|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2019)05-0016-07 |
| |
|
《资本论》的理论性质之争——兼复曲达博士 |
| |
高超 |
| |
|
（吉林大学哲学系，吉林长春，130012） |
| |
| 摘 要： 《资本论》理论性质之争既非从来就有，也非没有意义。这一争论是在对《资本论》的攻击和捍卫中产生的，它不只是如何阅读马克思主义经典的学术问题，更是怎样发展马克思主义事业的道路问题。《资本论》理论性质之争主要涉及两个方面，即《资本论》的研究对象和研究方式。就研究对象而言，一种学说对另一种学说的超越是以二者拥有共同的研究对象为前提的，如果《资本论》与古典经济学的研究对象不同，那就谈不上对古典经济学的超越；就研究方式而言，科学进步的历史就是其研究方式从思辨向科学发展的过程，没有历史证据表明哲学思辨优于科学研究。对《资本论》的“哲学阐释”主张《资本论》是在哲学领域进行哲学思辨的成果，这种阐释不仅违背事实和逻辑，而且佐证了资产阶级哲学家对《资本论》的批评。马克思主义哲学应该为捍卫《资本论》的科学价值提供科学哲学式的理论支撑。 |
| |
| 关键词： 《资本论》；理论性质；研究对象；研究方式 |
| |
|
| |
The debate over the theoretical nature of Das Kapital: Also in response to Dr. Qu Da |
| |
GAO Chao |
| |
（Department of Philosophy, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China） |
| |
| Abstract: The debate over the theoretical nature of Das Kapital was born in the attack and defense of the book. It is not only an academic problem about how to read Marxist classics, but also a path problem about how to develop Marxist career. The debate is mainly related to two aspects. As far as the research object is concerned, the transcendence of one doctrine over the others is premised on the fact that the two have a common research object. If the object of Das Kapital is different from that of classical economics, then there is no transcendence of classical economics. In terms of research method, the history of scientific progress is the process of its research from speculation to scientific research. There is no historical evidence that philosophical speculation is superior to scientific research. The "philosophical interpretation" of Das Kapital in the final analysis advocates that Das Kapital is the result of philosophical speculation in the field of philosophy. This interpretation not only violates facts and logic, but even corroborates the bourgeois philosophers' criticism of Das Kapital. Marxist philosophy should provide scientific philosophical theoretical support for defending the scientific value of Das Kapital. |
| |
Key words: Das Kapital; theoretical nature; research object; research method |
| |
|
