摘要
通过对马克思的“实践”与海德格尔的“操心”这两个重要概念及其所依附的“存在与时间”观进行的比较性研究 ,可以得出结论 :“实践”的时间性阐释是对“操心”的时间性阐释的原则包含与超越。马克思的时间理论倚重“将来” ,并不是《圣经》的翻版。共产主义的理想境界的开启 ,是一个实际的生存问题 ,不是可以当做逻辑的可能或目的论意义上的可能予以“证明”和“证伪”的。“过去”的意义在海德格尔那里 ,在于说明“天命” ,对于马克思则在于说明人是在“活的传统”中创造历史的。这一切总起来说明 ,从传统的时间、空间观中解脱出来 。
By a comparative study of Marx' s practice and Heidegger' sorge , two concepts of importance, and of their attached conceptions of 'being and time', it can be concluded that the temporary interpretation of practice is the inclusion and extension of that of sorge. Marx's temporary theory relies on 'future', and it is not a renewed version of the Bible. As a window into the ideal state of Communism, it is a practical issue of being, and it cannot be proved or falsified simply as a logical possibility or as a possibility of purpose theory. The significance of the past for Heidegger lies in the illustration of destiny, while the significance of the past for Marx lies in the interpretation that man creates history in the living tradition. This all illustrates that the relief from the traditional views of time and space is an urgent mission of Marxist philosophy.
出处
《学习与探索》
CSSCI
北大核心
2002年第3期1-6,共6页
Study & Exploration
