴’中，即在‘黑格尔法哲学批判导言’和‘论犹太人问题’这两篇文章中指出了。但当时由于这一切还是用哲学词句来表达的，所以那里所见到的一些习惯用的哲学术语，如‘人的本质’、‘类’等等，给了德国理论家们以可乘之机去不正确地理解真实的思想过程并以为这里的一切都不过是他们的穿旧了的理论外衣的翻新。”在一定程度上，概念、范畴的转换可以折射出话语的变革，但是有时候会出现不同步的情况，马克思后来在重读用费尔巴哈的术语写作的《神圣家族》以后，就曾说道：“我愉快而惊异地发现，对于这本书我们是问心无愧的，虽然对费尔巴哈的迷信现在给人造成一种非常滑稽的印象。”可见，话语的变革有时候会滞后于思想的变化，尤其是概念、术语的更新更是缓慢。但是，二者最终还是回归到同一水平线上。

The implicit logic of discourse generation, on the other hand, refers to the thread hidden behind the text, the logical fulcrum and internal driving force of the transformation of Marx’s philosophical discourse. The revolution in Marx’s philosophical discourse contains an answer to the question of the epoch, that is, the answer to the epochal question of capital’s appropriation of labor and the emancipation of the proletariat. As Marx said: “The true content of all epoch-making systems arises from the needs of the period in which they were produced.” Answering the “urgent questions of the age” in a philosophical manner was Marx’s consistent position. The question is the source of philosophy; each epoch has its own epochal questions, and philosophical discourse is precisely meant to articulate those major epochal questions. The transformation of Marx’s philosophical discourse originated from his inquiry into the deep-seated questions of his era.

话语生成的隐性逻辑，则是指隐藏在文本之后的那条线索，是马克思哲学话语变革的逻辑支点、内在动力。马克思哲学话语革命蕴含着对时代问题的回答，即对资本占有劳动和无产阶级的解放这一时代问题的回答。正如马克思所说：“一切划时代的体系的真正的内容都是由于产生这些体系的那个时期的需要而形成起来的。”用哲学方式回答“时代的迫切问题”,这是马克思的一贯主张。问题是哲学之源，每个时代都有属于它自己的时代问题，哲学话语要言说的正是那些重大的时代性问题，马克思哲学话语的变革源于对他那个时代深层问题的追问。

Changing the world, i.e., revolutionizing the existing world, is the ultimate orientation of Marx’s philosophical discourse construction; breaking free from constraints and realizing “the free and comprehensive development of the human person” is the theoretical concern of Marx’s philosophical discourse construction. Discourse is not an independent kingdom; it is closely linked with the issues of the times. The problems of the times are the driving force that continuously stimulates the development of philosophical discourse. The transformation of philosophical discourse that Marx achieved was not a purely discursive shift detached from social practice and socio-historical development, but was accomplished in entanglement with reality and in answering the questions of the times. The setbacks during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period made Marx realize that the Hegelian philosophy he believed in no longer met the demands of the times; speculative discourse, which deduces from concept to concept, was utterly powerless to change reality. In *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*, Marx points out: “After the otherworldly world of truth has vanished, the task of history is to establish the truth of this world. Once the sacred image of human self-alienation has been exposed, the urgent task of philosophy, which serves history, becomes to expose self-alienation in its unholy forms. Thus, the critique of heaven turns into the critique of earth, the critique of religion into the critique of law, and the critique of theology into the critique of politics.” Here, Marx sets forth the mission of his own philosophy: to dissolve the “self-alienation” of human beings in capitalist society. From then on, Marx began to delve deeply into civil society, study alienated labor in capitalist society, and closely link his philosophical discourse with the historical destiny of the proletariat. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx introduces a new category—alienated labor—and incorporates terms from political economy into his philosophical discourse system. Marx had already begun to explain human liberation through the practical activity of labor, replacing the explanation of human liberation through the class struggle of the proletariat used in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period. In *The Holy Family*, “real individuals” replace “abstract individuals,” bringing Marx’s philosophical discourse to the “eve” of transformation. From the *Rheinische Zeitung*’s “Any true philosophy is the spiritual quintessence of its own time,” to the *Theses on Feuerbach*’s “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it,” and then to the conclusion in *The German Ideology* of “discovering the new world through the critique of the old world,” Marx consistently and closely integrated his philosophical discourse with the issues of the times. His discourse system was formed precisely in the scientific response to the issues of the capitalist era, ultimately finding the critical weapon for the real world—the discourse system of new materialism.

改变世界亦即使现存世界革命化，是马克思哲学话语建构的最终指向；摆脱束缚，实现“人的自由全面发展”是马克思哲学话语建构的理论关切。话语不是一个独立的王国，与时代课题密切联系，时代问题是激发哲学话语不断发展的动力所在。马克思所实现的哲学话语变革不是脱离社会实践和社会历史发展的纯粹的话语转变，而是在与现实的纠缠中，在对时代问题的回答中完成的。《莱茵报》时期的受挫，使马克思意识到他所信仰的黑格尔哲学不适合时代发展之要求，从概念到概念逻辑推演的思辨话语对改变现实毫无办法。在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中，马克思指出：“真理的彼岸世界消逝以后，历史的任务就是确立此岸世界的真理。人的自我异化的神圣形象被揭穿以后，揭露具有非神圣形象的自我异化，就成了为历史服务的哲学的迫切任务。于是，对天国的批判变成对尘世的批判，对宗教的批判变成对法的批判，对神学的批判变成对政治的批判。”在这里，马克思提出了自己哲学的使命：消解人在资本主义社会的“自我异化”。从此，马克思开始深入探究市民社会，研究资本主义社会中的异化劳动，将自己的哲学话语与无产阶级的历史命运紧密联系起来。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思提出新的范畴——异化劳动，并将政治经济学术语引入其哲学话语体系之中。马克思已经开始用劳动实践活动来解释人的解放，取代了《德法年鉴》时期用无产阶级的阶级斗争来解释人的解放。《神圣家族》中“现实的人”取代“抽象的人”,更使马克思哲学话语走到了变革的“前夜”。从《莱茵报》的“任何真正的哲学都是自己时代的精神上的精华”,到《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中，“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，问题在于改变世界”,再到《形态》中得出“通过批判旧世界发现新世界”的结论，马克思始终都将自己的哲学话语与时代课题紧密结合，其话语体系就是在对资本主义时代课题的科学回答中形成的，最终找到对现实世界的批判武器——新唯物主义的话语体系。

Marx’s philosophical discourse revolution was accomplished through the interweaving of “two transitions” and “one main thread.” On the surface, it was a transformation of philosophical terminology, categories, and modes of thinking; at a deeper level, it was a discursive transformation realized in answering the epochal question of the liberation of the proletariat. The issues of the times were “an invisible hand” guiding the transformation of Marx’s philosophical discourse; Feuerbach’s humanist philosophy was a visible bridge, enabling Marx to transition from rationalist discourse to the discourse of new materialism.

马克思哲学话语革命是在“两次转变”和“一条主线”的穿插下完成的。从表面来看，是哲学术语、哲学范畴和运思方式的转变；从深层次上看，是在对无产阶级的解放这一时代课题的回答中实现的话语变革。时代问题是“一只看不见的手”指引着马克思哲学话语的变革；费尔巴哈的人本主义哲学是一座看得见的桥梁，使马克思从理性主义话语过渡到了新唯物主义话语。

III. The Unity of Critical Logic and Constructive Logic

三、批判逻辑与建构逻辑的统一

The generation of Marx’s philosophical discourse is inseparable from the critique and transcendence of traditional Western philosophical discourse, and even more inseparable from the construction of a new philosophical discourse. It is precisely in critique and construction that the development of Marx’s philosophical discourse is advanced. Marx did not remain within the framework of traditional Western philosophy to reform philosophical discourse for the sake of critique alone; rather, he broke through the cage of speculative philosophical discourse, and on the basis of critique, in the process of studying real problems, he constructed a new system of philosophical discourse. The generative process of Marx’s philosophical discourse is mainly manifested in: the critique of speculative philosophical discourse, and the construction of a new materialist discourse based on real practice.

马克思哲学话语的生成离不开对西方传统哲学话语的批判与超越，更离不开新哲学话语的建构，正是在批判与建构中，推进着马克思哲学话语的发展。马克思没有停留在西方传统哲学的框架中对哲学话语进行改造，为了批判而批判，而是冲破了思辨哲学话语的牢笼，在批判的基础上，在对现实问题的研究过程中，建构了新的哲学话语体系。马克思哲学话语的生成过程，主要体现为：对思辨哲学话语的批判，以及基于现实实践之上的新唯物主义话语的建构。

From the perspective of textual development, from *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* to *Theses on Feuerbach* and *The German Ideology*, Marx gradually completed his philosophical discourse revolution through the critique of Hegel, Feuerbach, and the Young Hegelians. The social practice of life during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period made Marx recognize the harmfulness of speculative philosophy detached from the real world. He proposed constructing a “true philosophy,” i.e., “there must inevitably come a time when philosophy not only internally, through its content, but also externally, through its manifestation, comes into contact and interaction with the real world of its own time.” The distress of reality led Marx to reflect on the Hegelian philosophy he had believed in, prompting him to embark on the path of criticizing traditional Western philosophy. In *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, in the process of criticizing Hegel’s philosophy of state and law, Marx took the liberation of real individuals as his philosophical appeal and began to attempt to transform traditional philosophy, endowing it with new characteristics. However, at that time, Marx’s critique of Hegel was still conducted on the basis of Feuerbach and remained within the framework of traditional Western philosophy to reform philosophy. Although he saw the “inversion” of Hegel’s speculative philosophy, Marx was still unable to construct a new philosophical discourse at this point. Turning to Feuerbach was a major shift in Marx’s philosophical discourse; Marx began to construct his philosophical discourse from the “ought” of the human being, from the premise of value presuppositions, and from principles. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx’s interpretation of the concept of “alienated labor” starts from the “species-being” of the human being. At this time, Marx had not yet recognized the harmfulness of Feuerbach’s materialism; he still remained in the critique of Hegel’s philosophy, and his discursive expression still bore a strong humanist color, with the entire argumentation process remaining abstract and speculative. In *The Holy Family*, the “eve” of the new materialist discourse, Marx still praised Feuerbach. However, in his “subconscious,” Marx was already constructing his philosophical discourse: “real practical individuals,” “mode of production,” “material production,” “social relations,” “mode of intercourse,” “relations of intercourse,” “form of intercourse,” etc., had already appeared, and the critique of Feuerbach had begun. *Theses on Feuerbach* is Marx’s formal critique of Feuerbach, and it was precisely in this critique that Marx completely transformed his discourse system. *The German Ideology* is not only a critique of the Young Hegelians but also a settling of accounts by Marx with his own philosophy; in this settling of accounts, he completed the philosophical discourse revolution and constructed a new philosophical discourse. In short, the generation of Marx’s philosophical discourse was accomplished in the critique of Hegel’s philosophy, Feuerbach’s philosophy, and the entire tradition of Western philosophy.

从文本的发展来看，从《黑格尔法哲学批判》到《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》《德意志意识形态》,马克思通过对黑格尔、费尔巴哈以及青年黑格尔派的批判，逐渐完成其哲学的话语革命。《莱茵报》时期的社会生活实践，让马克思认识到脱离现实世界的思辨哲学的危害性，他提出要建构“真正的哲学”,即“必然会出现这样的时代：那时哲学不仅在内部通过自己的内容，而且在外部通过自己的表现，同自己时代的现实世界接触并相互作用”。现实的苦恼让马克思开始反思其信奉的黑格尔哲学，促使其走上了对传统西方哲学的批判之路。在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，马克思在对黑格尔关于国家和法的哲学的批判过程中，将现实个人的解放作为其哲学诉求，并开始试图改造传统哲学、赋予哲学新的特性。但是，当时马克思对黑格尔的批判，还仅仅是在费尔巴哈的基础之上进行的，还停留在西方传统哲学的框架中去改造哲学。虽然看到了黑格尔思辨哲学的“颠倒”,但是，此时的马克思还无法去建构新的哲学话语。转向费尔巴哈是马克思哲学话语经历的一次重大转变，马克思开始从人的“应然”出发，从价值预设的前提出发，从原则出发来建构其哲学话语。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思对“异化劳动”这一概念的诠释，就是从人的“类本质”开始的。此时，马克思还没有认识到费尔巴哈唯物主义的危害，还停留在对黑格尔哲学的批判当中，在话语表达上还留有浓厚的人本主义色彩，整个的论证过程还是抽象的、思辨的。在《神圣家族》这一新唯物主义话语的“前夜”,马克思对费尔巴哈还赞赏有加。但是，在“潜意识”中，马克思已经在建构其哲学话语了，“现实实践的人”“生产方式”“物质生产”“社会关系”“交往方式”“交往关系”“交往形式”等已出场，对费尔巴哈的批判已经拉开了序幕。《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》是马克思对费尔巴哈的一次正式批判，也正是在这次批判中，马克思彻底转变了其话语体系。《德意志意识形态》不仅是对青年黑格尔派的批判，其实也是马克思对自身哲学的一次清算，在清算中完成哲学的话语革命，建构起新的哲学话语。总之，马克思哲学话语的生成是在对黑格尔哲学和费尔巴哈哲学以及整个西方传统哲学的批判中完成的。

From the perspective of the development of the “concept,” Marx constructed his philosophical discourse system on the basis of the sublation of Hegel’s “self-determination of the concept.” In the process of discourse generation, Marx constructed a new discourse system of conceptual determination through a new understanding of the “concept.” This constitutes a “critique” of Hegel’s speculative discourse system of “self-determination of the concept” and a “rejection” of metaphysical discourse; it is a critique and deconstruction of speculative philosophical discourse, and in the process of deconstruction, the construction of a new materialist philosophical discourse. In the speculative discourse system, the concept is an “independently existing substantial force,” the pure essence of spirit itself. The “concept” itself is moving and developing; it is the principle of all life, something completely concrete. First, the concept is precisely “an independently existing substantial force,” and “intuition” is conceptualized. Hegel transforms the reality of intuition, that is, turns intuition into the concept of “being,” and takes “being” as a moment of the concept itself, synthesizing it with the moment of essence and the moment of the concept to produce being-in-and-for-itself. On this basis, Hegel incorporates intuition into the reality of the concept. For Hegel, the concept has ontological significance; the concept is the essence of being, and being is merely the externalization of the concept. Moreover, this concept is a being “in-and-for-itself,” requiring nothing external, established by the concept itself. “The determination of the concept can only be the free determination of the concept, only a determinate being in which the concept is identical with itself, whose moments are also concepts and are established by the concept itself.” [15]15 G.W.F. Hegel, *Science of Logic*, trans. A.V. Miller (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969), 600. Second, the concept is spiritualized. In Hegel’s view, the concept is “the reality that spirit manifests to itself”; when the concept becomes the mode of manifestation of spirit itself, the concept itself is also spirit itself. “The movement of spirit is the inner development of the concept: it is the absolute method of cognition, and at the same time the inner soul of the content itself.” [16]16 G.W.F. Hegel, *Phenomenology of Spirit*, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 28. The concept “belongs not only to spirit but is the pure essence of spirit itself.” [17]17 Hegel, *Phenomenology of Spirit*, 28. In this way, the concept becomes the subject itself, and spirit becomes something absolutely concrete. In Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit*, spirit contains many moments, forming a chain developing from the lower to the higher, until it develops into “spirit itself,” that is, “that which exists in-and-for-itself.” As “that which exists in-and-for-itself,” spirit is both subject and substance. And spirit as subject is a movement that is active and capable of externalizing itself. “Whatever moves itself is spirit. Spirit is the subject of movement, and spirit is also movement itself, or spirit is the substance that is penetrated by the subject.” [18]18 Hegel, *Phenomenology of Spirit*, 28. After the concept is spiritualized, it moves together with spirit, that is, the “movement of the concept.” Since the concept is the substantial force existing independently, the movement of the concept directly drives the movement of things. Third, through dialectics, the “negation of the negation” of the concept forms a circular movement of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. “The system of the concept is generally constituted along this path—and is completed in an unstoppable, pure process requiring nothing external.” [19]19 Hegel, *Science of Logic*, 601. In short, within the speculative discourse system, the “concept” is a system of the self-determination of the concept.

从“概念”的发展来看，马克思是基于对黑格尔“概念自我规定”的扬弃，来建构其哲学话语体系的。在话语生成过程中，马克思是通过对“概念”的新理解来建构概念规定的新话语体系的。这是对黑格尔“概念自我规定”的思辨话语体系的一次“批判”和对形而上学话语的“拒斥”;是对思辨哲学话语的批判和解构，并在解构过程中，建构新唯物主义的哲学话语。在思辨的话语体系中，概念是“独立存在着的实体力量”,是精神的纯粹本身。“概念”本身是运动的、发展的，它是一切生命的原则，是完全具体的东西。首先，概念即是“独立存在着的实体性的力量”,“直观”被概念化。黑格尔通过直观的实在性变换，即将直观变成“存在”概念，并将“存在”作为概念本身的一个环节，与本质环节和概念环节综合起来，产生自在自为的存在。基于此，黑格尔将直观纳入到概念的实在性中。在黑格尔这里，概念具有本体性的意义，概念是存在的本质，存在不过是概念的外化，而且这种概念是一种“自在自为”的存在，无求于外，是由概念自身建立起来的。“概念的规定只能是概念的自由的规定，只能是概念在其中就与自身同一那样的一个实有，这个实有的各环节也是概念，并且是由概念本身建立的。”其次，概念精神化。在黑格尔看来，概念是“精神对其自己本身所显现的现实”,当概念成为精神自身的显现方式时，概念自身也就是精神本身了。“精神的运动就是概念的内在发展：它乃是认识的绝对方法，同时也是内容本身的内在灵魂。”概念“不仅为精神所有，而且是精神的纯粹本身”,就这样，概念就变成主体本身，精神变成绝对具体的东西。在黑格尔《精神现象学》中，精神之中又包含着诸多环节，是从低级到高级发展的一个链条，直到发展到“精神本身”,即“自在自为存在着的东西”。作为“自在自为存在着的东西”,精神既是主体，也是实体。而精神作为主体又是某种主动的、能将自身外化的运动。“凡是自己运动的东西，这就是精神。精神是运动的主体，同样精神也是运动自身，或者说，精神是为主体所贯穿过的实体。”概念精神化之后，就与精神一起运动起来，也即是“概念的运动”。由于概念就是独立存在的实体力量，因而概念的运动直接带动着事物的运动。再次，通过辩证法，概念的“否定之否定”,形成了一个正、反、合的圆圈运动。“概念的系统，一般就是按照这条途径构成的——并且是在一个不可遏止的、纯粹的、无求于外的过程中完成的。”总之，在思辨的话语体系当中，“概念”是概念自我规定的体系。

Unlike Hegel, Marx does not interrogate the concept within a given system; rather, he starts from real life, determines the concept through the “practice of real human beings,” refines the concept from real life, and forms a new understanding of the “concept.” If Hegel’s philosophy grasps the absolute in the form of the concept, then Marx grasps the concrete in the form of the concept. Taking the concept of “labor” as an example, in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, one part is a critique of Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit*, which points out: “Hegel adopts the standpoint of modern political economy. He grasps labor as the essence of man, as man’s essence which is self-confirming; he sees only the positive side of labor, not its negative side.” [20]20 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), 332. For Hegel, labor refers to conscious activity; it can be alienated (externalized), but it immediately sublates this alienation and returns to itself, always remaining within the realm of consciousness, never touching real things or the movement of real things. “Labor” for Hegel is merely a speculative expression. But Marx is different; he starts from “current economic facts,” reveals the cruel alienated existence of the working class, and excavates the root of the alienated state, namely, capitalist private property. The concept of “labor,” suffocated in speculative discourse, regains vitality and dynamism in Marx’s hands.

与黑格尔不同，马克思不是在既定体系中考问概念本身的，而是从现实生活出发，通过“现实的人的实践”来规定概念，从现实生活出发来提炼概念，形成对“概念”的新的理解。如果说，黑格尔的哲学是用概念的形式把握绝对，那么马克思则是用概念的形式来把握具体。以“劳动”概念为例，在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，其中一部分是对黑格尔“精神现象学”的批判，其中指出：“黑格尔站在现代国民经济学家的立场上。把劳动看作人的本质，看作人的自我确证的本质；他只看到劳动的积极方面，没有看到它的消极方面。”在黑格尔这里，劳动即是指意识活动，它可以异化(外化),但却又立即扬弃这种异化返回到自身，它始终停留在意识的领域，并没有涉及现实事物，没有触及现实事物的运动。“劳动”在黑格尔这里只是一种思辨的表达。但是，马克思则不同，他从“当前的经济事实”出发，揭示了工人阶级的残酷的异化的生存状态，挖掘了异化状态的根源，即资本主义私有制。在思辨话语中窒息的“劳动”概念在马克思这里，重新焕发了生机和活力。

In the critical transformation of the speculative use of the “concept,” Marx endows it with real content, gradually forming a system of real, concrete, and historical concepts and categories. In the process of generating Marx’s philosophical discourse, it is always accompanied by Marx’s critical transformation of previous concepts and categories, and on this basis, the formation of “concepts” belonging to the new materialist discourse.

在对“概念”的思辨用法的批判改造中，马克思赋予其现实内容，逐渐形成了一套现实的、具体的、历史的概念和范畴体系。在马克思哲学话语生成过程中，它一直伴随着马克思对以往概念、范畴的批判改造，以及在此基础上形成属于新唯物主义话语的“概念”。

IV. The Unity of Revolutionary Logic and Practical Logic

四、革命逻辑与实践逻辑的统一

“Changing the world” is the fundamental purport of Marx’s philosophical discourse, which predetermines the revolutionary and practical character of Marx’s philosophical discourse. Unlike previous speculative philosophical discourse, Marx’s philosophical discourse is not only a revolutionary discourse but also a practical discourse; it is not only a practical discourse for carrying out revolution but also a revolutionary discourse put into practice, following the unity of revolutionary logic and practical logic. It is not only a subversion and revolution of the discourse of traditional Western philosophy, but its discourse itself is also a revolutionary discourse, intended to guide the proletariat in practice in criticizing the old world and building a new one.

“改变世界”是马克思哲学话语的根本旨趣，这注定了马克思哲学话语的革命性与实践性。不同于以往的思辨哲学话语，马克思哲学话语不仅是一种革命的话语，还是一种实践的话语；不仅是进行革命的实践话语，还是付诸实践的革命话语，遵循着革命逻辑与实践逻辑的统一。它不仅是对西方传统哲学话语的一次颠覆和革命，而且其话语本身也是一种革命的话语，是要在实践中指导无产阶级在批判旧世界中建立新世界的。

In a certain sense, the utterance of Marx’s philosophical discourse is for struggle; “revolution” has long become a synonym for Marx’s philosophical discourse. The revolutionary character of Marx’s philosophical discourse is mainly manifested in two aspects. First, Marx’s philosophical discourse is a discourse that “criticizes reality.” Unlike previous old philosophical discourses that strive to explain the world in various ways and defend the existing world, Marx seeks to restore the critical nature of philosophical discourse, criticize reality, and “change the world.” Marx’s revolution in philosophical discourse is to establish a revolutionary and critical philosophical discourse. Throughout his life, he criticized capitalist society and “opposed and changed the current state of things.” It is precisely in revealing the real logic of capitalist society that Marx formed his own philosophical categories and philosophical discourse. Marx’s philosophical discourse is constructed for the practical activity of changing the real world; the content of practice is the content of its discourse. Marx always linked his philosophical discourse with the fate of the proletariat, providing a spiritual weapon for the proletarian revolution. In fact, in his writings, terms, categories, and other linguistic expressions are filled with the breath of “revolution,” such as “class struggle,” “dictatorship of the proletariat,” “critique of weapons,” “weapon of critique,” “spiritual weapon,” “material weapon,” “permanent revolution,” “discovering the new world in criticizing the old world,” and so on.

从某种意义上来说，马克思哲学话语的言说就是为了战斗，“革命”早已成为马克思哲学话语的代名词。马克思哲学话语的革命性主要体现在两个方面。首先，马克思哲学话语是一种“批判现实”的话语。与以往旧哲学话语努力用各种方式解释世界，为现存世界做辩护不同，马克思则要恢复哲学话语的批判本性，批判现实，“改变世界”。马克思的哲学话语革命就是要建立一种革命性的、批判性的哲学话语，他一生都在批判资本主义社会，都在“反对和改变事物的现状”,正是在对资本主义社会现实逻辑的揭示中，马克思形成了自己的哲学范畴、哲学话语。马克思哲学话语是为改变现实世界的实践活动而建构的，实践的内容就是它话语的内容。马克思始终把自己的哲学话语与无产阶级的命运联系在一起，为无产阶级革命提供精神武器。其实，在其著述中，术语、范畴等语言表达充满了“革命”的气息，比如说，“阶级斗争”“无产阶级专政”“批判武器”“武器批判”“精神武器”“物质武器”“不断革命”“在批判旧世界中发现新世界”等。

In essence, Marx’s philosophical discourse is a discourse of “abolishing philosophy.” Discourses such as “abolishing philosophy,” “making philosophy a reality,” and constructing “genuine philosophy” all express Marx’s expectation of “genuine philosophy.” The discursive revolution that Marx achieved was in fact “abolishing philosophy.” In the social life practice of the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, Marx discovered the harm of speculative philosophical discourse detached from the real world. However, before criticizing the real world, Marx merely “mixed criticism directed at speculation with criticism directed at the different materials themselves,” [21]21 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 3. remaining within the framework of traditional philosophy to reform speculative philosophy. Although some new discourses, new concepts, and new categories emerged, these new discourses did not transcend the limitations of Western traditional speculative philosophy. Marx’s real turning point in discourse began with his terminological negation of “philosophy,” and the key step in this was his study of economics. It was precisely through the critique of political economy and the construction of a scientific theory of political economy that Marx thoroughly saw the harm of Feuerbach’s materialist speculative philosophy, completely settled accounts with Feuerbach’s “new materialism” divorced from practice and socio-historical development, and finally completed the critique and transcendence of traditional speculative philosophy. Starting from the practice of real human beings, Marx spoke of his philosophy according to the true nature of things, ultimately stepping out of the “trap” of speculation and achieving a revolution in philosophical discourse.

究其实质，马克思哲学话语是一种“消灭哲学”的话语。“消灭哲学”“使哲学成为现实”,构建“真正的哲学”等话语无不表达了马克思对“真正的哲学”的期盼。马克思所实现的话语革命其实就是“消灭哲学”。在《莱茵报》时期的社会生活实践中，马克思发现脱离现实世界的思辨哲学话语的危害，但在对现实世界批判之前，马克思仅仅“把针对思辨的批判同针对不同材料本身的批判混在一起”,仅仅停留在传统哲学框架内对思辨哲学进行改造。虽然产生了一些新的话语、新的概念、新的范畴，但是这些新话语并没有超越西方传统思辨哲学的局限。马克思真正实现话语上的转折是从在术语上否定“哲学”开始的，而迈出这关键一步的是他对经济学的研究。也正是通过对政治经济学的批判、构建科学的政治经济学理论，马克思彻底看清了费尔巴哈的唯物主义思辨哲学的危害性，彻底清算了费尔巴哈脱离实践和社会历史发展的“新唯物主义”,最终完成了对传统思辨哲学的批判和超越。马克思从现实的人的实践出发，根据事物的本来面目去言说其哲学，最终走出思辨的“陷阱”,实现了哲学话语的革命。

In fact, discourse and personality are inherently consistent. As Engels said, “Marx was before all else a revolutionist.” [22]22 Frederick Engels, “Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 24 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 467. Marx devoted his entire life to struggle, whether in world struggle or ideological struggle. Marx’s lifelong mission was “to participate in the overthrow of capitalist society and the state institutions it had established in one way or another,” [23]23 Ibid. and revolutionary philosophical discourse was his sharp weapon for revolutionary critique. However, unlike the “revolutionary discourse” of the Young Hegelians, which was merely a struggle of ideas, the revolutionary character of Marx’s philosophical discourse was a revolution of “real gold and silver,” a discourse theory that was truly to guide the proletarian revolution, overthrow the existing irrational world, and truly realize the liberation of all humanity.

其实，话语与人格是内在一致的。正如恩格斯所说，“马克思首先是一个革命家”,马克思一生都投入战斗中，不管是世界斗争，还是思想斗争，马克思毕生的使命“就是以这种或那种方式参加推翻资本主义社会及其所建立的国家设施的事业”,而革命性的哲学话语就是他进行革命批判的锐利武器。不过，与青年黑格尔派仅仅进行观念的斗争的“革命话语”不同，马克思哲学话语的这种革命性是“真金白银”的革命，是要真正指导无产阶级革命，推翻现存的不合理世界，真正实现全人类人的解放的话语理论。

The essence of Marx’s discursive revolution is to step out of the independent kingdom of language and move toward the real world of life. Marx emphasized the materiality, practicality, and sociality of language. Marx believed: “‘Spirit’ is from the outset afflicted with the curse of being ‘burdened’ with matter, which here makes its appearance in the form of moving layers of air, sounds, in short, of language.” [24]24 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 44. Language arises from material production and life; it “arises from labour and together with labour,” [25]25 Frederick Engels, “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 456. not from people’s minds. “The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life.” [26]26 Marx and Engels, *The German Ideology*, p. 36. Language cannot become an independent kingdom; language arises out of necessity and is always interwoven with real life and material production. Marx made language step out of abstract concepts, returning abstract philosophical categories to real life, making them concrete and perceptual. Marx opposed indulging in the “revolution of words” of philosophy while leaving reality behind. The revolutionary nature of Marx’s philosophical discourse was not, like the Young Hegelians, merely to propose a critique of language—to struggle against “words”—without transforming the existing world. Marx’s philosophy was to carry out a thorough revolution, to transform the world, to put this discourse into practice. Marx once said: “For the practical materialist, i.e. the communist, it is a question of revolutionising the existing world, of practically attacking and changing existing things.” [27]27 Ibid., p. 38. Marx achieved a revolutionary transformation of philosophical discourse in real practice, and this revolutionary discourse was in turn verified in practice. Marx’s philosophical discourse is a discourse that can be practiced in reality, a discourse that is to grasp the masses, guide the revolution of the masses, and transform reality. Marx’s philosophical discourse gradually developed and enriched itself in practical activities, while simultaneously guiding practice in return.

马克思话语革命的实质就是走出语言的独立王国，走向现实的生活世界。马克思强调语言的物质性、实践性、社会性。马克思认为：“‘精神’从一开始就很倒霉，受到物质的‘纠缠’,物质在这里表现为振动着的空气层、声音，简言之，即语言。”语言产生于物质生产生活中，“是从劳动中并和劳动一起产生出来的”,而不是产生于人们的头脑中。“思想、观念、意识的生产最初是与人们的物质活动，与人们的物质交往，与现实生活的语言交织在一起的。”语言不可能独立成为某种王国，语言是由于需要才产生的，语言总是与现实生活、物质生产交织在一起的。马克思让语言走出抽象的概念，让抽象的哲学范畴回归到现实生活中，变得具体化、感性化。马克思反对离开现实而沉醉于哲学的“词句革命”中。马克思哲学话语革命性不是像青年黑格尔派那样仅仅提出语言的批判——为反对“词句”而斗争，并没有对现存世界进行改造。马克思哲学就是要进行彻底的革命，对世界进行改造，就是要这种话语付诸实践。马克思曾说：“对实践的唯物主义者即共产主义者来说，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。”马克思在现实实践中实现了哲学话语的革命性变革，而且这种革命话语又在实践中得到验证。马克思哲学话语是在现实中可以实践的话语，是要掌握群众，为群众革命进行指导，改造现实的话语。马克思哲学话语是在实践活动中逐渐发展和丰富起来的，同时又反过来指导实践。

Marx’s philosophical discourse has a practical essence; it is a new materialist philosophical discourse based on practice. In its philosophical context, the new materialist discourse based on practice is no longer any kind of ontological philosophical discourse at all. Marx’s new materialist discourse is a revolutionary, real, and perceptual activity itself, fundamentally different from old philosophy. Practice turns Marx’s philosophical discourse into a material force, into a perceptual material activity, whose basic function is to change the world. Marx’s philosophy elucidates the status and historical mission of the proletariat, awakens the proletariat’s consciousness, and makes the proletariat realize that only by waging fearless revolutionary struggle can it ultimately liberate all humanity and liberate itself. The fundamental difference between Marx’s philosophical discourse and speculative philosophical discourse lies in the two words “practice.” A rational, speculative philosophical discourse is fundamentally incapable of changing the world; only by taking practice as a “perceptual, real material activity” can the world be changed.

马克思哲学话语具有实践本质，它是以实践为基础的新唯物主义哲学话语。在其哲学语境中，以实践为基础的新唯物主义话语，已经根本不再是任何本体论意义上的哲学话语。马克思的新唯物主义话语是一种与旧哲学具有根本不同的革命的、现实的、感性的活动本身。实践让马克思哲学话语变成一种物质力量，变成一种感性的物质活动，其基本功能就在于改变世界。马克思的哲学阐明了无产阶级的地位和历史使命，唤醒了无产阶级的觉醒，让无产阶级认识到只有进行无畏的革命斗争，才可能最终解放全人类，解放自身。马克思哲学话语与思辨哲学话语的根本区别就在于“实践”二字。作为一种理性的思辨的哲学话语是根本不可能改变世界的，只有将实践作为一种“感性的现实的物质活动”才能改变世界。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗