Reflections on the Premise-Consciousness of the Paradigm Construction of Chinese Marxist Philosophy

Whether in the field of Marxist philosophy research or in the field of Chinese Marxist philosophy research, it is necessary to presuppose research paradigms with important normative significance as criteria for school recognition. Consistent with this logic, in the process of understanding and interpreting Chinese Marxist philosophy, there are different academic schools, and “different philosophical schools all have their unique research paradigms.” [1]1 Mao Zedong, “On Practice” (1937). The original Chinese is “理论的基础是实践，又转过来为实践服务.” The unique research paradigm of Chinese Marxist philosophy differs significantly from the research paradigms of foreign Marxist philosophy. On the practical dimension, the uniqueness of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm lies in its integration of Marxist philosophy with social practices such as the Chinese revolution, Chinese construction, and Chinese reform; on the theoretical dimension, the uniqueness of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm lies in its ability to draw on the academic achievements of philosophical theories such as excellent traditional Chinese philosophy, foreign Marxist philosophy, and Western philosophy. From the perspective of the self-justification of philosophical paradigms, the study of paradigm construction is the process of self-justification of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm. In philosophical logic, in the process of conducting research on paradigm construction or carrying out the self-justification of philosophical paradigms, it is first necessary to engage in a reflection on the premises of paradigm construction, such as a reflection on the theoretical premise-consciousness of paradigm construction, a reflection on the problem-consciousness of paradigm construction, a reflection on the theoretical basis of paradigm construction, and a reflection on the academic discourse of paradigm construction. Conducting research on the premise-consciousness of paradigm construction not only helps to accurately grasp the premise-consciousness of paradigm construction but also has significant academic significance for a profound understanding of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm itself.

无论是在马克思主义哲学研究领域,还是在中国马克思主义哲学的研究领域,都需要预设具有重要规范意义的研究范式作为学派认知标准。与此逻辑相一致,在对中国马克思主义哲学进行理解和阐释的过程中,有不同的学术派别，而“不同的哲学流派都有其独特的研究范式”。中国马克思主义哲学独特的研究范式与国外马克思主义哲学的研究范式有重大差别。在现实维度,中国马克思主义哲学范式的独特性在于它将马克思主义哲学与中国革命、中国建设和中国改革等社会实践融合；在理论维度,中国马克思主义哲学范式的独特性在于它能够借鉴中华优秀传统哲学、国外马克思主义哲学和西方哲学等哲学理论的学术成果。从哲学范式自我证成的视角理解,范式建设的研究就是中国马克思主义哲学范式自我证成的过程。在哲学逻辑上,在进行范式建设研究或进行哲学范式自我证成的过程中，首先需要进行范式建设的前提之思,如范式建设的理论前提意识之思、范式建设的问题意识之思、范式建设的理论根据之思和范式建设的学术性话语之思等。对范式建设的前提意识之思进行研究,不仅有助于准确把握范式建设前提意识,而且对于深刻理解中国马克思主义哲学范式本身也具有重要的学术意义。

I. Theoretical Thinking on “Practicality” and “Academic Nature”: Reflections on the Theoretical Premises of Paradigm Construction

一、“实践性”与“学术性”的理论性思维:范式建设的理论前提之思

Research on paradigm construction is a new stage of Marxist philosophical paradigm research following the research on the Marxist philosophy paradigm and the research on the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm in academia. The premise-consciousness from the perspective of what paradigm construction is can also be called the inquiry into the theoretical premises of paradigm construction. The reflection on the premise-consciousness from the perspective of what paradigm construction is contains an inquiry into the theoretical premises of paradigm construction. Paradigm construction is a fundamental principle for the innovative development of Marx’s philosophy, indicating that the inquiry into the theoretical premises of paradigm construction is an adherence to and maintenance of the essential characteristics of Marx’s philosophy. The theoretical thinking of Marx’s philosophy under the framework of basic philosophical theory includes at least two main aspects — “practicality” and “academic nature,” and “practicality” and “academic nature” possess an inherent unity. The theoretical inquiry into the “practicality” and “academic nature” of paradigm construction is both the background of the basic philosophical theory of paradigm construction and the theoretical thinking for realizing the self-justification of the philosophical paradigm. Therefore, an in-depth exploration of the reflection on the premise-consciousness from the perspective of what paradigm construction is cannot be separated from an accurate grasp of what “practicality” and “academic nature” are and the mutual relationship between them.

范式建设研究是学术界继马克思主义哲学范式研究和中国马克思主义哲学范式研究之后的又一个新的马克思主义哲学的范式研究阶段。范式建设是什么视域中的前提意识,亦可称为范式建设的理论前提追问,范式建设是什么视域中的前提意识之思蕴含对范式建设理论前提的追问。范式建设是对马克思哲学创新发展的基本原则表明,对范式建设理论前提的追问就是对马克思哲学本质特征的坚守和维护。哲学基础理论框架下的马克思哲学的理论性思维至少包含两个主要方面——“实践性”与“学术性”,且“实践性”与“学术性”具有内在的统一性。范式建设的“实践性”与“学术性”理论追问,既是范式建设的哲学基础理论背景,也是实现哲学范式自我证成的理论性思维。因此,深度探讨范式建设是什么视域中的前提意识之思,离不开对“实践性”与“学术性”是什么及其二者之间相互关系的准确把握。

(1) “Practicality” is the Basic Viewpoint Running Through the Entire Process of Paradigm Construction

(一)“实践性”是贯穿范式建设始终的基本观点

“Practicality,” as the theoretical premise of the constructive principle of Marx’s philosophy, indicates that “practicality” is the methodological principle for correctly understanding paradigm construction. Marx proposed and elucidated the scientific view of practice, thereby establishing a new philosophical system, which provides a methodological principle in the sense of a paradigm for paradigm construction. In Marx’s view, since “all social life is essentially practical,” [2]2 Hans-Georg Gadamer, *Truth and Method* (1960), Foreword to the Second German Edition. “practicality” is the basic viewpoint running through the entire Marxist philosophy paradigm. Marx and Engels also pointed out more than once in this sense that the academic theories they proposed were not rigid dogmas but methods for studying the real-life world. Thus, “practicality” runs through all links and elements of paradigm construction. This is not only an important way to correctly understand the basic viewpoints of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm but also provides a methodological premise for solving the problems faced by paradigm construction and pursuing the goals of value ideals.

“实践性”作为马克思哲学建构原则的理论前提表明,“实践性”是正确理解范式建设的方法论原则。马克思提出并阐发了科学实践观,以此建立起新的哲学体系,这为范式建设提供了范式意义上的方法论原则。在马克思看来,由于“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的”,因此“实践性”是贯穿马克思主义哲学范式始终的基本观点。马克思恩格斯也在这一意义上不止一次地指出,他们所提出的学术理论并不是僵化的教条,而是用以研究现实生活世界的方法。由此,“实践性”贯穿于范式建设的各个环节和要素,这既是正确理解中国马克思主义哲学范式基本观点的重要方式,也为解决范式建设面临的问题和追求价值理想的目标提供方法论前提。

“Practicality,” as the theoretical premise of the logical starting point of Marx’s philosophy, indicates that paradigm construction cannot deviate from the constructive principle of “practicality.” Marx introduced the category of practice as perceptual activity, treating practice as a human practical activity that conforms to laws, purposes, science, and value, truly bridging the gap between the this-worldly and the other-worldly. “Practicality” in paradigm construction is both the logical starting point for realizing a philosophical revolution and the fundamental path for Marxist philosophy to change the world. “Practicality” in the Marxist philosophy paradigm not only represents the lofty ideal of changing the world but also contains the philosophical concept of changing the world. Consistent with this understanding, “practicality” should be the basic principle of paradigm construction.

“实践性”作为马克思哲学逻辑基点的理论前提表明,范式建设不能脱离“实践性”的建设原则。马克思引入感性活动的实践范畴,将实践作为一种合规律性、合目的性、合科学性和合价值性的人类实践活动,真正架起此岸世界与彼岸世界之间的桥梁。范式建设中的“实践性”既是实现哲学革命的逻辑起点,也是马克思主义哲学改变世界的根本途径。马克思主义哲学范式中的“实践性”不仅表征着改变世界的远大理想,而且蕴含改变世界的哲学理念。与此理解相适应,“实践性”就应该是范式建设的基本原则。

“Practicality,” as the theoretical premise of the scientization of Marx’s philosophy, indicates that “practicality” is the testing standard for paradigm construction. “Practicality,” as the basic viewpoint running through the entire Marxist philosophy paradigm, not only possesses theoretical form and theoretical content but also must provide a premise-based testing basis for these contents and forms; practicality is the testing standard for whether paradigm construction is reasonable. “Practicality,” as the testing standard for paradigm construction, can ensure the scientificity and rationality of paradigm construction and development, and promote adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. It is not difficult to see from the history of the development of Marxist philosophy that paradigm construction can not only find the ideological path for developing Marxist philosophy from “practicality” but also establish its own testing standard from “practicality.”

“实践性”作为马克思哲学科学化的理论前提表明,“实践性”是范式建设的检验标准。“实践性”作为贯穿马克思主义哲学范式始终的基本观点,不仅具有理论形式和理论内容,还要为这些内容和形式提供前提性检验根据,实践性就是范式建设是否合理的检验标准。“实践性”作为范式建设的检验标准,能够保障范式建设和发展的科学性和合理性,促进马克思主义中国化时代化。从马克思主义哲学的发展史中不难看出,范式建设不仅能从“实践性”中找到发展马克思主义哲学的思想路径,还能从“实践性”中确立自身的检验标准。

(2) “Academic Nature” is the Basic Requirement for Paradigm Construction to Be Established

(二)“学术性”是范式建设得以成立的基本要求

Paradigm construction not only faces practical problems of real society but also faces its own academic problems, indicating that “academic nature” is not only an inherent requirement of paradigm construction but also an essential characteristic of paradigm construction. Regarding the historical mission of paradigm construction for the study of Chinese Marxist philosophy, one of the most important academic achievements is to represent and demonstrate the sinicization of Marxist philosophy, that is, “in the more than one hundred years of historical process since Marxism was introduced into China, the sinicization of Marxism has always been an eternal and unchanging theme.” [3]3 Mao Zedong, “On Practice” (1937). The original Chinese is “人类用认识的活动去了解事物，用实践的活动去改变事物.” However, for the academic research on paradigm construction itself, only by using scientific and systematic ways of thinking for academic research can the relationship between Chinese Marxist philosophy and the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm be deeply analyzed. Therefore, strengthening “academic nature” is both a theoretical need for paradigm construction and an inherent requirement for research on paradigm construction to be established.

范式建设不仅有面对现实社会的实践问题,还有面向自身的学术问题表明,“学术性”不仅是范式建设的内在要求,还是范式建设的本质特征。就范式建设对中国马克思主义哲学研究的历史使命而言,最为重要的学术成果之一就是表征和论证马克思主义哲学中国化,即“在马克思主义传入中国的百余年历史进程中,马克思主义中国化始终是一个永恒不变的主题”,但对于范式建设本身的学术研究而言,只有运用科学和系统的思维方式进行学术研究,才能深度剖析中国马克思主义哲学和中国马克思主义哲学范式之间的关系。因此,加强“学术性”既是范式建设的理论需要,也是范式建设研究得以成立的内在要求。

Research on paradigm construction needs to provide academic standards and academic norms, indicating that “academic nature” is the theoretical thinking of paradigm construction. Understood from the sense of academic standards and academic norms, paradigm construction takes “academic nature” as its theoretical thinking in order to “accelerate the construction of a disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.” [4]4 Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction” (1844). The original German is “Die wahre Kritik analysiert nicht die Antworten, sondern die Fragen.” Only with this purpose can Chinese Marxist philosophy continuously promote academic development and achieve academic results. Of course, the reason why paradigm construction can carry out academic innovative development is essentially because it creatively proposes the academic standards and academic norms that Chinese Marxist philosophy must combine both with the basic principles of Marxist philosophy and with the excellent traditional Chinese culture. [5]5 A reference to the view that the substantive content of a discipline is embodied in its academic system, commonly cited in Chinese Marxist philosophy discourse.

范式建设研究需要提供学术标准和学术规范表明,“学术性”是范式建设的理论性思维。从学术标准和学术规范意义上理解,范式建设以“学术性”为理论性思维,是为了“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”。只有具备这种目的,中国马克思主义哲学才能不断推进学术发展和取得学术成果。当然,范式建设之所以能够进行学术性的创新性发展,本质上还是因为它创造性地提出了中国马克思主义哲学既要同马克思主义哲学基本原理相结合,也要同中华优秀传统文化相结合的学术标准和学术规范。

Paradigm construction requires Chinese Marxist philosophy to engage in academic innovation and development to gain theoretical strength, indicating that “academic nature” should also be the guiding principle of paradigm construction. Chinese Marxist philosophy is both an innovation and development of Marx’s philosophy and a philosophical innovation and development in the history of philosophy. Innovation and development in the history of philosophy cannot be separated from academic inheritance; therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the guiding principle of academic nature in paradigm construction to ensure the innovation and development of paradigm construction. It should be noted that when emphasizing “academic nature” as the guiding principle of paradigm construction, one must also be vigilant against “retreating to the trend of academic paradigms of traditional philosophy, history, and economics.” [6]6 A paraphrase of a critical stance toward orthodox Marxist philosophy, emphasizing Marxism as creative and critical, often associated with Western Marxist or critical theory traditions. Although paradigm construction achieves the innovation and development of “academic nature” through continuous dialogue with foreign Marxist philosophy and other philosophical forms, attention must also be paid to the importance of discarding the dross in this process.

范式建设需要中国马克思主义哲学进行学术创新和发展来获得理论力量,这表明“学术性”还应该是范式建设的指导原则。中国马克思主义哲学既是马克思哲学的创新和发展,也是哲学史上的哲学创新和发展,而哲学史上的创新和发展离不开学术的传承,因此就需要在范式建设中强化学术性的指导原则,以保障范式建设的创新和发展。需要注意的是,在强调“学术性”作为范式建设的指导原则时,还要警惕将范式建设“退回到传统哲学、历史学和经济学的学术范式的趋势”。尽管范式建设是在同国外马克思主义哲学等哲学形式不断对话中得以实现“学术性”的创新和发展,但也要注意这一过程中去其糟粕的重要性。

(3) The Inherent Unity of “Practicality” and “Academic Nature” in Paradigm Construction

(三)范式建设中“实践性”与“学术性”的内在统一

The intrinsic unity of “practicality” and “scholarship” in paradigm construction is, first of all, the intrinsic unity of the requirement of paradigm construction for a “practical” foundation and the requirement of paradigm construction for “scholarly” verification. The requirement of paradigm construction for a “practical” foundation indicates that paradigm construction cannot deviate from the scholarly nature of Marxist philosophy. The requirement of paradigm construction for “scholarly” verification indicates that theoretical research and scholarly verification must be ensured on the basis of Marxist philosophy. Both the “practical” foundation and the “scholarly” verification requirement in paradigm construction originate from Marxist philosophy, that is, “the basis of theory is practice, and it in turn serves practice.” [1]1 Mao Zedong, “On Practice” (1937). The original Chinese is “理论的基础是实践，又转过来为实践服务.” Interpreted through Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophy, this means “what we are generally inquiring into is not only the problem of science and its mode of experience—what we are inquiring into is the problem of human world experience and life practice.” [2]2 Hans-Georg Gadamer, *Truth and Method* (1960), Foreword to the Second German Edition. Therefore, to truly realize that “human beings use cognitive activity to understand things and practical activity to change things,” [3]3 Mao Zedong, “On Practice” (1937). The original Chinese is “人类用认识的活动去了解事物，用实践的活动去改变事物.” it is necessary to achieve the intrinsic unity of “practicality” and “scholarship.”

范式建设中“实践性”与“学术性”的内在统一,首先是范式建设对“实践性”根据的要求与范式建设对“学术性”证实的要求内在统一。范式建设对“实践性”根据的要求表明,范式建设不能背离马克思主义哲学的学术性。范式建设对“学术性”证实的要求表明,要确保在马克思主义哲学基础上进行理论研究和学术证实。范式建设中的“实践性”根据与“学术性”证实的要求,都根源于马克思主义哲学,即“理论的基础是实践,又转过来为实践服务”。用汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔哲学解释就是“我们一般所探究的不仅是科学及其经验方式的问题——我们所探究的是人的世界经验和生活实践的问题”。因此,真正实现“人类用认识的活动去了解事物,用实践的活动去改变事物”,就要做到“实践性”与“学术性”的内在统一。

The intrinsic unity of “practicality” and “scholarship” in paradigm construction also requires the intrinsic unity of the “practicality” and “scholarship” of paradigm reform. Marx pointed out, “Real criticism does not analyze answers, but questions.” [4]4 Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction” (1844). The original German is “Die wahre Kritik analysiert nicht die Antworten, sondern die Fragen.” Corresponding to this understanding of philosophy by Marx, it is necessary to recognize that the textbook paradigm of Marxist philosophy still requires reform and innovation. Since “the substantive content of any discipline… is embodied in the academic system of that discipline,” [5]5 A reference to the view that the substantive content of a discipline is embodied in its academic system, commonly cited in Chinese Marxist philosophy discourse. paradigm construction should also be an innovative paradigm in the sense of academization and actualization. To scientifically construct the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm, it is necessary to pay attention to the problems of the development of the times. This indicates that paradigm construction should take the problems of the times as its orientation, discovering, raising, and solving problems in practice, truly realizing the attempt to “actively correct the one-sidedness of orthodox Marxist philosophy from a practical perspective, emphasizing that Marxism is essentially a creative thought and a theory of social critique.” [6]6 A paraphrase of a critical stance toward orthodox Marxist philosophy, emphasizing Marxism as creative and critical, often associated with Western Marxist or critical theory traditions.

范式建设中“实践性”与“学术性”的内在统一,还要求范式改革的“实践性”与“学术性”的内在统一。马克思指出,“真正的批判要分析的不是答案,而是问题”。与马克思对哲学的这一理解相适应,就要认识到马克思主义哲学教科书范式还需要改革与创新。由于“任何一门学科的实质内容……体现为该门学科的学术体系”,因此范式建设还应该是一种学术化和现实化意义上的创新范式。要想科学构建中国马克思主义哲学范式就要关注时代发展的问题表明,范式建设就是要以时代问题为导向,在实践中发现问题、提出问题并解决问题,真正实现“试图从实践的角度积极纠正正统马克思主义哲学的片面性,强调马克思主义实质上是一种创造性的思想和社会批判的理论” 。

The intrinsic unity of “practicality” and “scholarship” in paradigm construction also cannot ignore the intrinsic unity of the “practical” value generated by paradigm construction and the “scholarly” value generated by paradigm construction. Mao Zedong pointed out that “the Sinification of Marxism” [7]7 Mao Zedong, “On the New Stage” (1938), where he proposed “the Sinification of Marxism” (马克思主义中国化), a key concept later developed into “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context.” is manifested in making every aspect bear “Chinese characteristics,” which indicates that the “practical” value generated by paradigm construction cannot be ignored. Since “the decisive test of the validity and usefulness of a paradigm should reach the degree that the predictions derived from this paradigm prove more accurate than those from other alternative paradigms,” [8]8 A paraphrase of Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigm testing in *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* (1962). paradigm construction possesses a unique scholarly value different from other paradigms. Studying the original scholarly value in the construction of the Marxist philosophy paradigm can confirm the intrinsic unity of “practicality” and “scholarship” in paradigm construction.

范式建设中“实践性”与“学术性”的内在统一,也不能忽视范式建设产生的“实践性”价值与范式建设产生的“学术性”价值的内在统一。毛泽东指出,“马克思主义在中国具体化”表现在使每一处都带有“中国的特性”,这表明范式建设产生的“实践性”价值不可忽视。由于“对一个范式的有效性和有用性的决定性检验应当达到这样的程度:从这个范式导出的预测结果证明比其他可供选择的范式更精确”,因此范式建设具有不同于其他范式的独特性学术价值。研究马克思主义哲学范式建设中的独创性学术价值,可以确证范式建设中“实践性”与“学术性”的内在统一。

II. The Philosophical Ideal of “Concern for Reality” and “Genuine Philosophy”: Reflections on the Problem-Consciousness of Paradigm Construction

二、“现实关切”与“真正哲学”的哲学理想:范式建设的问题意识之思

The realization of the turn in paradigm construction is inseparable from the scholarly discourse of “concern for reality” and the paradigm construction of “genuine philosophy.” What is called “genuine philosophy,” interpreted through Marx’s view, is “the essence of the spirit of the times.” [9]9 Karl Marx, “The Leading Article in No. 179 of the *Kölnische Zeitung*” (1842), where he writes that philosophy is “the essence of the spirit of the times.” Since “genuine philosophy” cannot be separated from the spirit of the times, and “concern for reality” refers to attention to the real problems of human society in different eras, the scholarly discourse of “concern for reality” must be an inherent meaning of “genuine philosophy.” This means that the turn of the Marxist philosophy paradigm toward the study of paradigm construction is an important premise-consciousness for why paradigm construction research is conducted, and the reflection on the problem-consciousness within this premise-consciousness includes the philosophical ideal of “concern for reality” and “genuine philosophy.”

范式建设转向的实现离不开“现实关切”的学术性话语与“真正哲学”的范式建构。所谓“真正哲学”,用马克思的观点解释就是——“时代精神的精华”。既然“真正哲学”离不开时代精神,“现实关切”又是指对不同时代人类社会现实问题的关注,因此“现实关切”的学术性话语就必须是“真正哲学”的应有之义。这就意味着,马克思主义哲学范式向范式建设研究的转向,是为什么要进行范式建设研究的重要前提意识,而对此前提意识中的问题意识之思,就包含“现实关切”与“真正哲学”的哲学理想。

(A) The Scholarly Discourse of “Concern for Reality” Is the Basis for the Emergence of Paradigm Construction

(一)“现实关切”的学术性话语是范式建设的产生根据

The theoretical principle that paradigm construction requires the combination of theory and practice indicates that the scholarly discourse of “concern for reality” is conducive to clarifying the function of paradigm construction in interpreting theoretical truth. Marx pointed out, “Whether human thinking has objective [gegenständliche] truth… is a practical question.” [10]10 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach” (1845), Thesis II. Following this logic, the issue of the criterion of truth in paradigm construction should be the scholarly discourse of paradigm construction. To ensure the correctness and truth of scholarship in paradigm construction, it is necessary to conduct philosophical research through paradigm construction that is “concerned with reality.” Paradigm construction is precisely the combination of the scholarly discourse of Marxist philosophy with the “concern for reality” of China’s construction. Only by testing the correctness and truth of paradigm construction through practice can the scholarly discourse of “concern for reality” be made to serve paradigm construction itself.

范式建设需要理论与实践相结合的理论原则表明,“现实关切”的学术性话语有利于明确范式建设具有阐释理论真理性的功能。马克思指出,“人的思维是否具有客观的[gegenständliche]真理性……是一个实践的问题”。据此逻辑理解,范式建设中的真理标准问题就应该是范式建设的学术性话语。为保证范式建设中学术的正确性和真理性,就需要通过“现实关切”的范式建设来进行哲学研究。范式建设正是将马克思主义哲学的学术性话语与中国建设的“现实关切”相结合,只有根据实践来检验范式建设的正确性和真理性,才能促使“现实关切”的学术性话语为范式建设本身所服务。

Since paradigm construction has the essential characteristic of “practicality,” the scholarly discourse of “concern for reality” is conducive to paradigm construction perfecting its theoretical function of solving real social problems. Since “practice is active, it is self-generating in history” and “the times are the mother of thought, and practice is the source of theory,” [11]11 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Conference Celebrating the 95th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China” (2016). The phrase “时代是思想之母，实践是理论之源” is a standard formulation in contemporary CPC discourse. Marxist philosophy is the worldview and methodology guiding paradigm construction. Therefore, paradigm construction needs to use Marxist philosophy to guide its own theoretical activities, and needs to combine Marxist philosophy with the actual conditions of China’s social development, in order to truly help solve the real problems encountered in the construction of Chinese-path modernization. It is precisely because of the implementation of this logic of paradigm construction that paradigm construction establishes a problem-consciousness for solving real social problems.

由于范式建设具有“实践性”的本质特征,因此“现实关切”的学术性话语就有利于范式建设完善其解决社会现实问题的理论功能。由于“实践是能动的,它是在历史中自我生成的”且“时代是思想之母,实践是理论之源”,马克思主义哲学是指导范式建设的世界观和方法论,因此范式建设需要运用马克思主义哲学来指导自身进行理论活动,需要将马克思主义哲学与中国社会发展的实际情况相结合,才能真正帮助解决中国式现代化建设中遇到的现实问题。正是由于这种范式建设逻辑的践行,因此范式建设才确立起解决社会现实问题的问题意识。

The logic of the intrinsic unity of the scholarly discourse of “concern for reality” and the development of Chinese-path modernization indicates that paradigm construction is conducive to realizing the innovative development of Chinese Marxist philosophical theory. Since “theory becomes practice, theory is invigorated by practice, corrected by practice, and tested by practice,” [12]12 A paraphrase of Lenin’s view on the relationship between theory and practice, from *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism* (1909) or similar works. paradigm construction must possess the basic characteristics of “practicality” and “scholarship,” that is, paradigm construction must have the scholarly discourse character of “concern for reality,” in order to fulfill the historical mission of assisting the construction of Chinese-path modernization. For paradigm construction to achieve its own development, it must ensure that the basic theories of Chinese Marxist philosophy are combined with social practice. Only in this way can paradigm construction follow “concern for reality” to conduct scholarly research and truly realize the innovative development of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm. Understood from the construction practice of Chinese-path modernization, “any serious policy must be based on facts that can withstand rigorous objective testing.” [13]13 A reference to the principle of seeking truth from facts (实事求是), a core CPC methodological tenet.

“现实关切”的学术性话语与中国式现代化的发展内在统一的逻辑表明,范式建设有利于实现中国马克思主义哲学理论的创新性发展。由于“理论在变为实践,理论由实践赋予活力,由实践来修正,由实践来检验”,因此范式建设必须具有“实践性”与“学术性”的基本特征,即范式建设必须具有“现实关切”的学术性话语品格,才能完成助力中国式现代化建设的历史使命。范式建设要想获得自身发展,就要确保中国马克思主义哲学的基础理论同社会实践相结合。只有如此,范式建设才能遵循“现实关切”来进行学术研究,真正实现中国马克思主义哲学范式的创新性发展。从中国式现代化的建设实践理解就是,“任何郑重的政策必须以经得起严格的客观检验的事实作为根据”。

(B) The Paradigm Construction of “Genuine Philosophy” Is the Scholarly Standard of Paradigm Construction

(二)“真正哲学”的范式建构是范式建设的学术标准

The logic of paradigm construction of “genuine philosophy” can provide a structural basis for paradigm construction. Understood according to this logic, paradigm construction is to realize the combination of Marxist philosophy with the actual development of Chinese-path modernization, pursuing the scholarly ideal of paradigm construction with Chinese characteristics. To realize the scholarly ideal of paradigm construction, it is necessary to systematically study Marxist philosophy, “thereby presenting Marxist philosophy as a complete system before the Chinese people.” [14]14 A reference to the goal of systematically presenting Marxist philosophy, common in Chinese Marxist textbook reform discussions. Only on this basis can Chinese Marxist philosophy gradually form its own unique theoretical framework and possess the scholarly ability to provide theoretical guidance and innovation for paradigm construction. In short, the paradigm construction of “genuine philosophy” provides a theoretical structural basis for paradigm construction, which is the prerequisite reason why paradigm construction has a given scholarly ideal and ultimate pursuit.

“真正哲学”的范式建构逻辑,能够为范式建设提供架构依据。按此逻辑理解,范式建设就是要实现马克思主义哲学同中国式现代化的发展实际相结合,追求具有中国特色的范式建设的学术理想。要实现范式建设的学术理想,就需要系统研究马克思主义哲学,“从而把马克思主义哲学作为一个完整的体系展现在中国人民面前”。只有在此基础上,中国马克思主义哲学才能逐渐形成自己独有的理论框架,具备为范式建设提供理论指导和创新的学术能力。简言之,“真正哲学”的范式建构为范式建设提供理论架构依据,这是范式建设具有既定学术理想和终极追求的前提性原因。

The standard of paradigm construction of “genuine philosophy” is conducive to paradigm construction serving a thorough philosophical theory. Marx pointed out, “The degree to which a theory is realized in a country always depends on the degree to which the theory satisfies the needs of that country.” [15]15 Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction” (1844). According to this theoretical understanding of Marx, the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm constructed by paradigm construction is the philosophical paradigm of “genuine philosophy,” and such a philosophical paradigm is the philosophical form capable of scientifically constructing Chinese-path modernization. The standard of paradigm construction of “genuine philosophy” includes methods for solving problems, such as finding initial conditions, spaces of possibility, and practical means for existing problems. In the process of paradigm construction, these methods can not only help people accurately grasp the needs of social reality but are also indispensable standards of paradigm construction.

“真正哲学”的范式建构标准,有利于范式建设服务于彻底性的哲学理论。马克思指出,“理论在一个国家实现的程度,总是取决于理论满足这个国家的需要的程度”。按照马克思的这一理论理解,范式建设所建构的中国马克思主义哲学范式就是“真正哲学”的哲学范式,这样的哲学范式才是能够科学建设中国式现代化的哲学形态。“真正哲学”的范式建构标准,包括为存在的问题找到初始条件、可能性空间、现实手段等解决问题的方法。在范式建设过程中,这些方法既能够帮助人们准确把握社会现实需要,也是不可忽视的范式建构标准。

The pursuit of paradigm construction of “genuine philosophy” is conducive to paradigm construction fulfilling the academic mission of theoretical innovation. The pursuit of paradigm construction in paradigm building is to, on the basis of systematically studying the theoretical system of Marxist philosophy, integrate unique Chinese academic theories to carry out paradigm construction, “to launch a movement of sinicization and actualization of philosophical research.” Paradigm construction is to fulfill the academic mission of innovating the paradigm system of Chinese Marxist philosophy, so as to form a philosophical theory with Chinese characteristics. Of course, constructing the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm is not merely pure academic research, because philosophy is the “theoretical form of worldview,” and it also concerns research on how to understand and transform the world. Only by constructing the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm in an all-round way can the academic mission of paradigm construction to build a “genuine philosophy” be accomplished.

“真正哲学”的范式建构追求,有利于范式建设完成理论创新的学术使命。范式建设的范式建构追求,就是要在系统研究马克思主义哲学理论体系的基础上,融入中国独特的学术理论来进行范式建设,“来一个哲学研究的中国化、现实化的运动”。范式建设就是要履行创新中国马克思主义哲学范式体系的学术使命,以形成具有中国特色的哲学理论。当然,构建中国马克思主义哲学范式不仅仅是纯粹学术性研究,因为哲学是“理论形态的世界观”,它还关系到如何认识世界和改造世界的问题研究。只有全方位建构中国马克思主义哲学范式,才能完成范式建设建构“真正哲学”的学术使命。

(III) The academic discourse of “concern for reality” provides methodological construction principles for the paradigm construction of “genuine philosophy”

(三)“现实关切”的学术性话语为“真正哲学”的范式建构提供方法论建构原则

The academic discourse of “concern for reality” enables paradigm construction to adhere to the principle of dialectical negation of “genuine philosophy.” Philosophy’s concern for the real-life world is not a simple theorization of the life world, but an abstract theorization of the real-life world. The so-called abstract theorization is a dialectically negative understanding of the life world, because philosophy “now, in no field, any longer proceeds from relations thought up in the head, but from facts discovered in reality.” [16]16 Friedrich Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886). The academic discourse of “concern for reality” providing the principle of dialectical negation for paradigm construction indicates that paradigm construction cannot completely copy the theory of Marxist philosophy, but must construct a theoretical system of Chinese Marxist philosophy with Chinese characteristics and based on Chinese practice, and carry out paradigm construction according to a dialectically negative understanding with Chinese characteristics, so as to realize its paradigm construction ideal of “genuine philosophy.”

“现实关切”的学术性话语,促使范式建设能够坚持“真正哲学”的辩证否定原则。哲学对现实生活世界的关切不是简单的生活世界理论化,而是对现实生活世界的抽象性理论化。所谓抽象性理论化,就是对生活世界的辩证否定性理解,因为哲学“现在无论在哪一个领域,都不再是从头脑中想出联系,而是从事实中发现联系”。“现实关切”的学术性话语为范式建设提供辩证否定原则表明,范式建设不能够完全照搬马克思主义哲学的理论,而是要构建具有中国特性和立足中国实践的中国马克思主义哲学的理论体系,要按照中国特性的辩证否定理解来进行范式建设,以实现其“真正哲学”的范式建构理想。

The academic discourse of “concern for reality” enables paradigm construction to adhere to the principle of focusing on critical borrowing of “genuine philosophy.” Paradigm construction must critically absorb the theoretical achievements of foreign Marxist philosophy and Western philosophy, thereby achieving the paradigm construction goal of “creating something new unique to China.” The academic discourse of “concern for reality,” as the basis for the emergence of paradigm construction, completes its own academic thought through the principle of critical borrowing, thus realizing the paradigm construction goal of “genuine philosophy.” “Genuine philosophy,” as the academic ideal of paradigm construction, requires the academic discourse of “concern for reality” to provide it with methodological principles that can be borrowed, that is, paradigm construction should proceed from the academic discourse of “concern for reality” to critically borrow from other philosophical paradigms.

“现实关切”的学术性话语,促使范式建设能够坚持“真正哲学”注重批判性借鉴的原则。范式建设要批判吸收国外马克思主义哲学和西方哲学的理论成果,从而实现“创造中国独特的新东西”的范式建设目的。“现实关切”的学术性话语作为范式建设的产生根据,通过批判性借鉴原则来完成自己的学术思想,从而实现了“真正哲学”的范式建构目标。“真正哲学”作为范式建设的学术理想,需要“现实关切”的学术性话语为其提供可资借鉴的方法论原则,即范式建设应该从“现实关切”的学术性话语出发批判地借鉴其他哲学范式。

The academic discourse of “concern for reality” enables paradigm construction to adhere to the principle of innovation and creativity of “genuine philosophy.” Marx’s historical materialism tells people that all things develop and change according to certain laws. Understood according to this logic, since “the forms of historical development are not the same for all people,” [17]17 This appears to be a paraphrase or quotation from a Marxist source, but the specific reference is unclear; it may reflect a general principle of historical materialism. the academic discourse of “concern for reality” of Chinese Marxist philosophy that paradigm construction is to represent must also continuously carry out its own innovation and creation according to the development of the times. This innovation and creation must both demonstrate established theories and theorize the experience of Chinese-path modernization construction. Only in this way can paradigm construction keep pace with the development of the times and maintain the realistic existence of “genuine philosophy.”

“现实关切”的学术性话语,促使范式建设能够坚持“真正哲学”的创新创造性原则。马克思的唯物史观告诉人们,万事万物都是按照一定的规律进行发展变化的。按此逻辑理解,由于“历史的发展形式对一切人来说并不是一个样的”,因此范式建设要表征的中国马克思主义哲学的“现实关切”的学术性话语,也就要根据时代的发展而不断地进行自身的创新创造。这种创新创造,既要对既定理论加以论证,又要将中国式现代化建设的经验理论化。只有如此,范式建设才能紧随时代发展,保持“真正哲学”的现实性存在。

III. Academic Reflection on “Theoretical Practicality” and “Apprentice Scholarship”: Reflections on the Theoretical Basis of Paradigm Construction

三、对“理论实践性”与“学徒学术性”的学术反思:范式建设的理论根据之思

In the process of studying Marxist philosophy, Chinese academic circles have long believed that the “theoretical practicality” of Marxist philosophy is its most essential cognitive characteristic. This judgment, even today, remains correct. What needs reflection is that, in the study of the understanding of “theoretical practicality” of Marxist philosophy, the academic community once did not conduct research from the correct level of theoretical basis, but fell into the predicament of trying to find a theoretical basis from “Western philosophy,” that is, the Marxist philosophical research achievements of that stage had the characteristics of “apprentice scholarship,” such as interpreting Marx through Hegel with traces of Hegelian philosophy, interpreting Marx through Kant with traces of Kantian philosophy, and interpreting Marx through Heidegger with traces of Heideggerian philosophy. This research situation is not conducive to, or rather cannot help, the birth of a Chinese Marxist philosophy that represents Chinese-path modernization construction. This means that “the path of modernization itself should be a selectable development path.” [18]18 This quotation likely originates from contemporary Chinese academic discourse on modernization theory, but the specific source is not identified in the original text. In order to further deepen the development path of Chinese-path modernization, it is necessary to reflect on the theoretical basis of paradigm construction. It should be noted that the so-called reflection on the theoretical basis does not mean to explain the theoretical basis of paradigm construction, but to conduct academic reflection on the theoretical basis of paradigm construction research, that is, to clarify why paradigm construction does not need theories other than Marx’s philosophy as its theoretical basis.

在马克思主义哲学的研究过程中,中国学术界长期以来都认为马克思主义哲学的“理论实践性”是其最为本质的认知特征。这一判断,至今看来,依然是正确的。需要反思的是,在对马克思主义哲学的“理论实践性”理解的研究中,学界一度没有从正确的理论根据层面进行研究,而是陷入试图从“西方哲学”中寻找理论根据的困境,即该阶段的马克思主义哲学研究成果具有“学徒学术性”的特点,如以黑解马的具有黑格尔哲学痕迹的学徒成果、以康解马的具有康德哲学痕迹的学徒成果和以海解马的具有海德格尔哲学痕迹的学徒成果。这种研究状况,不利于或者说是不能够助力表征中国式现代化建设的中国马克思主义哲学的诞生。这就意味着,“现代化道路本身应该是一种可选择的发展道路”,为了进一步深入中国式现代化发展道路,就有必要反思范式建设的理论根据。需要说明的是,所谓理论根据之思,并不是指要对范式建设的理论根据进行阐释,而是对范式建设研究的理论根据进行学术反思,即阐明范式建设为什么不需要马克思哲学以外的理论作为理论根据。

(I) “Theoretical practicality” is the inherent theoretical logic of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm

(一)“理论实践性”是中国马克思主义哲学范式的内在理论逻辑

That Marx aimed to establish a philosophical theoretical system serving revolutionary practice and practical activities indicates that “theoretical practicality” must be the inherent theoretical logic of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm itself. Marx and Engels “always treated ideology—including philosophy—as concrete reality rather than empty fantasy.” [19]19 This is a paraphrase of a central theme in Marx and Engels’s *The German Ideology* (1845-46). Since this is the case, the theoretical logic of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm cannot but emphasize the significance of “theoretical practicality,” because, no matter what kind of Marxist philosophical theory, it should adhere to taking practicality as a basic viewpoint running through Marxist philosophy. Understood from the perspective of this inherent theoretical logic, the so-called “theoretical practicality” refers to the inseparable dependent relationship between theory and practice, with neither being dispensable. In the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm, “without practicality it is impossible” means that Chinese Marxist philosophy is the philosophical conclusion of Chinese-path modernization; in the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm, “without theory it cannot be established” means that Chinese Marxist philosophy can guide Chinese-path modernization construction.

马克思是要建立一个服务于革命实践和现实活动的哲学理论体系表明,“理论实践性”必须是中国马克思主义哲学范式本身的内在理论逻辑。马克思恩格斯“总是把意识形态——包括哲学——当作具体的现实而不是空洞的幻想来对待的”,既然如此,中国马克思主义哲学范式的理论逻辑中就不能不强调“理论实践性”的意义,因为,无论何种意义上的马克思主义哲学理论,都应该坚持把实践性作为贯穿马克思主义哲学始终的基本观点。从这种内在理论逻辑的视角理解,所谓“理论实践性”,就是指理论与实践之间存在密不可分的依赖关系,二者缺一不可。中国马克思主义哲学范式中“没有实践性不可”是指中国马克思主义哲学是中国式现代化的哲学结论,中国马克思主义哲学范式中“没有理论性不成立”是指中国马克思主义哲学能够指导中国式现代化建设。

That “theoretical practicality” is a landmark element for measuring whether the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm is scientific indicates that “theoretical practicality” must be the inherent theoretical logic of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm itself. Studying the theoretical basis of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm cannot be separated from demonstrating the truth and correctness of Chinese Marxist philosophical theory. Only through this demonstration can the scientific nature of Chinese Marxist philosophical theory be represented. Marx pointed out, “Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.” [20]20 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach” (1845), Thesis II. According to Marx’s theoretical cognition, judging whether a theory has truth and scientific nature is to be tested through practice, that is, the inherent theoretical logic of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm must maintain “theoretical practicality” unswervingly.

“理论实践性”是衡量中国马克思主义哲学范式是否科学的标志性要素表明,“理论实践性”必须是中国马克思主义哲学范式本身的内在理论逻辑。研究中国马克思主义哲学范式的理论根据,离不开对中国马克思主义哲学理论真实性和正确性的论证。只有经过这一论证,才能表征中国马克思主义哲学理论的科学性。马克思指出，“人应该在实践中证明自己思维的真理性,即自己思维的现实性和力量,自己思维的此岸性”。按照马克思的这一理论认知,判断一个理论是否具有真理性和科学性就是要通过实践来检验,即必须保持中国马克思主义哲学范式具有“理论实践性”的内在理论逻辑不动摇。

That “theoretical practicality” is the theoretical logic by which Chinese Marxist philosophical theory can guide Chinese-path modernization construction indicates that “theoretical practicality” must be the inherent theoretical logic of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm itself. The reason why the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm has strong vitality is that researchers of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm have realized that “philosophy can only exist because of and for this ‘outside’… this outside is practice, all kinds of social practice.” [21]21 This quotation appears to be from a Western Marxist or post-Marxist philosopher, but the specific source is not identified in the original text. Studying the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm requires emphasizing the inherent philosophical logical premise of practice. According to this cognition, the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm, like Marx’s philosophy, “not only does not put an end to philosophy, but rather raises a permanently open question about itself, sustaining the continued existence of philosophy and contributing to its renewal.” [22]22 This quotation appears to be from a Western Marxist or post-Marxist philosopher, but the specific source is not identified in the original text. The fundamental driving force of this “contribution” comes from the theoretical thinking of “theoretical practicality”; otherwise, the ability of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm to serve Chinese-path modernization can easily be called into question.

“理论实践性”是中国马克思主义哲学理论能够指导中国式现代化建设的理论逻辑表明,“理论实践性”必须是中国马克思主义哲学范式本身的内在理论逻辑。中国马克思主义哲学范式之所以具有强大的生命力,是因为中国马克思主义哲学范式的研究者们意识到了“哲学只能由于并且为了这个‘外部’而存在……这个外部就是实践,种种社会实践”。研究中国马克思主义哲学范式就要强调实践的内在哲学逻辑前提。按照这一认知,中国马克思主义哲学范式像马克思哲学一样,“它不仅没有给哲学画上句号,反而就它本身提出了一个永久开放的问题,维系哲学的继续存在并有助于它的更新”。这种“有助于”的根本动力来源于“理论实践性”的理论性思维;否则,中国马克思主义哲学范式服务中国式现代化的能力就容易受到质疑。

(II) “Apprentice scholarship” is a stage-specific academic discourse in the study of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm

(二)“学徒学术性”是中国马克思主义哲学范式研究中的阶段性学术性话语

Because contemporary Chinese scholars have an insufficient grasp of the theoretical logic of Marx’s philosophy, the compilation and understanding of the textbook paradigm of Marxist philosophy in a “disciple-academic” manner became a characteristic of Marxist philosophical research in one period. Due to ideological needs, the first generation of Chinese Marxist philosophy researchers, represented by Ai Siqi, attempted to conduct research on the textbook paradigm of Marxist philosophy. However, because academic resources were clearly scarce at that time, and there were not even complete editions of the Complete Works of Marx and Engels or many of their texts, scholars’ understanding and compilation of the Marxist philosophy textbook were greatly restricted. For example, the textbook paradigm simply absorbed many theoretical logics of Hegelian philosophy and Feuerbachian philosophy into the textbook, without theoretically clarifying the revolutionary contribution of Marx’s philosophy.

由于时下中国学者对马克思哲学的理论逻辑把握不足,因此使“学徒学术性”的编撰和理解马克思主义哲学教科书范式成为一个阶段的马克思主义哲学研究特点。由于意识形态的需要,因此以艾思奇为代表的中国马克思主义哲学的第一批研究者们试图进行马克思主义哲学教科书范式的研究。然而,因为那时的学术资源明显匮乏,甚至没有完整的马克思恩格斯全集和诸多马克思恩格斯的文献,学者们对马克思主义哲学教科书的理解和编撰受到了很大的限制,如教科书范式将黑格尔哲学和费尔巴哈哲学的诸多理论逻辑简单吸收到了教科书之中,而没有从理论逻辑上阐明马克思哲学的革命性贡献。

Due to the limited reception of Marxist textual documents, “disciple-academic” once became the research orientation for the textual documents of the classical Marxist writers. The first generation of Chinese Marxist philosophy researchers’ understanding of Marxist textual documents was mainly influenced by Soviet scholars and politicians. The “disciple-academic” character of Chinese Marxist philosophy research achievements in this period was manifested as a simple inheritance and paradigm imitation of the academic thought and achievements of Soviet scholars and politicians, rather than “proceeding from the essence of the life-world of one’s own era to make new interpretations of the texts left by predecessors.” At that time, research on Marxist textual documents began from the “disciple,” rather than interpreting the textual documents of the classical Marxist writers from the depth of “theory, as long as it is thorough, can convince people.” [23]23 A reference to Marx’s “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” where he writes: “Theory is capable of seizing the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp things by the root. But for man the root is man himself.” The phrase “theory, as long as it is thorough, can convince people” is a common Chinese paraphrase of this idea.

由于对马克思主义文本文献的局限性接受,因此“学徒学术性”一度成为马克思主义经典作家文本文献的研究导向。第一代中国马克思主义哲学的研究者对马克思主义文本文献的理解,主要是受到了苏联学者和政治家的影响。这一时期的中国马克思主义哲学研究成果的“学徒学术性”,体现为对苏联学者、苏联政治家学术思想和学术成果的简单继承和范式模仿,而不是“从自己时代的生活世界的本质出发,对前人留下的文本做出新的诠释”。这时的马克思主义文本文献研究是从“学徒”开启,而不是从“理论只要彻底,就能说服人”的深度来诠释马克思主义经典作家的文本文献。

Due to the simple worship of foreign research achievements in Marxist philosophy, the research achievements of Chinese Marxist philosophy possess the theoretical logic of “disciple-academic.” In a certain sense, philosophy is the history of philosophy. According to this logic, the paradigm of Chinese Marxist philosophy can adopt the research method of the history of philosophical thought, that is, studying the paradigm of Chinese Marxist philosophy requires not only focusing on Marx’s philosophy but also on what happened before and after Marx’s philosophy. Studying the paradigm of Chinese Marxist philosophy requires both tracing the theoretical origins of Marxist philosophy and exploring its impact on the development of the world today. It is precisely for this reason that Chinese scholars attempt to draw on the academic achievements of foreign Marxist philosophy research, because, whether concerning the theoretical origins of Marxist philosophy or the impact of Marx’s philosophy on the world today, researchers of foreign Marxist philosophy have many research achievements. Originally, this was a positive and healthy research path, but because some Chinese scholars simply accept the research achievements of foreign Marxist philosophy, it has led to some Chinese Marxist philosophy research achievements still being in a “disciple-academic” state.

由于对国外马克思主义哲学研究成果的简单崇拜,因此中国马克思主义哲学的研究成果具有“学徒学术性”的理论逻辑。从一定意义上理解,哲学就是哲学史。按此逻辑,中国马克思主义哲学范式可以采用哲学思想史的研究方法,即研究中国马克思主义哲学范式不仅要关注马克思哲学,还要关注马克思哲学之前和之后发生了什么。研究中国马克思主义哲学范式,既需要追溯马克思主义哲学的理论渊源,也需要探讨其对当今世界发展产生的影响。正是因为这种原因,中国学者就试图借鉴国外马克思主义哲学研究的学术成果,因为,无论是马克思主义哲学的理论渊源问题,还是马克思哲学对当今世界的影响问题,国外马克思主义哲学的研究者们都有诸多研究成果。本来这是一种积极的、健康的研究道路,但由于一些中国学者对国外马克思主义哲学研究成果简单接受,因此导致一些中国马克思主义哲学研究成果仍处于“学徒学术性”状态。

(III) The Research Situation of “Disciple-Academic” Restricts the Arrival of the Stage of Paradigm Construction of Chinese Marxist Philosophy

(三)“学徒学术性”的研究状况限制了中国马克思主义哲学范式建设阶段的到来

The imitative character of “disciple-academic” research indicates that the research situation of “disciple-academic” restricts the construction of the innovative mode of thinking required for paradigm construction. “Whether our philosophy and social sciences have Chinese characteristics ultimately depends on whether they have subjectivity and originality.” [24]24 A quotation from Xi Jinping’s speech at a symposium on philosophy and social science work in May 2016, emphasizing the need for Chinese scholarship to develop its own independent theoretical frameworks. If the research achievements of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm merely imitate the research achievements of other philosophical theories, lacking the theoretical subjectivity and theoretical originality compatible with the path of Chinese-path modernization, then it will be impossible to construct a Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm uniquely unified with the development path of Chinese-path modernization. Consequently, the period of paradigm construction of Chinese Marxist philosophy cannot truly arrive. Because, understood methodologically, the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm constructed through paradigm construction needs to innovate a mode of thinking different from the “disciple” state in order to realize its theoretical thinking. This requires reflecting on the “disciple-academic” of the Marxist philosophy paradigm, recognizing that the research situation of “disciple-academic” will restrict the mode of thinking for paradigm construction.

“学徒学术性”研究的模仿性特征表明,“学徒学术性”的研究状况限制了范式建设所需要的创新思维方式建设。“我们的哲学社会科学有没有中国特色,归根到底要看有没有主体性、原创性”。如果中国马克思主义哲学范式的研究成果只是模仿了其他哲学理论的研究成果,没有与中国式现代化道路相适应的理论的主体性和理论的原创性,那么,就不可能建设出独属于与中国式现代化发展道路相统一的中国马克思主义哲学范式,如此,中国马克思主义哲学范式建设时期就不可能真正地到来。因为从方法论上理解,范式建设建构的中国马克思主义哲学范式需要创新不同于“学徒”状态的思维方式,才能实现其理论性思维。这就需要对马克思主义哲学范式的“学徒学术性”进行反思,认识到“学徒学术性”的研究状况会限制范式建设的思维方式。

The mechanical character of “disciple-academic” research indicates that the research situation of “disciple-academic” restricts the theoretical self-conscious attention of paradigm construction to the path of Chinese-path modernization. The mechanical consequence of “disciple-academic” research is reflected in the practical significance of theory, manifesting as the dogmatic character of philosophical theory. Paradigm construction emphasizes constructing a philosophical theoretical system with Chinese characteristics, rather than dogmatically applying the “disciple-academic” of the Marxist philosophy paradigm. Directly applying this “disciple-academic” exhibits the immaturity of the academic foundation, manifested as excessive reliance on and imitation of external academic theories in the process of philosophical research. If the dogmatic mode of thinking continues to be used, it will not only hinder the exploration and development of the path of Chinese-path modernization but also restrict the birth of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm.

“学徒学术性”研究的机械性特征表明,“学徒学术性”的研究状况限制了范式建设对中国式现代化道路的理论自觉关注。“学徒学术性”研究的机械性后果反映在理论的实践性意义之上,表现为哲学理论具有教条性的特点。范式建设是强调构建具有中国特色的哲学理论体系,而不是教条式套用马克思主义哲学范式的“学徒学术性”。直接套用这种“学徒学术性”存在学术根基的不成熟性,表现为在进行哲学研究的进程中过多依赖和模仿外界学术理论。如果继续沿用教条主义的思维方式,不仅会阻碍中国式现代化道路的探索和发展,而且会限制中国马克思主义哲学范式的诞生。

The general character of “disciple-academic” research indicates that the research situation of “disciple-academic” restricts the emergence of the stage of paradigm construction within the study of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm. As a deepening stage of the study of the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm, the fundamental purpose of paradigm construction is to explore a philosophical theory that can characterize and guide Chinese-path modernization. This purpose indicates that, compared with Marx’s philosophy, Chinese Marxist philosophy is such that Marx’s philosophy is a general theory of historical materialism, while Chinese Marxist philosophy is a theory of historical materialism with particularity. Scientifically constructing the Chinese Marxist philosophy paradigm is to highlight the logic of the particularity of historical materialism, because Marx’s philosophy has already elucidated the logic of the generality of historical materialism. Only by correctly treating this research situation and the actual conditions of Chinese-path modernization, and “as long as we scientifically understand, accurately grasp, and correctly solve these problems, we can continuously advance our society forward,” [25]25 A paraphrase of a formulation frequently used in official Chinese Communist Party discourse, emphasizing the necessity of scientifically addressing practical problems to advance social development. will the emergence of paradigm construction not be restricted.

“学徒学术性”研究的一般性特征表明,“学徒学术性”的研究状况限制了中国马克思主义哲学范式研究中的范式建设阶段的出场。范式建设作为中国马克思主义哲学范式研究的深化阶段,其根本目的是要探讨出能够表征和指导中国式现代化的哲学理论。这一目的表明,中国马克思主义哲学与马克思哲学相比较而言,马克思哲学是一般性的唯物史观理论,而中国马克思主义哲学则是具有特殊性的唯物史观理论。科学建设中国马克思主义哲学范式就是要突出唯物史观的特殊性逻辑,因为马克思哲学已经阐明了唯物史观的一般性逻辑。只有正确对待这一研究现状和中国式现代化的现实状况,“只要科学地认识、准确地把握、正确地解决这些问题,就能够把我们的社会不断推向前进”,范式建设的出场才不会受到限制。

IV. The Theoretical Integration of “Practicality of Reality” and “Scientific Academicity”: Reflections on the Academic Discourse of Paradigm Construction

四、“现实实践性”与“科学学术性”的理论融合:范式建设的学术性话语之思

To accurately summarize what paradigm construction is, one cannot do without reflecting on the precondition consciousness of the academic discourse of paradigm construction. From the above analysis and understanding of the theoretical premise, problem consciousness, and theoretical basis of paradigm construction, the academic discourse of paradigm construction should be designed around the theoretical logic of “practicality” and “academicity,” that is, emphasizing the theoretical integration of “practicality” and “academicity.” It needs to be explained that the “practicality” in paradigm construction is not only different from the “rational practicality” of previous philosophy but also different from the unscientific “theoretical practicality” detached from the real life-world; it is “practicality of reality.” The “academicity” in paradigm construction is neither “abstract rational academicity” nor “disciple-academic”; it is “scientific academicity.” “Practicality of reality” and “scientific academicity” complement each other, jointly witnessing the academic ideal of paradigm construction.

要想准确概括何为范式建设,离不开对范式建设的学术性话语这一前提意识的思考。从上述对范式建设的理论前提、问题意识和理论根据的分析理解,范式建设的学术性话语应该围绕“实践性”与“学术性”的理论逻辑而设计,即强调“实践性”与“学术性”的理论融合。需要说明的是,范式建设中的“实践性”不仅不同于以往哲学的“理性实践性”,也不同于脱离现实生活世界的非科学的“理论实践性”,而是“现实实践性”;范式建设中的“学术性”既不同于“抽象理性学术性”,也不同于“学徒学术性”,它是“科学学术性”。“现实实践性”与“科学学术性”之间相互补充,共同见证了范式建设的学术理想。

(I) “Practicality of Reality” Is a Philosophical Logic Different from “Rational Practicality” and “Theoretical Practicality”

(一)“现实实践性”是差别于“理性实践性”和“理论实践性”的哲学逻辑

“Rational practicality” is a generalized expression of the essential characteristics of practice in idealist philosophy. For example, Hegel’s “speculative rational practicality” refers to the logic of Hegel’s practical philosophy, while “real practicality” refers to the logic of historical materialism used for perceptual practical activity. For a long time, there has been a misconception in academia that idealist philosophers do not concern themselves with the study of social practice. In fact, it is not that they do not care about social practice, but rather that their idealist logic of practical philosophy cannot change social practice, and idealist practical philosophy cannot solve social problems in the real world of life. The fundamental reason why idealist practical philosophy cannot solve social problems is that the “practice” in its “rational practicality” is merely abstract speculative practice. “Real practicality” first means that humans possess reality, that is, humans are humans in the real world of life. To summarize with Marx’s theory, “These are real individuals, their activity and the material conditions of their life” [2]2 Hans-Georg Gadamer, *Truth and Method* (1960), Foreword to the Second German Edition.146. Marx’s point is clear: “real practicality” examines “real individuals” within the material production of society and the material life of humans, thereby indicating that the true existence of humans is premised on their perceptual activity.

“理性实践性”是唯心主义哲学对实践本质特征的概括性表达,如黑格尔的“思辨理性实践性”就是指黑格尔的实践哲学逻辑,而“现实实践性”则是用于进行感性活动实践的唯物史观逻辑。长期以来,学术界存在一个误区,即认为唯心主义哲学家们不关注社会实践的研究,事实上并不是他们不关心社会实践,而是他们的唯心主义的实践哲学逻辑改变不了社会实践,唯心主义的实践哲学解决不了现实生活世界中的社会问题。导致唯心主义实践哲学解决不了社会问题的根本原因在于,其哲学理论的“理性实践性”中的实践只是抽象思辨的实践。“现实实践性”首先是指人具有现实性,即人是现实生活世界中的人。用马克思的理论概括就是,“这是一些现实的个人,是他们的活动和他们的物质生活条件”[2]146。马克思的观点很明确,“现实实践性”是将“现实的个人”放在社会的物质生产和人的物质生活中来加以考察,从而表明人的真实存在是以人的感性活动为前提的。

“Theoretical practicality” refers to “practicality” in the sense of general laws or “practicality” in the sense of dogmatism, while “real practicality” refers to the logic of historical materialism that theoretically characterizes real social practice. According to the cognitive understanding of dialectical materialism, there is no absolute general social law in the real world of life; that is, historical materialism holds that all laws of social development are an organic unity of general laws and particular laws. Severing the connection between general laws and particular laws in the real world of life, and merely practicing the theoretical logic of “practicality” in the sense of general laws, can only lead to a dogmatic understanding of social practice, substantially deviating from the track of “real practicality,” which holds that “practice is the essence of human social existence and the foundation of development.” It is necessary to note that “theoretical practicality” is essentially different from “rational practicality,” that is, “theoretical practicality” is a correct logic of social development, while “rational practicality” is a fallacious logic of social development. It is precisely because of the correctness of “theoretical practicality” that people should be more vigilant against the dogmatic errors it may bring.

“理论实践性”是指一般规律意蕴上的“实践性”或教条化意蕴上的“实践性”,而“现实实践性”则是指对现实社会实践进行理论化表征的唯物史观逻辑。按照唯物辩证法的认知理解,现实生活世界根本不存在绝对的一般社会规律,即唯物史观认为所有的社会发展规律都是一般规律与特殊规律的有机统一。割裂现实生活世界中一般规律与特殊规律之间的联系,只是一味践行一般规律意蕴上的“实践性”理论逻辑,只能导致教条化理解社会实践,实质性地偏离“实践是人类社会存在的本质和发展的基础”的“现实实践性”轨道。需要引起注意的是,“理论实践性”与“理性实践性”具有本质差别,即“理论实践性”是正确的社会发展逻辑,而“理性实践性”则是谬误性的社会发展逻辑。也正是因为“理论实践性”的正确性,人们才更应该警惕它可能带来的教条性错误。

The fundamental difference between “real practicality” and “rational practicality” and “theoretical practicality” lies in the fact that the philosophical logic of “real practicality” can scientifically guide social construction. “Every nation has a state system that is suitable for it and belongs to it” [26]26 This is a paraphrase of a view expressed by G.W.F. Hegel in his *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, referring to the idea that each nation has a constitution suited to its particular character and stage of development.; the logic of social development of “real practicality” is the philosophical expression of this state system. The reason why “real practicality” can have the significance of “genuine philosophy” is essentially because “real practicality” can dissolve the irrational elements of “rational practicality” and can scientifically apply the scientific theoretical logic within “theoretical practicality.” The irrational elements of “rational practicality” refer to the transcendent thinking logic of idealist philosophy, while the scientific theoretical logic within “theoretical practicality” refers to the logic of social development in the sense of general laws that still possesses vitality.

“现实实践性”与“理性实践性”“理论实践性”的根本区别在于,“现实实践性”的哲学逻辑能够科学地指导社会建设。“每一个民族都有适合于它本身而属于它的国家制度”,“现实实践性”的社会发展逻辑就是这个国家制度的哲学表达。之所以“现实实践性”能够具有“真正哲学”的意义,本质上是因为“现实实践性”能够消解“理性实践性”的非合理性要素和能够科学运用“理论实践性”中的科学理论逻辑。“理性实践性”的非合理性要素,就是指唯心主义哲学的彼岸思维逻辑,“理论实践性”中的科学理论逻辑就是指依然具有生命力的一般规律意义上的社会发展逻辑。

(II) “Scientific academicity” is a philosophical logic distinct from “abstract rational academicity” and “apprentice academicity”

(二)“科学学术性”是差别于“抽象理性学术性”和“学徒学术性”的哲学逻辑

“Abstract rational academicity” characterizes the academic nature of idealist philosophy, such as the “speculative rational academicity” possessed by Hegel’s philosophy, while “scientific academicity” refers to the academic value of Chinese Marxist philosophy in being able to scientifically summarize and effectively guide real-life practice. In summary, “abstract rational academicity” means that philosophical researchers attempt to use a set of abstract conceptual frameworks and their logic to explain the world and plan life. Although “scientific academicity” is essentially different from “abstract rational academicity,” it cannot be denied that “scientific academicity” also requires the intervention of abstract cognitive logic, because “the ‘abstract’ method is both the result of ‘rising from the concrete to the abstract’ and the starting point of ‘rising from the abstract to the concrete’”; the forms and contents of “scientific academicity’s” scientific summary and effective guidance of the real world of life are all conceptualized abstract expressions.

“抽象理性学术性”表征唯心主义哲学的学术性,如黑格尔哲学所具有的“思辨理性学术性”,而“科学学术性”则是指中国马克思主义哲学能够科学地概括和有效地指导现实生活实践的学术价值。概括而言,“抽象理性学术性”就是指哲学研究者们试图用一套抽象的概念框架及其逻辑来解释世界和规划人生。尽管“科学学术性”与“抽象理性学术性”本质上不同,但也不能否定“科学学术性”也需要抽象认知逻辑的介入,因为“‘抽象’方法既是‘具体上升到抽象’的结果,也是‘抽象上升到具体’的起点”,“科学学术性”对现实生活世界的科学概括和有效指导的形式和内容都是概念化的抽象表达。

“Apprentice academicity” refers to a philosophical theoretical logic that pursues conformity with a certain theory, while “scientific academicity” refers to the logic of historical materialism that can become the means of understanding and transforming the real world of life. Although “apprentice academicity” lacks original contributions and can easily lead to dogmatic cognition, the essence of “apprentice academicity” is not worshiping foreign things, but rather learning through reference. For a considerable period, the Chinese philosophical community was in a state of “apprentice academicity.” The reason for this is closely related to the strong sense of responsibility among Chinese scholars—scholars wanted to use advanced ideological theories to guide China’s social construction. During the period of “apprentice academicity,” Chinese academia produced numerous academic achievements, contributing much philosophical wisdom to the establishment of the Chinese path. However, we must also recognize that “only when a scholarship has shed its apprentice status with respect to external scholarship does it begin to reach its mature stage.” Only by surpassing the period of “apprentice academicity” and entering the period of “scientific academicity” can a philosophical paradigm with Chinese academic characteristics be constructed.

“学徒学术性”是指以符合某种理论为追求的哲学理论逻辑,而“科学学术性”则是指能够成为认识现实生活世界和改造现实生活世界的唯物史观逻辑。“学徒学术性”虽然缺乏原创性贡献,甚至容易导致教条化认知,但“学徒学术性”的本质并不是崇洋媚外,而是借鉴式学习。中国哲学界相当一段时期存在“学徒学术性”状况,究其原因,这与中国学者具有强烈的责任意识密切相关——学者们想用先进的思想理论指导中国的社会建设。在“学徒学术性”时期,中国学术界产出了众多的学术成果,为中国道路的确立贡献了许多哲学智慧。然而,我们也必须认识到,“只有当一种学术已然摆脱了它对于外部学术的学徒状态时,这种学术才开始达于其成熟阶段”。只有逾越“学徒学术性”时期而进入“科学学术性”时期,才能建构出具有中国学术特色的哲学范式。

The fundamental difference between “scientific academicity” and “abstract rational academicity” and “apprentice academicity” lies in the fact that the philosophical logic of “scientific academicity” is more targeted in guiding Chinese-path modernization. Engels pointed out, “A nation that wants to stand at the pinnacle of science cannot do without theoretical thinking for a moment.” According to this understanding, “abstract rational academicity,” “apprentice academicity,” and “scientific academicity” are not in an essentially antagonistic relationship, because they all belong to theoretical thinking. The philosophical research results of “abstract rational academicity” and “apprentice academicity” also have certain positive significance for Chinese-path modernization. Since “scientific academicity” is a philosophical logic guided by historical materialism and has the ability to scientifically guide the real world of life, the research results of paradigm construction should possess the value and significance of “scientific academicity.”

“科学学术性”与“抽象理性学术性”“学徒学术性”的根本区别在于,“科学学术性”的哲学逻辑更加具有指导中国式现代化建设的针对性。恩格斯指出,“一个民族要想站在科学的最高峰,就一刻也不能没有理论思维”,按照这种认知理解,“抽象理性学术性”“学徒学术性”与“科学学术性”并不存在本质上的对立关系,因为它们都属于理论思维。“抽象理性学术性”“学徒学术性”的哲学研究成果对于中国式现代化建设也具有一定的积极意义。由于“科学学术性”是以唯物史观为指导的哲学逻辑,具有科学指导现实生活世界的能力,因此范式建设的研究成果就应该具有“科学学术性”的价值和意义。

(III) “Real practicality” and “scientific academicity” are inherent in the theoretical content of paradigm construction

(三)“现实实践性”和“科学学术性”内在于范式建设的理论内容之中

The fact that philosophical theory should be able to ensure the sustainability of social development indicates that the philosophical paradigm of paradigm construction should possess the philosophical characteristic of “real practicality.” The reason for raising this issue is that philosophy should be the essence of the spirit of the times, but in fact there are many philosophical theories; only those philosophical theories that can be called the essence of the spirit of the times can become philosophical theories in the sense of paradigm construction. This is because philosophical theories in the sense of paradigm construction must be able to ensure the realization of the sustainability of social development. Understood from the perspective of philosophical logic, this guarantee originates from the “real practicality” logic inherent in the philosophical paradigm. Understood from the perspective of historical logic, ensuring the sustainability of social development means that “we firmly stand on the right side of history and on the side of human civilization and progress.” Standing on the side of human civilization and progress means continuously innovating and developing the theoretical content of philosophy, which is precisely the main task of paradigm construction.

哲学理论应该能够保障社会发展的持续性要求表明,范式建设的哲学范式应该具有“现实实践性”的哲学特征。之所以提出这一问题,是因为哲学理应是时代精神的精华,但事实上哲学理论众多,只有能够被称为时代精神精华的哲学理论,才可以成为范式建设意义上的哲学理论。因为范式建设意义上的哲学理论要能够保障社会发展的持续性得以实现。从哲学逻辑上理解,这种保障根源于哲学范式内在具有的“现实实践性”逻辑。从历史逻辑的视角理解,保障社会发展的持续性,就是指“我们坚定站在历史正确的一边、站在人类文明进步的一边”。站在人类文明进步的一边就是指要不断创新发展哲学的理论内容,而这正是范式建设的主要任务。

The fact that philosophical theory should be able to possess a scientific worldview and correct methodological significance indicates that the philosophical paradigm of paradigm construction should possess the philosophical characteristic of “scientific academicity.” As is well known, the significance of worldview and methodology is immense. Explained using Mao’s theoretical logic, “Any thought, if it is not connected with objective and actual things, if there is no objective need for it, and if it is not grasped by the masses of the people, even if it is the best thing, even if it is Marxism-Leninism, it will be ineffective.” According to this view of Mao, only by ensuring that the philosophical paradigm of paradigm construction possesses the worldview and methodological logic of “scientific academicity” can it be guaranteed that the results of paradigm construction are conducive to providing people with a scientific worldview and correct methodology.

哲学理论应该能够具有科学的世界观和正确的方法论意义表明,范式建设的哲学范式应该具有“科学学术性”的哲学特征。众所周知,世界观和方法论的意义重大。用毛泽东的理论逻辑解释就是“任何思想,如果不和客观的实际的事物相联系,如果没有客观存在的需要,如果不为人民群众所掌握,即使是最好的东西,即使是马克思列宁主义,也是不起作用的”。按照毛泽东的这一观点理解,只有保证范式建设的哲学范式具有“科学学术性”的世界观和方法论逻辑,才能保障范式建设的结果有利于为人们提供科学的世界观和正确的方法论。

The philosophical theory of the present era should thoroughly break free from the “apprentice academic” mode of expression. The philosophical paradigm of paradigm construction must possess philosophical characteristics that combine “practical reality” and “scientific academic rigor.” Philosophy and social science that thoroughly break free from “apprentice academic” expression are, in essence, “academic endeavors that have achieved ‘self-assertion,’ and thus actually possess Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner.”[27]27 This quotation is from a Chinese academic source emphasizing the need for Chinese philosophy and social sciences to develop their own autonomous theoretical frameworks, moving beyond mere imitation of Western academic models. The current philosophical theory that has thoroughly broken free from “apprentice academic” expression is precisely Chinese Marxist philosophy with strong Chinese characteristics. If the Chinese Marxist philosophy with Chinese characteristics constructed through paradigm construction is to scientifically serve the theory and practice of Chinese-path modernization, it must not only always maintain its attention to and reflection on real social practice, ensuring that paradigm construction never deviates from the philosophical logic of “practical reality,” but also continuously strengthen innovative research on fundamental philosophical theories, ensuring that the research of paradigm construction does not deviate from the philosophical logic of “scientific academic rigor.” The organic integration of “practical reality” and “scientific academic rigor” in paradigm construction is not only a historical mission entrusted by social development but also the academic discourse of paradigm construction itself.

当下时代的哲学理论应该彻底摆脱“学徒学术性”研究表明,范式建设的哲学范式必须具有“现实实践性”和“科学学术性”相结合的哲学特征。彻底摆脱“学徒学术性”的哲学社会科学,从本质上来说,“乃是获得了‘自我主张’的学术,并因而才实际地具有中国特色、中国风格和中国气派”。彻底摆脱了“学徒学术性”的当下哲学理论,就是极具中国特色的中国马克思主义哲学。范式建设建构的中国特色的中国马克思主义哲学,要想能够科学地服务于中国式现代化的理论与实践,就既要始终保持其对现实社会实践的关注和反思,使范式建设永远不脱离“现实实践性”的哲学逻辑,也要不断地加强哲学基础理论的创新性研究,以确保范式建设的研究不会背离“科学学术性”的哲学逻辑。范式建设中“现实实践性”和“科学学术性”的有机融合,不仅是社会发展赋予的历史使命,也是范式建设本身的学术性话语。

Source: *Theoretical Investigation*, Issue 5, 2024

文章来源：《理论探讨》2024年第5期

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆