|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2025)05-0059-11 |
| |
|
超越市民社会伦理规范的两条道路：从青年马克思与克尔凯郭尔对黑格尔的批判谈起 |
| |
温权 |
| |
|
（武汉大学马克思主义学院，湖北武汉，430072） |
| |
| 摘 要： 以黑格尔为批判对象，青年马克思与克尔凯郭尔相继开辟出两条旨在超越市民社会伦理规范的不同道路。这涉及三重非此即彼的“选择”：首先，如果不想把市民社会中个体行为的合法性尺度归结为仅对上帝负责的“良心独白”，那么须揭露替利己主义开脱的“国家诫命”固有的异化本质；其次，如果上帝的“道德理性”并非市民社会何以可能的本体论基础，那么受私有财产裹挟的“法权秩序”就是个体交往准则失范的始作俑者；最后，如果期待上帝拯救的“个人主义”无法践行市民社会的自由愿景，那么立足个体自身的革命的“人道主义”便构成人类解放的唯一途径。它们分别对应于马克思与克尔凯郭尔有关市民社会的“伦理限度”“伦理原罪”以及“伦理预感”的差异性体认，进而复现出二者在市民社会的“伦理归宿”问题上相互抵牾的根本诱因。应当说，青年马克思与克尔凯郭尔的“隔空对峙”，是黑格尔的“伦理唯灵论”在日后裂变为“宗教唯我论”和“政治革命论”的思想征兆。因此，作为扬弃市民社会的应然性方案，透过孤绝的内心重返“神圣天国”，抑或直面异化的现实步入“共产主义”，就是人类必须做出的实践决断。它们既是历史唯物主义和存在主义彼此角逐的开端，又以“市民社会该何去何从”的问题为棱镜，共同折射出唯有马克思主义才是打破资本主义桎梏的正确道路。 |
| |
| 关键词： 青年马克思；克尔凯郭尔；市民社会；伦理界限；伦理原罪；伦理预感 |
| |
|
| |
Two paths transcending the ethical planning of civil society: Starting from the critiques at Hegel by both youth Marx and Kierkegaard |
| |
WEN Quan |
| |
（School of Marxism, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China） |
| |
| Abstract: Taking Hegel as the object of critique, both youth Marx and Kierkegaard successively opened up two different paths aimed at transcending the ethical planning of civil society, which involved three either-here-or-there “choices”. Firstly, if we do not want to attribute the legitimacy of individual behavior in civil society to a “conscience monologue” solely responsible for God, we must expose the inherent alienation of the “national commandment” that excuses selfishness. Secondly, if the arrogant “moral rationality” of God is not the ontological foundation of how civil society is possible, then the “legal order” carried by private property is the initiator of the violation of individual communication norms. Finally, if the “individualism” that awaits God's salvation cannot fulfill the vision of freedom in civil society, the “humanitarianism” based on individual revolution constitutes the only way for human liberation. They respectively respond to differential recognitions concerning civil society, including ethical boundaries, ethical sin, and ethical premonition, and further reoccur in the essential inducements which are contradictory in ethical belonging of civil society. Hence, it should be said that the across-time-space confrontation between youth Marx and Kierkegaard is the spiritual symptoms that Hegel’s “theory of ethics being soly in the soul” later breaks up into “the theory of the religion being soly for myself” and “the theory of political revolution.” Therefore, as responsive project of sublating civil society, they represent the practical resolution that mankind must make, whether it be solitary returning to the “divine paradise” or facing the reality head-on and stepping into “communism”. They are both the beginning of the competition between historical materialism and existentialism, and the mutual reflection that, with the issue of “where civil society should go”, only Marxism will break the shackles of capitalism. |
| |
Key words: youth Marx; Kierkegaard; civil society; ethical boundaries; ethical sin; ethical premonition |
| |
|
|
