A Pioneer in the Study of Contemporary Chinese Marxist Philosophy

Chen Xianda (1930–2024) was a renowned Marxist philosopher and educator in China, a first-class honorary professor at Renmin University of China, and served as president of the Chinese Society of Historical Materialism, president of the Beijing Philosophical Society, and a member of the Third Discipline Evaluation Group of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council. He was named one of the "Top Ten Most Beautiful Teachers in the Nation" and received the Fifth Wu Yuzhang Humanities and Social Sciences Lifetime Achievement Award. He conducted in-depth research and produced extensive writings in areas such as basic philosophical theory, the history of Marxist philosophy, adapting Marxist philosophy to the Chinese context, and the theory of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics. He edited outstanding textbooks such as *A Course in Basic Principles of Marxism* and *Principles of Marxist Philosophy*, published works including *The Collected Works of Chen Xianda (Fourteen Volumes)* and *Marching into the Depths of History*, and authored over 200 academic papers. As a flagship figure in the field of contemporary Chinese Marxist philosophy, he was hailed as a "walking dictionary of Marxism-Leninism" and a "sower of faith in Marxist philosophy," making outstanding contributions to advancing the adaptation of Marxist philosophy to the Chinese context and the needs of the times.

陈先达（1930年-2024年）是我国著名马克思主义哲学家、教育家，中国人民大学荣誉一级教授，曾任中国历史唯物主义学会会长、北京市哲学会会长、国务院学位委员会第三届学科评议组成员，被评为“全国十大最美教师”，并获第五届吴玉章人文社会科学终身成就奖。他在哲学基础理论、马克思主义哲学史、马克思主义哲学中国化、中国特色社会主义文化理论等方面有精深的研究和著述，主编了《马克思主义基本原理教程》《马克思主义哲学原理》等优秀教材，出版了《陈先达文集（十四卷）》《走向历史的深处》等著作，发表学术论文200余篇。作为当代中国马克思主义哲学研究领域的旗帜性人物，他被誉为“行走的马列字典”“马克思主义哲学信仰的播种人”，为推进马克思主义哲学中国化时代化作出了杰出贡献。

On October 10, 2024, the renowned Marxist philosopher and educator Mr. Chen Xianda passed away. A brilliant star shining in the firmament of Chinese philosophical thought has fallen. His death is a great loss to the Chinese Marxist philosophical community. As an outstanding representative of Marxist theorists nurtured in New China and a pioneer in the study of contemporary Chinese Marxist philosophy, Chen Xianda made remarkable contributions to Marxist philosophical research with his profound philosophical wisdom, deep intellectual insights, and profound concern for reality. Toiling diligently for over seventy years, Chen Xianda regarded thinking, writing, and teaching as his greatest pleasures, integrating the cause of philosophy into his very life. He produced a vast body of work, exhausting his energies and breaking new ground for the study of Marxist philosophy, leaving behind a precious intellectual legacy. Throughout his academic career, Chen Xianda poured the lifelong efforts of a loyal Marxist into his rich writings, filled with a sincere heart for the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people, and the cause of socialism, and imbued with deep affection for the cause of philosophy and education. Chen Xianda was truly a flagship figure in the field of contemporary Chinese Marxist philosophy and a master of his generation in contemporary Chinese philosophy.

2024年10月10日，我国著名的马克思主义哲学家、教育家陈先达先生与世长辞。闪耀在中国哲学思想星空中的一颗璀璨明星陨落了。先生的离世，是中国马克思主义哲学界的巨大损失。作为新中国成长起来的马克思主义理论家的杰出代表，当代中国马克思主义哲学研究的开拓者，陈先达以深邃的哲学智慧、深刻的思想洞见、深厚的现实情怀，为马克思主义哲学研究作出了卓越贡献。辛勤耕耘七十余载，陈先达把思考、写作、教书作为最惬意的事情，把哲学事业融入生命之中，著作等身，为马克思主义哲学研究事业殚精竭虑、开拓创新，留下了弥足珍贵的思想遗产。陈先达在其学术生涯里，将一位忠诚的马克思主义者的毕生心血倾注在丰富著述中，充满了对中国共产党、中国人民和社会主义事业的赤诚之心，饱含了对哲学事业和教育事业的深厚感情。陈先达不愧为当代中国马克思主义哲学研究领域的旗帜性人物，是当代中国哲学领域的一代宗师。

1. Philosophers Are Not Bystanders of Society

1.哲学家不是社会的旁观者

Philosophy is not a fantasy outside the world. True philosophy and philosophers are products of their times. Chen Xianda truly inherited the practical character and critical spirit of Marxist philosophy, advocating that "philosophers are not bystanders of society." Chen Xianda's academic thought placed great emphasis on and profoundly embodied the practicality and reality of philosophical research and interpretation, making him an outstanding model for grasping the times through philosophy. Philosophy must reflect the demands of the development of the times and social progress. The article "Practical Verification and Logical Proof," published in *Teaching and Research* in 1963, Issue 4, was a paper Chen Xianda revised from a lecture manuscript on dialectical logic he had given at Peking University. The article explained from multiple perspectives the relationship between practical verification and logical proof, illustrating the important role of logical proof in the understanding of truth. Chen Xianda recalled: "At the time, this article was merely a purely academic piece with little impact. Many years later, when I reread this article, I deeply felt that any theoretical critique or philosophical critique only has practical significance and exerts a major effect on reality when it represents the demands of social progress... For Marxist philosophy, any practice that indulges in abstract speculation and becomes trapped within the fortress of pure concepts, unable to break out, runs counter to the very nature of Marxism. Such a person can become a scholar, but not a Marxist theorist." Marxist philosophy must promptly absorb new achievements in scientific development. As early as the 1980s, Chen Xianda pointed out: "It goes without saying that the reputation of Marxist philosophy among some young people in socialist countries has already exposed the fact that it has failed to keep pace with the steps of world historical development and scientific progress today—this is what people are accustomed to calling a 'new test' or 'new challenge'... Marxist philosophy... must rapidly provide scientific answers to the new questions raised by the natural and social sciences; this is an arduous task." Emphasizing practice and focusing on real-world issues are the most prominent characteristics of Marxist philosophy. "Philosophy must never degenerate into a useless art of dragon-slaying; it should be the art of dismembering an ox as practiced by the skilled butcher. From technique one enters the Way, and from the Way one transforms into technique. If philosophy is merely about picking apart concepts, engaging in groundless empty talk, and debating meaningless things, even if it is lively, it is actually deceiving outsiders and is useless." "A butcher who cannot dismember an ox but only holds a cleaver in vain; a locksmith who holds a key but cannot open a lock—both are mere namesakes. The same applies to philosophers: do not become a hollow philosopher; you must be adept at opening locks, that is, facing reality, analyzing problems, and truly playing the role of philosophy as a telescope and microscope, able to see far and wide and detect things before they sprout." In Chen Xianda's view, Marx and Engels called their philosophy "new materialism" because it was "new" in its emphasis on practice, avoiding abstract speculation. Chen Xianda unified knowledge and action, actively practicing this philosophical concept throughout his life.

哲学不是世界之外的遐想。真正的哲学和哲学家是时代的产物。陈先达真正承续了马克思主义哲学的实践品格和批判精神，主张“哲学家不是社会的旁观者”。陈先达的学术思想高度重视和深刻体现哲学研究和阐释的实践性、现实性，成为以哲学方式把握时代的杰出典范。哲学要反映时代发展和社会进步的要求。《教学与研究》1963年第4期刊发的《实践检验和逻辑证明》一文，是陈先达根据在北大讲授辩证逻辑课的讲稿改写而成的论文。文中从多方面阐释了实践检验与逻辑证明的关系，说明逻辑证明在真理认识中的重要作用。陈先达回忆：在当时，这篇文章只是一篇纯学术文章，影响不大。“我自己多年后重读这篇文章后深深地感觉到，任何理论的批判、哲学的批判，只有当它代表社会进步的要求，才具有现实意义并对现实起重大作用……对马克思主义哲学来说，任何沉迷于抽象思辨而被困死在纯概念的围城之中走不出来的做法，与马克思主义的本性都是相悖的。这种人可以成为一个学者，但不会成为一个马克思主义理论家。”马克思主义哲学要及时吸收科学发展的新成果。陈先达在20世纪80年代就指出：“毋庸讳言，马克思主义哲学在社会主义国家一些青年中的声誉已经暴露出它在今天未能及时跟上世界历史发展和科学进步的步伐和事实，这也就是人们所习惯称作的‘新的考验’或‘新的挑战’……马克思主义哲学……必须迅速地对自然科学和社会科学提出的新问题作出科学的回答，这是一个艰巨的任务。”重视实践和关注现实问题，是马克思主义哲学最突出的特性。“哲学绝不应变为不能用的屠龙之术，而应该是庖丁解牛的解牛术。由术入道，由道变术。如果哲学就是抠概念，是不着边际的空谈，争论一些毫无意义的东西，即使很热闹，实际上是骗外行的，没有用。”“一个不会解牛空有庖刀的庖夫；一个手中有钥匙不会开锁的锁匠，都是徒有其名，哲学家也是如此，不要做一个空头哲学家，必须善于开锁，即面对现实，分析问题，真正发挥哲学作为望远镜、显微镜的作用，既高瞻远瞩又能察于未萌。”在陈先达看来，马克思和恩格斯之所以把自己的哲学称为新唯物主义，是因为它“新”在重视实践，没有陷入抽象思辨。陈先达知行合一，其一生都始终积极践行着这样的哲学理念。

2. Exploration Marching into the Depths of History

2.走向历史深处的探索

Chen Xianda was one of the earliest major pioneers in China’s academic circles to carry out research on the history of Marxist philosophy. His methodology in studying the history of Marx and Engels’ thought, along with related intellectual achievements, has drawn considerable attention from the scholarly community. Before the 1980s, Marxist philosophical research in China was largely confined to introducing classic works and explaining basic principles, lacking systematic study of the history of Marxist philosophical thought, especially research on Marx’s early thought. In the mid-1980s, Chen Xianda’s work *The History of Marx and Engels’ Thought*, for which he served as lead author, was published, becoming the first authoritative work in China to systematically study the history of Marxist thought. Chen Xianda and Jin Huiming’s co-authored *Research on Marx’s Early Thought* became the pioneering work in China on Marx’s early thought. In particular, Chen Xianda’s *Toward the Depths of History*, which he himself called his “first individual monograph,” is widely recognized as a classic work in China that organically integrates the history and theory of historical materialism, and it has been listed as required professional reading for graduate students at many universities. Chen Xianda put forward many unique insights on the methodology of studying the history of Marxist philosophy. First, Chen Xianda particularly emphasized paying attention to the intrinsic connection between history and logic. In his view, two tendencies easily arise in the study of the history of Marxist philosophy: one tendency is to focus only on studying the lives and revolutionary activities of the classic writers and the objective historical conditions of the formation and development of Marxist philosophy, while neglecting to study their intellectual evolution from the perspective of the original texts; the other tendency is to focus solely on studying the original texts, adopting a method of arranging the classic works in chronological order as a book. Neither is acceptable. “The history of Marx and Engels’ philosophical thought is based on the classic works of Marx and Engels, but as a science of intellectual history, it should grasp the intrinsic logical connections of intellectual development from in-depth study of the original texts, clarifying the driving forces, laws, and mechanisms of intellectual development.” “The two main lines of history and logic are equally important and cannot be neglected.” If they are separated from each other, both become dead or ossified things. “History is the premise for understanding logic; likewise, only by accurately grasping logic can one understand history more deeply.” Historical research is closely linked to reality. “All historical research can find its motivation in the needs of reality. Marxist philosophy is a science that is playing a role in reality, so the study of the history of Marx and Engels’ philosophical thought should be closely integrated with reality, paying attention to various urgent social issues raised in reality, and conducting scientific research with a clear aim. The method of studying history purely for history’s sake is not advisable and is also unworkable in reality, but this does not mean that one can arbitrarily fabricate history subjectively. Historical research, like all scientific research, must respect objective facts. However, all scientific research discovers its topics from the needs of reality, so the study of Marx and Engels’ philosophical thought also needs to proceed from reality.” Under such requirements, studying the history of Marxist philosophy can avoid dogmatism. “By studying the formation and development of Marx and Engels’ thought, we will grasp the vivid historical picture of the development of Marxist philosophy. In this historical picture, the origin and development of each of its important propositions and basic categories are very clearly presented. Thus, its basic concepts will not be regarded as ossified and unchanging; they were, and will be, developed in a timely manner by studying new situations and constantly summarizing and generalizing new achievements in the natural and social sciences. Once this historical understanding is formed, dogmatism loses its foothold.” Second, Chen Xianda emphasized the holistic study of the history of Marxist thought, which is another important feature of his methodology in studying intellectual history. “In the study of the history of Marxist philosophical thought, one must also establish a holistic concept.” *The History of Marx and Engels’ Thought* treats Marxism as a whole from a longitudinal historical perspective, which was groundbreaking in Chinese academic circles at the time. Chen Xianda pointed out: “The history of Marx and Engels’ thought is the history of the emergence, development, and maturation of the basic principles of Marxism, and also the history of the mutual promotion and mutual demonstration of the three component parts of Marxism.” The history of Marx and Engels’ thought presents the scientific system of Marxism. Marxism is not a compilation of some ready-made principles and conclusions, but an organic and unified whole. Not only are the three component parts unified, but the proposal of each principle is also combined with the historical conditions of the time and is continuously enriched with the development of practice. “In the history of Marx and Engels’ thought, we can not only learn the important conclusions of Marxism, but more importantly, learn the methods by which they reached these conclusions and developed them. In this way, we can gradually master the standpoints, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism, summarize new experiences, solve new problems, uphold principles, and prevent ideological ossification.” *Research on Marx’s Early Thought* filled a blank space in Chinese philosophical circles regarding research on Marx’s early thought. Through the study of the history of the development of Marx’s early thought, the book reproduces the real process of the formation of Marxism; it elucidates the completeness of the Marxist theoretical system from the organic unity of logic and history, theory and practice, and the various component parts and basic principles of Marxism; it responds to some influential viewpoints raised in academic circles, especially analyzing some misinterpretations of Marx’s early thought and refuting the erroneous view of using “young Marx” to negate mature Marxism. “An important feature of the formation of the materialist conception of history lies precisely in replacing Hegel and Feuerbach’s interpretation of historical phenomena with ‘alienation’ by a rigorous scientific conception of history, that is, a theory and doctrine about the structure and laws of development of human society. The issues of alienation and man can be studied, but only on the basis of the principles of historical materialism can a scientific explanation be given to issues concerning man and alienation. Turning human history into a history of man’s ‘self-alienation,’ explaining all social phenomena with man’s essence, and attempting to replace the Marxist materialist conception of history with a ‘humanistic conception of history’ is fundamentally untenable.” *Toward the Depths of History* is a masterpiece of Chen Xianda’s diligent exploration of Marx’s conception of history. The book takes humanity’s process of exploring the laws of history as its guide, focusing on studying how Marx broke through the limitations of previous conceptions of history and moved toward the depths of history, that is, the process of discovering the laws of history itself, thereby profoundly revealing the epoch-making significance of Marx’s conception of history in the transformation of the human conception of history. In particular, it conducts a very valuable pioneering exploration of the important categories, theoretical value, internal contradictions, and the inevitability of moving toward the materialist conception of history in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, which had a significant impact in the field of Marxist philosophy and the study of the history of philosophy. The important value of this book lies in deepening the understanding of the history of the formation of the materialist conception of history through the study of intellectual history and responding to the issues of the times. On the one hand, it not only delves into the history of the development of Marx’s thought to study the history of Marxist philosophy, but also combines it with a broad history of Western thought and the history of human social development to conduct a profound study of the prehistory of Marx’s conception of history and his philosophical thought. On the other hand, by combining the study of the issues raised by the era of free capitalism and the needs of the proletariat’s struggle for liberation, it expands and deepens the understanding of the history of the formation of the materialist conception of history. In short, by combining the intellectual historical background, the conditions of the times, and the situation of the research subject in which the materialist conception of history emerged, it reveals how Marx moved from the surface of history, wrapped in layers of complex ideologies, motives, and contingencies, toward the depths of history. Third, Chen Xianda emphasized perfecting the understanding of the issue of theoretical sources in the in-depth study of the prehistory of the materialist conception of history. In this regard, he put forward many quite profound insights on the theoretical sources of the materialist conception of history. First, the sources of the materialist conception of history should be “things that were indeed critically absorbed by Marx, and their basis is Marx’s own works, especially his reading notes,” “just as minerals buried underground do not constitute actual wealth, theories that have not been studied cannot serve as the sources of Marx’s historical theory.” Second, the direct and indirect sources of the materialist conception of history are multi-channeled, including the critical inheritance of all outstanding cultural heritage of humanity; the comprehensive absorption of 19th-century Western European social theories; and the inspiration from mutual influence with contemporaries in scientific exploration. Third, the sources of the materialist conception of history are not singular or purely philosophical; “just as inbreeding is not conducive to the development of a species, a creative philosophical theory will certainly break through the limitation of moving from philosophy to philosophy. The creation of the materialist conception of history extensively absorbed achievements from non-philosophical fields,” “the achievements of Marx’s predecessors in philosophy, economics, and political science formed a comprehensive force, a theoretical resultant force.” This is also a supplement and perfection to the holistic understanding of Marxism. He believed that understanding the logical process of thought in creating the materialist conception of history helps to understand Marx’s theory of alienated labor. “From the perspective of the logical process of thought in Marx’s creation of the materialist conception of history, it went through a process from alienation to alienated labor, and then from alienated labor to the comprehensive creation of the materialist conception of history. This is consistent with Marx’s process of starting from the superstructure, gradually penetrating into the fields of labor and production, and discovering the ‘ultimate cause’ of history. This is a continuous and arduous process of theoretical exploration, containing contradictions and self-sublation.” Analyzing Marx’s process of thought historically and concretely helps us to understand more correctly the major theoretical issues debated in the world, such as alienation and humanitarianism. The book *Toward the Depths of History* fully demonstrates Chen Xianda’s profound understanding of the basic content and internal logic of Marx’s conception of history. The book overcomes the common methodological shortcoming of the separation of history and theory, that is, the disconnection between historical research and theoretical research. Chen Xianda focused on using theory to guide history and combining history with theory, striving both to grasp the theoretical structure of Marx’s conception of history in its condensed form and to explore the logical path of the evolution of Marx’s conception of history in its fluid form, organically combining the study of intellectual history with the study of specific theoretical topics, presenting a three-dimensional picture of the development of Marx’s thought. He pointed out that historical research needs to be guided by historical materialism. Entering the 21st century, in response to problems in historical research, especially the trend of historical nihilism, Chen Xianda profoundly elaborated on the methodology of historical research based on historical materialism. He successively published works such as *The Historical Function of Historical Materialism: On Historical Facts, Historical Phenomena, and Historical Laws*, *History and the Writing of History*, and *Random Notes on History and Theory*, reiterating that historical materialism contains not only a historical ontology concerning the essence of history and historical laws, but also a historical epistemology, historical methodology, and historical axiology. These two aspects are unified. It is necessary to clarify the relationship between historical facts and historical writing, and between historical phenomena and historical laws; historical writing cannot aim at deviating from historical facts. Denying the objectivity of history and its laws will inevitably lead to historical nihilism. These works fully demonstrate Chen Xianda’s profound foundation in the study of the philosophy of history.

陈先达是我国学术界最早开展马克思主义哲学史研究的主要开拓者之一。他关于马克思和恩格斯思想史研究的方法论和有关思想成果备受学界关注。在20世纪80年代以前，我国马克思主义哲学研究主要限于经典著作的介绍和基本原理的阐释，而缺乏对马克思主义哲学思想史的系统研究，特别是缺乏对马克思早期思想的研究。80年代中期，陈先达作为主笔的著作《马克思恩格斯思想史》出版，成为国内第一部系统研究马克思主义思想史的扛鼎之作；陈先达和靳辉明合著的《马克思早期思想研究》成为国内对马克思早期思想研究的开山之作。特别是陈先达自称为“第一部个人专著”的《走向历史的深处》，被公认为国内历史唯物主义的历史和理论有机结合的经典之作，并被列为许多高校研究生的专业必读书。陈先达对于研究马克思主义哲学史的方法论提出很多独到见解。其一，陈先达特别强调要注重历史和逻辑的内在联系。在他看来，在马克思主义哲学史的研究中很容易产生两种倾向：一种倾向是只注意研究经典作家的生平和革命活动，注意马克思主义哲学形成和发展的客观历史条件，而忽视从原著的角度来研究他们的思想演变；而另一种倾向是单纯注重原著的研究，采取把经典著作按时间顺序排列起来成书的方法。二者皆不可取。“马克思恩格斯哲学思想史是以马克思恩格斯的经典著作为依据的，但作为一门思想史科学，应该从对原著的深入研究中来把握思想发展的内在逻辑联系，搞清思想发展的动力、规律和机制。”“历史和逻辑两条主线同等重要，不可偏废。”如果彼此割裂，双方就会变成死的或僵化的东西。“历史是理解逻辑的前提，同样，也只有准确地把握了逻辑才能更深刻地理解历史。”历史研究与现实密切相连。“一切历史研究都可以在现实的需要中找到动机。马克思主义哲学是正在现实中发生作用的科学，所以，马克思恩格斯哲学思想史的研究更应该同现实密切结合起来，注意现实中提出的各种迫切的社会课题，有的放矢地进行科学的研究。单纯为历史而研究历史的方法是不足取的，并且在现实中也是行不通的，但这并不等于说可以随意主观地杜撰历史，历史研究和一切科学研究一样，都必须尊重客观事实，然而，一切科学研究又都是从现实的需要中发现课题，所以，马克思恩格斯哲学思想的研究也需要从现实出发。”在这样的要求下，研究马克思主义哲学史，能够避免教条主义。“研究马克思和恩格斯思想形成和发展，我们就会把握马克思主义哲学发展的生动的历史画面。在这个历史画面上，它的每一个重要命题和基本范畴的来龙去脉都非常清晰地表现出来，这样，它的基本概念就不会被视为僵化的和凝固不变的，它过去是、将来也应该是及时地研究新情况、不断地在总结和概括自然科学和社会科学新成就中得到发展。一旦形成了这种历史认识之后，教条主义就失去了立足之地。”其二，陈先达强调对马克思主义思想史的整体性研究，这是他在思想史研究方法论上的又一重要特点。“在马克思主义哲学思想史研究中，还要树立整体的观念。”《马克思恩格斯思想史》从纵向史的角度，把马克思主义作为一个整体来论述，这在当时中国学术界具有开创性。陈先达指出：“马克思和恩格斯的思想史，是马克思主义的基本原理的产生、发展、成熟的历史，也是马克思主义三个组成部分相互促进，相互论证的历史。”马克思恩格斯思想史呈现了马克思主义的科学体系。马克思主义不是一些现成原理、结论的汇编，而是一个有机的统一整体。不仅三个组成部分之间是统一的，而且每个原理的提出，都是同当时的历史条件结合在一起的，并随着实践的发展而不断丰富。“在马克思和恩格斯的思想史中，我们不仅能学到马克思主义的重要结论，更重要的是学习他们如何得出这些结论，发展这些结论的方法。这样，我们就可以逐步掌握马克思主义的立场、观点、方法，总结新经验，解决新问题，既坚持原则，又防止思想僵化。”《马克思早期思想研究》填补了中国哲学界对马克思早期思想研究的空白地带。该书通过对马克思早期思想发展历史的研究，再现了马克思主义形成的真实过程；从逻辑和历史、理论和实践、马克思主义各组成部分和各个基本原理的有机统一中，阐明了马克思主义理论体系的完整性；针对学术界提出的一些有影响力的观点进行了回应，特别是剖析了对马克思早期思想的一些误读，反驳了用“青年马克思”来否定成熟的马克思主义的错误观点。“唯物主义历史观形成的一个重要特点，正在于用一种严整的科学的历史观，即关于人类社会结构和发展规律的理论和学说，代替了黑格尔和费尔巴哈用‘异化’对历史现象的解释。异化和人的问题是可以研究的，但是只有根据历史唯物主义原则，才能对有关人的问题和异化问题给予科学的说明。把人类历史变成人的‘自我异化’的历史，用人的本质来解释一切社会现象，企图用‘人本学的历史观’来代替马克思主义的唯物主义历史观是根本不能成立的。”《走向历史的深处》是陈先达孜孜求索马克思历史观的力作，书中以人类对历史规律的探索历程为前导，着力研究马克思如何突破以往历史观的局限而走向历史的深处，即发现历史自身规律的过程，由此深刻揭示了马克思的历史观在人类历史观变革方面具有的划时代意义。其中特别是对《1844年经济学哲学手稿》的重要范畴、理论价值、内在矛盾以及通向唯物史观的必然性进行了十分有价值的先驱性探讨，这在马克思主义哲学和哲学史研究领域产生了重大影响。该书的重要价值在于，在思想史研究与回应时代问题中深化对唯物史观形成史的理解。一方面，不仅深入到马克思思想发展史中研究马克思主义哲学史，而且结合广泛的西方思想史和人类社会发展史，对马克思历史观及其哲学思想的史前史做了精深的研究。另一方面，结合对自由资本主义时代提出的问题和无产阶级解放斗争的需要的研究，扩展并深化了对唯物史观形成史的认识。总之，结合唯物史观产生的思想史背景、时代条件和研究主体的情况，揭示了马克思如何从被繁芜复杂的意识形态、动机和偶然性层层包裹的历史表层走向历史的深处。其三，陈先达强调在深入唯物史观的史前史研究中完善理论来源的认识问题。对此，他提出了诸多关于唯物史观理论来源的颇为深刻的见解。一是唯物史观的来源应该是“确实为马克思批判吸收了的东西，它的根据是马克思自己的著作，特别是他的读书笔记”，“正如同被埋藏在地下的矿产不构成现实的财富一样，未被研究过的理论不能作为马克思的历史理论的来源”。二是唯物史观直接与间接的来源是多渠道的，有来自对人类全部优秀文化遗产的批判继承；有来自对19世纪西欧社会理论的综合吸收；也有来自与同时代人在科学探讨中的相互影响的启发。三是唯物史观的来源不是单一的、纯哲学的，“正如亲缘繁殖不利于种的发育一样，一种创造性的哲学理论一定会突破从哲学到哲学的局限。唯物史观的创立，就广泛吸收了非哲学领域中的成就”，“马克思的先驱者们在哲学、经济学、政治学所取得的成就形成一种综合力量，一种理论的合力”。这也是对马克思主义整体性认识的补充和完善。他认为，理解创立唯物史观的思维逻辑进程有助于理解马克思的异化劳动理论。“从马克思创立唯物史观的思维逻辑进程来看，它经历了从异化到异化劳动，再从异化劳动到全面创立唯物史观的过程。这同马克思从上层建筑入手，到逐步深入到劳动和生产领域，发现历史的‘终极原因’的过程是相一致的。这是个连续的、艰苦的理论探索过程，其中包含着矛盾和自我扬弃。”历史地、具体地分析马克思的思维进程，有助于我们比较正确地理解异化、人道主义这些世界上争论的重大理论问题。《走向历史的深处》一书充分展现了陈先达对马克思历史观的基本内容和内在逻辑的深刻理解。该书克服了普遍存在的在方法论上史论分离的缺点，即历史研究和理论研究相脱节。陈先达注重以论带史、史论结合，既着力从凝结的形态上去把握马克思历史观的理论结构，又尽力从流动的形态上去探究马克思历史观演进的逻辑理路，并把思想史研究与理论专题研究有机结合起来，展示了一幅马克思思想发展的立体图景。他指出，历史研究需要以历史唯物主义为指导。进入21世纪，陈先达针对历史学研究中存在的问题，特别是历史虚无主义思潮，深刻阐释了基于历史唯物主义的历史研究方法论。他先后发表了《历史唯物主义的史学功能——论历史事实·历史现象·历史规律》《历史与历史的书写》《史论拾零》等论著，重申历史唯物主义既包含了关于历史本质和历史规律的历史本体论，也包含了历史认识论、历史方法论和历史价值论。这两个方面是统一的。要弄清历史事实和历史书写、历史现象和历史规律的关系，历史书写不能以背离历史事实为目的。否认历史及其规律的客观性就必然会导致历史虚无主义。这些论著充分展示了陈先达的历史哲学研究的深厚功底。

3. Advancing the Study of Chinese Marxist Philosophy with a Problem-Oriented Approach

3.以问题为导向推进中国马克思主义哲学研究

Problems are the driving force behind the development of thought or the creation of ideas. The epochal and national characteristics of philosophy are manifested through attention to theoretical and practical problems. Chen Xianda often uses “philosophy in problems” to correspond to “problems in philosophy,” thereby expressing philosophical attention to practical problems, and points out that these two types of problems are interrelated. Here we use “problem philosophy” to summarize Chen Xianda’s philosophical research and its paradigm, which emphasizes a problem-oriented approach, especially toward practical problems. Problems are the voice of the times. Adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times must focus on the problems of the era. In an article titled “Marx, the Peak of Human Thought,” published in *Guangming Daily*, Chen Xianda pointed out: “Being problem-oriented is a tradition of Marxist theoretical thinking and also an essential characteristic of Chinese Marxism. The sinicization of Marxism, in the final analysis, means basing oneself on China’s reality and taking solving China’s problems as the guiding principle.” “The integration of the universal truth of Marxism with China’s concrete reality, fundamentally speaking, is the integration with solving the fundamental problems China faces in different periods, thereby forming the corresponding Chinese path.” Chen Xianda used Marxist philosophical perspectives to promptly respond to and deeply analyze a number of major theoretical and practical problems, generating broad and significant social impact. Among these, his analysis and response to cultural issues are particularly prominent. Cultural issues became a hot topic in the 1990s. Chen Xianda was the first to conduct fruitful and in-depth explorations of the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture. In 1997, Chen Xianda published an article titled “The Contemporary Value of Traditional Chinese Culture” in *Social Sciences in China*, in which he conducted an in-depth analysis of the relationship between adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the modernization of traditional Chinese culture in the process of modernization. He pointed out, “Adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the modernization of traditional Chinese culture can be seen as two aspects of the same process. Marxism cannot be sinicized without integrating the excellent essence of traditional Chinese culture, and traditional Chinese culture, if it stubbornly adheres to tradition and refuses to be studied and explored using Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods, cannot be modernized. The modernization of traditional Chinese culture by no means means eliminating tradition, but rather rethinking tradition from a contemporary standpoint using Marxist methods, extending tradition, renewing tradition, and enriching tradition under new conditions.” Therefore, we value the value of traditional Chinese culture, especially Confucian culture, to China and even the world, critically inherit this precious human cultural heritage, and carry it forward. Accomplishing this historic task is a new contribution to world culture by the Chinese people who are building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Chen Xianda analyzed and criticized views such as the theory of cultural conflict and cultural conservatism, which attracted widespread attention and response in society. Thereafter, Chen Xianda conducted long-term, continuous follow-up research on the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture, and his results had a broad and profound impact in academic circles. On July 3, 2015, the front-page headline of *Guangming Daily* published Chen Xianda’s nearly 10,000-word article “Marxism and Traditional Chinese Culture,” which pointed out that the current view in the ideological sphere that traditional culture and Marxism are mutually exclusive, like ice and charcoal that cannot coexist, is theoretically erroneous and practically harmful. Chen Xianda clearly stated that the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture should be examined from the height of the replacement of social formations. He used “old state, new mandate” [9]9 “Old state, new mandate” (旧邦新命) is a classical Chinese phrase, originally from the *Book of Songs* (《诗经》), later used by the philosopher Feng Youlan to express the idea of an ancient civilization (the “old state”) taking on a new historical mission (the “new mandate”) in the modern era. as a key to clearing away the fog and unraveling the debate on the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture. “Socialist China is the contemporary existence of an ancient China with a history of over five thousand years. China is an old state, an ancient country, but contemporary China is a new China under a socialist form different from traditional China.” “Only by examining it from the height of the replacement of social formations can we firmly establish what the guiding ideology of the Communist Party of China and socialist society is, and how to handle the major issue of the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture.” “When discussing the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture dominated by Confucianism, we must never forget the major historical and practical reality of the replacement of social formations, and must not forget the ‘old state, new mandate.’” “Only by inheriting the excellent traditional Chinese culture can Marxism achieve victory in China.” “China needs revolution, needs transformation, needs to escape the desperate situation of national survival, and therefore must take Marxism as its ideological and theoretical guidance. But Marxism cannot replace traditional Chinese culture.” “The powerful strength of Marxism lies in its integration with China’s reality, including its integration with China’s history and traditional culture.” “To enable Marxism to have a soil for growth in Chinese thought and culture, to maintain the Chinese national characteristics of the Chinese people, and to give the Chinese people a Chinese heart,” it is necessary to “nurture the Chinese people with the excellent traditional culture and excellent morality of the Chinese nation.” Chen Xianda believed that the creative transformation of traditional Chinese culture is the pivot for correctly handling the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture. And the theoretical and methodological principle of creative transformation is to adhere to the guidance of Marxist basic theories and methods. “Do not abstractly debate the relationship between Marxist guidance and traditional Chinese culture, especially non-historically debate the superiority, inferiority, praise, or blame of Marxism versus Confucianism. One is the ideological and theoretical guidance for China’s revolution and socialist construction, the other is the spiritual bloodline of the Chinese nation and the cultural root of the Chinese nation.” The relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture should be handled using the viewpoint of historical materialism, opposing cultural nihilism. Chinese Marxism can obtain ideological resources, wisdom, and inspiration from the essence of traditional Chinese culture, but we must also prevent the resurgence of conservative trends that, under the banner of promoting traditional culture, oppose Marxism and reject advanced Western culture. Chen Xianda successively published important monographs such as *Marxism and Traditional Chinese Culture*, *Tradition and the Contemporary in Cultural Confidence*, and *Twelve Lectures on Marxism and Traditional Chinese Culture*, and published dozens of important theoretical articles on this theme, providing important methods for our correct understanding of the relationship between the Party’s guiding ideology and the cultural root of the Chinese nation. Proposing in the academic field at an early stage the idea of organically integrating Marxism with traditional Chinese culture was undoubtedly far-sighted. Chen Xianda profoundly elaborated on adhering to cultural confidence in the construction of socialist culture. Regarding issues of cultural confidence and how to treat traditional Chinese culture, he also published long articles in the *Guangming Daily* column, such as “The Consciousness and Institutionalization of Cultural Inheritance,” “Politics and Academia in Cultural Confidence,” “On the Foundation of Cultural Confidence,” “The Essence and Contemporary Significance of Cultural Confidence,” and “Consolidating the Theoretical and Practical Foundation of Cultural Confidence,” which had a positive and extensive far-reaching impact on society. He elucidated where the foundation of cultural confidence comes from: “The foundation of contemporary Chinese cultural confidence comes not only from the richness of our profound and extensive traditional culture, its inclusiveness of harmony in diversity, and its creative spirit, but also from the revolutionary nature of the red culture embodying the national spirit of unremitting self-improvement, and the advanced nature and guiding nature of socialist culture.” “Traditional Chinese culture is the root of cultural confidence, the Communist Party of China and Marxism are the mainstay of cultural confidence, the great achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics are the foundation of cultural confidence, and correct cultural policies are the institutional guarantee for maintaining cultural confidence. Only by placing the foundation of cultural confidence within the overall contemporary Chinese environment, especially within the dialectical relationship among confidence in the path, confidence in the theory, confidence in the system, and cultural confidence, can we continue to strive with a new mental state in the new development stage of socialism with Chinese characteristics, at the critical moment of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects.” Adhering to cultural confidence requires clarifying “who is confident.” “Cultural confidence, of course, is not the self-confidence of culture itself. Culture is not the subject; the subject is people. In contemporary China, the subject of cultural confidence is the Communist Party of China and the Chinese nation.” “The cultural confidence of the Communist Party of China is at the same time the confidence of the Chinese nation and the confidence of the Chinese people. The subject of cultural confidence is the unity of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people, and the Chinese nation.” Chen Xianda also pointed out what cultural confidence “believes in.” “If asked what cultural confidence actually believes in, the definite answer is: it believes in the Chinese spirit, Chinese wisdom, and Chinese concepts contained in excellent traditional Chinese culture; it believes in the revolutionary spirit and communist ideals and beliefs in red culture; it believes in the advanced nature of socialist culture that elevates the country, society, and individuals to be guided by the core socialist values.” He also proposed holistic thinking on how to enhance cultural confidence. “Cultural construction is not equivalent to ideological construction, but there are indeed ideological issues within it. Cultural construction belongs to construction in the ideological sphere; it cannot be de-ideologized, de-politicized, or de-Sinicized. Cultural construction requires both consolidating the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological sphere, adhering to Marxist guidance, and upholding the stance of Chinese culture, while also basing itself on contemporary reality, combining with the conditions of the times, and creating high-level cultural products with contemporary value that reflect the people’s aspirations.” Cultural confidence is also reflected in Marxist theoretical education. Chen Xianda has long been at the forefront of Marxist teaching and research, willingly acting as a “disseminator of the sacred fire of Marxism.” He advocates that we should treat the teaching of Marxist courses as a socialist undertaking. The classroom is small, but the responsibility is great. One of our major historical tasks is to use classroom teaching to arm and shape people with Marxist theory. Firmly believing in Marxism is crucial for Marxist teachers. “For us, Marxist teaching is not only a profession but also a belief, a unity of belief and profession. What we teach is consistent with what we believe. If belief and profession are separated, and we do not believe what we teach, and what we say with our mouths is different from what we think in our hearts, not only will we not teach well, but it will also be painful, always feeling that our reasoning is not solid and our voice is not strong. Therefore, a good Marxist teacher must believe in Marxism and combine the power of belief with the power of theory.” Chen Xianda is a banner for upholding and defending Marxist theory. Whenever various erroneous social trends opposing Marxism or distorting Marxism appear in society, he always fights at the forefront with the stance of a steadfast Marxist warrior. He does not regard himself as a “bystander of society,” but always insists on closely linking Marxist philosophy with socialist modernization, and uses his philosopher’s thinking to express concern for the fate of the country, writing articles to criticize clearly and unequivocally: “Theory must be able to explain contemporary world problems and explain China’s problems. If it cannot explain China’s practical problems, and one is dazzled by a profusion of choices, one often becomes lost and disillusioned.”

问题是思维发展或思想创造的推动力量。哲学的时代特色和民族特色都是通过对理论问题和现实问题的关注体现出来的。陈先达常用“问题中的哲学”来对应“哲学中的问题”，以表达对现实问题的哲学关注，并指出这两类问题是相互关联的。我们在这里且用“问题哲学”来概括陈先达强调以问题特别是现实问题为导向的哲学研究及其范式。问题是时代的声音。马克思主义中国化时代化必须关注时代问题。陈先达在《光明日报》发表的《雄踞人类思想高峰的马克思》一文中指出：“以问题为导向是马克思主义的理论思维传统，也是中国马克思主义的本质特征。马克思主义中国化，说到底就是立足中国现实，以解决中国问题为指针。”“马克思主义普遍真理和中国实际相结合，从根本上说就是同解决中国不同时期面对的根本问题相结合，从而形成与其相适应的中国道路。”陈先达运用马克思主义哲学观点及时回应和深刻分析了一些重大的理论问题和现实问题，产生了广泛而重要的社会影响。其中，对文化问题的分析和回答尤为突出。文化问题在20世纪90年代成为热门话题。陈先达率先对马克思主义与中国传统文化的关系进行卓有成效的深入探讨。1997年，陈先达在《中国社会科学》发表《中国传统文化的当代价值》一文，对现代化进程中马克思主义中国化与中国传统文化之间的关系进行了深入分析。他指出，“马克思主义中国化与中国传统文化现代化可以看作是同一过程的两个方面。马克思主义不通过结合中国传统文化中的优秀精华难以中国化，而中国传统文化固守传统，拒绝接受用马克思主义的立场观点方法来进行研究发掘就不可能现代化。中国传统文化的现代化决不是消灭传统，而是站在当代用马克思主义的方法对传统文化进行再思考，在新的条件下延伸传统、更新传统、丰富传统”。因此，我们重视中国传统文化特别是儒家文化对中国以至对世界的价值，批判继承这份珍贵的人类文化遗产，并发扬光大。完成这个历史的重任，是正在建设中国特色社会主义的中国人民对世界文化的新贡献。陈先达对文化冲突论、文化保守主义等观点作了分析与批评，在社会上引起广泛关注和反响。此后，陈先达围绕马克思主义与中国传统文化的关系进行了长期的持续跟踪研究，其成果在学界引起广泛深刻的影响。2015年7月3日，《光明日报》头版头条发表了陈先达的近万字长文《马克思主义和中国传统文化》，该文指出，目前意识形态领域关于传统文化与马克思主义是非此即彼、冰炭不可同炉的看法，理论上是错误的，实践上是有害的。陈先达明确提出，应该站在社会形态更替的高度来审视马克思主义和中国传统文化的关系。他以“旧邦新命”作为廓清迷雾、解开马克思主义与中国传统文化关系争论的一把钥匙。“社会主义中国，是具有五千多年历史的古老中国的当代存在。中国是旧邦，是一个古老的国家，可当代中国是不同于传统中国的社会主义形态下的新的中国。”“只有站在社会形态变革的高度进行审视，才能牢固确立中国共产党和社会主义社会以什么为指导思想，以及如何处理马克思主义与中国传统文化关系这个重大问题。”“在讨论马克思主义和以儒学为主导的中国传统文化关系时，决不能忘记社会形态变革这个重大的历史和现实，不能忘记‘旧邦新命’。”“只有继承中国传统优秀文化，马克思主义才能在中国取得胜利。”“中国要革命，要变革，要走出民族存亡绝境，就必须以马克思主义为思想理论指导。但马克思主义不能取代中国传统文化。”“马克思主义的强大力量就在于它与中国实际的结合，其中包括与中国历史和传统文化的结合。”“要使马克思主义在中国有生长的思想文化土壤，要保持中国人的中华民族特性，要使中国人有颗中国心”，必须“以中华民族传统优秀文化和优秀道德来涵养中国人”。陈先达认为，中国传统文化的创造性转化是正确处理马克思主义与中国传统文化关系的枢纽。而创造性转化的理论和方法论原则，就是坚持马克思主义的基本理论和方法论指导。“不要抽象地争论马克思主义指导和中国传统文化的关系，尤其是非历史主义地争论马克思主义与儒学的高下优劣抑扬褒贬。一个是中国革命和社会主义建设的思想理论指导，一个是中华民族的精神血脉和中华民族的文化之根。”应该用历史唯物主义观点处理马克思主义与中国传统文化的关系，反对文化虚无主义，中国的马克思主义可以从中国传统文化的精髓中得到思想资源、智慧和启发，但也要防止以高扬传统文化为旗帜，反对马克思主义、拒斥西方先进文化的保守主义思潮的沉渣泛起。陈先达先后出版了《马克思主义和中国传统文化》《文化自信中的传统与当代》《马克思主义和中国传统文化十二讲》等重要专著，围绕这一主题发表了数十篇重要理论文章，为我们正确理解党的指导思想和中华民族文化根脉的关系问题提供了重要方法。在学术领域较早提出将马克思主义同中国传统文化有机结合的主张，无疑是富有远见的。陈先达对在社会主义文化建设中坚持文化自信进行了深刻阐述。针对有关文化自信和如何对待中国传统文化的问题，他还在《光明日报》专栏中发表了《文化传承的自觉性和制度化》《文化自信中的政治与学术》《论文化自信的底气》《文化自信的本质与当代意义》《筑牢文化自信的理论和现实基础》等长文，在社会上产生了积极而广泛的深远影响。他阐明了文化自信的底气从何而来，“当代中国文化自信的底气，既来自我们传统文化博大精深的丰富性与和而不同的包容性和创造精神，也来自体现自强不息民族精神的红色文化的革命性、社会主义文化的先进性和导向性。”“中国传统文化是文化底气之根，中国共产党和马克思主义是文化底气的中流砥柱，中国特色社会主义伟大成就是文化底气的基础，而正确的文化政策则是维护文化底气的制度化保证。只有把文化自信的底气放在当代中国整体环境中，尤其是放在道路自信、理论自信、制度自信和文化自信的辩证关系中，我们才能以新的精神状态在中国特色社会主义新的发展阶段，在全面建成小康社会的关键时刻继续奋进。”坚持文化自信，要明确“谁自信”。“文化自信，当然不是文化的自我自信。文化并非主体，主体是人。在当代中国，文化自信的主体是中国共产党和中华民族。”“中国共产党的文化自信，同时是中华民族的自信和中国人民的自信。文化自信的主体，是中国共产党、中国人民和中华民族的统一。”陈先达还指明了文化自信“信什么”？“如果要问文化自信究竟信的是什么？可以肯定地回答：信的是中华优秀传统文化内含的中国精神、中国智慧和中国理念，信的是红色文化中的革命精神和共产主义理想和信念，信的是把国家、社会和个人提升到以社会主义核心价值观为主导的社会主义文化的先进性。”他还对如何增强文化自信提出总体性思考。“文化建设不等同于意识形态建设，但其中确实存在意识形态问题。文化建设属于意识形态领域中的建设，不可能去意识形态化、去政治化、去中国化。文化建设，既要巩固马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位，坚持以马克思主义为指导，坚守中华文化立场，又需要立足当代现实，结合时代条件，创造出具有时代价值、反映人民愿望的高水平的文化产品。”文化自信还体现在马克思主义理论教育上。陈先达长期站在马克思主义教学与研究的前沿，甘做“马克思主义圣火的传播者”。他主张，我们要把马克思主义课程的教学当作一项社会主义事业来抓。课堂虽小但责任重大。我们的一个重大的历史任务就是要通过课堂教学，用马克思主义理论武装人塑造人。坚定地信仰马克思主义对马克思主义教员来说是至关重要的。“马克思主义教学对我们来说不仅是一种职业，而且是一种信仰，是信仰与职业的统一。我们讲的东西与信的东西是一致的，如果信仰与职业分离，讲的东西自己不信，嘴里讲的和心里想的不一样，不仅讲不好课，而且是一种痛苦，总感到理不直气不壮。所以一个好的马克思主义教员，必须信仰马克思主义，要把信仰的力量、理论的力量结合在一起。”陈先达是坚持和捍卫马克思主义理论的一面旗帜。当社会中出现各种反对马克思主义、曲解马克思主义的错误社会思潮，他总是以一个坚定的马克思主义战士的姿态斗争在最前沿。他不是以“社会的旁观者”自居，而是始终坚持把马克思主义哲学与社会主义现代化建设紧密联系在一起，并用他哲学家的思想，表达对国家命运的关注，旗帜鲜明地撰文加以批判，“理论要能说明当代世界问题、说明中国问题。如果不能说明中国现实问题，乱花迷眼，往往会因为迷茫而发生理想破灭”。

4. “Approachable and Lovable” Philosophy in Essays

4.随笔中“可亲又可爱”的哲学

Chen Xianda made original explorations into the construction of a discourse system for the popularization of Marxist philosophy. Ai Siqi’s *Popular Philosophy*, published in 1936, was a landmark in the popularization and mass dissemination of Marxist philosophy. [10]10 Ai Siqi (1910–1966) was a Chinese Marxist philosopher whose *Popular Philosophy* (1936) was a seminal work in making Marxist philosophy accessible to a broad Chinese audience. As China’s reform and opening up continued to advance, how to further promote the popularization of Marxist philosophy under the new and changing circumstances became a major issue demanding urgent resolution. After the 1990s, Chen Xianda explored the construction of a discourse system for the popularization of Marxist philosophy through philosophical essays. He successively published philosophical works that were life-oriented and accessible, such as *Leisurely Reflections*, *Night Talks in the Quiet Garden*, *Philosophical Musings*, and *Return to Life*, making important contributions to advancing the construction of a discourse system for the popularization of Marxist philosophy in China.

陈先达对马克思主义哲学大众化话语体系构建进行了独创性的探索。1936年出版的艾思奇的《大众哲学》对马克思主义哲学的通俗化、大众化具有标识性意义。随着中国改革开放的持续推进，如何在变化的新形势下继续推进马克思主义哲学大众化，成为一个亟待解决的重大问题。20世纪90年代后，陈先达以哲学随笔的方式对马克思主义哲学大众化话语体系构建进行探索。他先后出版了《漫步遐思》《静园夜语》《哲学心语》和《回归生活》等生活化、通俗化的哲学著作，对推进中国马克思主义哲学大众化话语体系构建作出重要贡献。

Chen Xianda’s philosophical essays are not so much a change in mode of expression as a deepening of the understanding of the relationship between philosophy and life, or rather a philosophical action of discourse-system reform that brings philosophy closer to life and closer to the masses. The philosophical essays bring together Chen Xianda’s long-standing philosophical reflections and answers to questions that arise in daily life and that people often find puzzling. The writing is elegant and enduring, the language plain and easy to understand. Some have described these essays as embodying “the wisdom of philosophy, the beauty of literature, and the weight of history.” He evaluated himself: “The greatest characteristic of my essays is that they are grounded in reality and focus on the enlightenment of wisdom.” “When I write essays, I emphasize personal realization, using life experience as the basis, combining it with knowledge I have gained from books, and making it my own.” He took the couplet from the room of Qin Keqing that Jia Baoyu sees in *Dream of the Red Chamber* — “A thorough understanding of worldly affairs is knowledge; skill in handling human relations is writing” — as an example to illustrate that the “knowledge” and “writing” of philosophy are originally a reflection of life. “Philosophy should be one’s own. No matter how brilliant another person’s philosophy is, for you it is only knowledge; to study philosophy, one should learn the history of philosophy and know what others have said, but to truly become a philosopher, one must know what one oneself is saying. When philosophy becomes one’s own philosophy, it is not simply memorized in the mind, but dissolved into the bloodstream, truly transformed into one’s own mode of thinking and attitude toward life.” Chen Xianda explained philosophy in a way that was profound yet easy to understand, lively and vivid. For example, he once used the everyday language of “coming over and going over” to explain and distinguish between the theory of intuitive reflection and the theory of active reflection. “Cognition is not the object coming over to the subject, but the subject going over to the object. The object coming to the subject is passive, intuitive reflection; the subject going to the object is active, dynamic reflection. It is not the world that opens itself to me, but I who observe the world in practice. For this reason, what is cognized, why it is cognized, and the level cognition can reach depend not on the object, but on the level of human practice. Humans cognize in practice.” Profound philosophical principles and accessible philosophical expression leap off the page. In *Leisurely Reflections*, there is an essay titled “A Marxist Philosopher Cannot Be a Monk in the Desert,” which provides a vivid and brilliant explanation of the nature of Marxist philosophy and the mission of the philosopher: “A Marxist philosopher should not be a monk; he cannot be someone who merely harbors sharp insights in his belly, utters enigmatic sayings, and talks emptily about wisdom, but whose talk is utterly useless for human cognition and practice.” “The essence of Marxist philosophy does not allow it to become metaphysics, to become speculative philosophy, to distance itself from life, to talk emptily about philosophical principles, and to deviate from its mission and tasks.” Marxist philosophy possesses practicality and mass character; it can be grasped and applied by the broad masses. If it distances itself from the masses, “Marxist philosophy will walk into a dead end, and Marxist philosophy workers will become ‘superfluous people.’” These vivid statements fully express Chen Xianda’s philosophical stance and philosophical pursuit. The master is truly a model for advancing the adaptation of Marxist philosophy to the Chinese context and the needs of the times and its popularization in the contemporary era. The philosopher has passed away, but his thought remains; a philosophical monument, forever enshrined in people’s hearts.

陈先达的哲学随笔与其说是表达形式的转换，毋宁说是对哲学和生活关系理解的深化，或者说是让哲学进一步走进生活、贴近群众的话语体系改革的哲学行动。哲学随笔汇聚了陈先达长期以来对日常生活和人们经常提出的困惑不解的问题的哲学思考和回答，文字优美隽永，语言通俗易懂。有人形容这些随笔蕴含了“哲学的智慧、文学的优美、历史的厚重”。他自我评价道：“我的随笔的最大特点是立足现实，着眼于智慧的启迪。”“我写随笔注重体悟，以生活经验为底本，结合自己从书中得来的知识，使它变成自己的。”他以《红楼梦》中贾宝玉在秦可卿房中看到的具有哲理的对联“世事洞明皆学问，人情练达即文章”为例，说明哲学的“学问”“文章”本来就是生活的反映。“哲学应该是自己的。别人的哲学无论多高明，对你只是知识；学哲学应该学习哲学史，知道别人说过什么，但真正要成为哲学家必须知道自己在说什么。哲学成为自己的哲学，就不是简单记在心中，而是融化于血液中，真正变为自己的思维方式和人生态度。”陈先达深入浅出、生动活泼地讲解哲学。例如，他曾用“走过来走过去”的生活化语言讲述和区分直观反映论和能动反映论。“认识不是客体向主体走过来，而是主体向客体走过去。客体向主体走来是消极的直观反映论；主体向客体走过去，是积极的能动的反映论。不是世界向我敞开，而是我在实践中观察世界。正因为如此，认识什么，为什么认识以及认识能达到的水平，不是取决于客体，而是取决于人类的实践水平。人是在实践中认识的。”深奥的哲学原理和通俗的哲学表达跃然纸上。《漫步遐思》中有一篇题为《马克思主义哲学家不能是沙漠里的高僧》的文章，对马克思主义哲学的性质和哲学家的使命作了生动精彩的说明：“马克思主义哲学家不应该是高僧，他不能是仅仅腹藏机锋、口吐偈语、空谈智慧，但对人的认识和实践毫无用处的谈玄论道。”“马克思主义哲学的本质不允许它成为玄学，成为思辨哲学，远离生活，空谈哲理，与它的使命和任务相背离。”马克思主义哲学具有实践性和群众性，能为广大群众所掌握和运用。如果远离群众，“马克思主义哲学就会走入死胡同，马克思主义哲学工作者就会成为‘多余的人’”。这些生动话语充分表达了陈先达的哲学立场和哲学追求。先生不愧为当代推进马克思主义哲学中国化时代化大众化的表率。哲人虽逝，思想犹存；哲学丰碑，永驻人心。

(Author: Hao Lixin, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, School of Marxism, Renmin University of China)

（作者：郝立新，中国人民大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Youheng

网络编辑：有恒