施蒂纳的"唯一者"与马克思的哲学革命

在费尔巴哈对整个哲学—形而上学进行了猛烈抨击之后,施蒂纳又特别地针对费尔巴哈再度向哲学—形而上学宣战。但无论费尔巴哈还是施蒂纳,他们对一般形而上学作战的结果最终却不幸都复归于形而上学的本质之中。其间的差别在于:费尔巴哈的不幸乃是悲剧,而施蒂纳的不幸则到处表现为喜剧性。而马克思对施蒂纳的批判乃是对一切形而上学的批判,正是由于并且通过这一批判,全部形而上学的终结一事对于马克思来说才是现实的、可能的。马克思对施蒂纳的批判与对费尔巴哈的批判在性质上是十分类似的,就马克思所面临的思想任务而言甚至可以说是同一的。这一批判首先具有存在论意义上的重要性,因为正是这一批判才充分而完整地触动并瓦解了近代形而上学的基本建制。正是在这一批判的基础上,马克思的哲学革命以及由之而来的“历史科学”的纲领,才可能内在巩固地建立起来,其完整的意义才可能在本质上重要地显现出来。

Stirner's "the Ego and His Own" and Marx's Philosophical Revolution

After Ludwig Feuerbach had inveighed against the whole philosophy-metaphysics, Max Stirner again declared a war against philosophy-metaphysics, particularly aiming at Ludwig Feuerbach. Unfortunate enough, their campaigns against general metaphysics ultimately fall into the essence of metaphysics. The difference beuween them is that Ludwig Feuerbach's misfortune is tragic while Max Stirner's is comic. This paper tries to make clear Marx's criticism of Max Stirner from the fundamentals of ontology, and demonstrate this criticism is a key factor in the disintegration of the entire modern metaphysics. In this sense, Marx's criticism of Max Stirner is also a subtle criticism of Ludwig Feuerbach, especially a criticism of general metaphysics whose essential constitution is the innateness of consciousness. It is at this point that the total meaning of Marx's philosophical revolution reveals itself.