【作者】 周丹；

【导师】 孙正聿；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 马克思主义哲学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 众所周知，“现代性”是当今学术界的一个热门词汇，有学者将它之于学术比喻为甘草之于中药，成为了一剂通用配方。然而，另一个事实却是学术界对现代性的认识远没有中医对甘草认识得透彻，特别是在“现代性”概念使用上十分混乱，我们甚至不能在诸多理解中找到它们的“最小公倍数”。对此，论文对“现代”、“现代性”概念进行学术史梳理，指出无论美学现代性还是启蒙现代性，他们一开始的逻辑起点就出现了偏差，前者着力于对现代化后果的反思和批判，后者强调人的理性权威和进步强制，同时还指出所谓后现代主义只是自我认定处于超越现代性的位置之上，实际仍然滞留在现代性的自我确证之中。因此，论文认为作为哲学主题的“现代性”概念的合理内涵在于表征现代社会的总体状况，以理论方式把握“新的时代”的时代精神，这就是讨论和研究现代性问题的哲学合理化平面，并且在一定意义上，现代性只能是一个哲学主题。论文主体内容分为三大部分：（一）现代性批判是资本批判；（二）资本批判的逻辑演绎；（三）资本批判与现代性的终结。它们分别回答三大问题：（一）为什么现代性批判是资本批判？（二）为什么马克思的资本批判是最深刻的现代性批判？（三）为什么资本批判对其它现代性反省和批判构成超越？现代性作为理论形态的现代社会自我意识，它必然要面向“当代的普遍问题”，马克思在《论犹太人问题》中指出鲍威尔错误地把宗教批判的完成当成人的解放，问题的根本在于必须对政治解放本身进行批判。鲍威尔等青年黑格尔派的思想实际上只是黑格尔哲学的翻版和变种。黑格尔将“新的时代”的理性精神推向极致，绝对理念统摄一切，它在法哲学领域的实现就是国家（以普鲁士君主立宪制为代表），国家是伦理理念的现实，因而把政治解放等同于人的解放。对此，马克思指出：不是国家决定市民社会，而是市民社会决定国家。固然资产阶级政治解放在人类社会的发展中具有历史的进步性，但是建立在私有制和财产权基础之上的市民社会实现的并非全体公民的权利，而只是资产者的权利。马克思的理论诉求不再是从“传统”解放为“现代”，而是从“现代”寻求“人的解放”，所谓政治解放恰恰只是实现了资本的解放和市民社会的完成。市民社会就是现代社会（资本主义社会），现代性批判就是现代社会的资本批判。对资本的研究，马克思不同于以往的政治经济学家，不是就资本而谈资本，而是从现代社会的财富元素形式——商品出发展开对资本的具体分析。商品的使用价值和交换价值对应着人的自然属性和社会属性，具体劳动和抽象劳动。商品在流通中实现价值增殖，产生剩余价值，这就是商品拜物教的秘密，也是货币拜物教的秘密，即资本自行增殖的奥秘。资产阶级国民经济学将资本增殖（利润）当成理论建构的逻辑前提和最终原因，并且由此展开循环论证，因此“国民经济学建立在没有必然性的事实基础上”。对此，马克思重新理解劳动价值论，指出资产阶级将劳动的价值等于劳动力的价值加上利润，支付给工人的名义工资与实际工资不符，与相对工资不匹配。在现代社会，工人是奴隶、资本家是吝啬鬼，都受资本的支配和控制。那么为了实现人的解放，我们如何能够挣脱资本的奴役，驾驭资本？一方面资本的增殖本性导致自身无法克服的危机，必然瓦解自身；另一方面资本的生产力为人的解放创造极大丰富的社会财富、普遍交往和自由时间等。关于资本的批判和人的解放是“思想成为现实”和“现实趋向思想”的统一，共产主义不是乌托邦，是“最近将来的必然的形式和有效的原则”。通过具体分析和深入论证，论文呈现出马克思现代性的资本批判的完整内容，在结尾部分还进一步利用马克思关于现代性的深刻理解回应现代西方哲学（以海德格尔哲学为代表和切入口）关于现代性问题的基本看法和主要观点，在比较中突显马克思的资本批判对现代性问题诊断的深刻性和优越性。告别中世纪之后的“现代”，解放人性，弘扬理性，在西方本质主义哲学传统的牵引下导向主体性形而上学（譬如黑格尔的现代性观念）。现代西方哲学自觉到这一点，逐渐从追问“何以存在”转变为探讨“如何存在”，走向现代性批判的后形而上学道路。海德格尔对现代性的反省付诸对技术座架的批判，保持思之虔诚，实现思想的移居。马克思哲学既不同于传统哲学“何以存在”，又不同于现代哲学“让其存在”、“使小众存在”，而是“使众生存在”的人类解放学说。一方面人的主体性和理性能力支持和推动人类社会的现代化进程，实现人对世界的责任与担当；另一方面人的主体性和理性能力鼓励和促使我们对历史和现实进行反思和批判，反省现代性本身。人的主体性和理性能力一将开启，永不落幕。在时代的进程中，人的主体性和理性能力经历着与资本逻辑的较量，资本的批判之路也就是现代性的终结之路。现代性是对现代社会人类命运的整体关切，是对现代的时代精神的理论表征，马克思的资本批判是最深刻的现代性批判。更多还原

【Abstract】 As is known to all,“modernity”has been such a hot word of modern society thathas become a general prescription, and some scholars compare the relation between itand learning to licorice and traditional Chinese medicine. However, another fact is thatthe knowledge in modernity of modern academic field is not as incisive as that inlicorice of traditional Chinese medical science. Especially the confusing use of theconcept of“modernity”makes us even cannot find its“least common multiple”innumerous understandings. Thus, this text firstly reorganizes the concepts of“modern”and“modernity”under the background of academic history, and points out that neitheraesthetic modernity or enlighted modernity is proper regarding to their logical startingpoint. The former tends to pay its attention on the criticism and reflection ofmodernized consequences, while the latter emphasizes the reason authority of humanas well as the compulsory progress. Besides, this dissertation also asserts that, ratherthan regarding itself as the transcendence of modernity, the so-called postmodernismactually still lingers in the confirmation of modernity itself. Accordingly, this papermaintains that the reasonable connotation of“modernity”being as a philosophicalsubject lies in characterizing the general state of modern society and grasping the spiritof time through theory which is the rational platform of discussing as well asresearching the problems of modernity. And in a certain sense, modernity can benothing other than a philosophical theme.This essay is mainly divided into three contents: I. Modernity criticism is capitalcriticism; II. Logical deduction of capital criticism; III. Capital criticism and thefinality of modernity. They answer three questions respectively: I. Why the modernitycriticism is capital criticism? II. Why Marx’s capital criticism is the most profoundmodernity criticism? III. Why capital criticism could be regarded as transcendence of all kinds of modernity reflection and criticism?As the theoretical self-conscious of modern society, modernity is bound to face“modern universal problems”. In on the Jewish Question, Marx points out that thebasic reason why Bauer mistakes the accomplishment of religion criticism for humanliberation lies in the fact that he does not develop the criticism of political liberationitself. The thoughts of School of Young Hegel, like Bauer, are only the varieties ofHegel’s thought. Hegel pushes the rational spirits of neue Zeit to the acme. Theabsolute idea governs all, and its realization in the right philosophy field is nation(being represented by Prussia’s constitutional monarchy), which is the reality of ethicalideas realizing the ethical idea. Thus he equates political liberation with humanliberation. Withal Marx argues that it is not so much the opposite as the civil societythat determines nation. Admittedly political liberation of the bourgeoisie hasprogressive significance to the development of human society, but the civil societybased on private ownership and property right is rights of the bourgeoisie rather thanall the citizens. Marx begins to pursue“human liberation”in“modern times”insteadof the liberation from“tradition”to“modern times”, since the so-called politicalliberation just realizes capital liberation and civil society. Civil society is modernsociety (capitalist society), and modernity criticism is capital criticism in modernsociety.Being different from other political economists, the capital research of Marx takesthe angle of commodity, form of fortune element in modern society, to unfold hisconcrete analysis of capital. The use value and exchange value of commoditycorresponds to the natural and social attribute, as well as concrete and abstract labor ofhuman. Value proliferation and surplus value production realized in the circulation ofcommodity in the secret of commodity fetishism and monetary fetishism, namely themystery of the proliferation of capital itself. The national economics of bourgeoisiecontributes the proliferation of capital (profit) to the logical premise and the ultimatecause of theory construction, and then begins to unfold circular demonstration, Hence,"national economics bases itself on facts without necessity". Accordingly, Marx reviews the labor value theory and declares that the bourgeoisie equates value of laborwith the total of labor’s work value and profit and that nominal wage, actual wage andrelative wage are not accord with each other. In modern society, workers are slaveswhile capitalists are misers, both of which are dominated and controlled by capital. Soin order to realize human liberation, how can we get rid of the slavery of capital andcontrol it instead? On the one hand the nature of capital proliferation causes crisis thatit cannot overcome by its own. On the other hand, capital productivity createsextremely plentiful social wealth, universal contact and free time for human liberation.Actually, capital criticism and human liberation are the unity of Marx’s two judgments,namely“thinking is going to be reality”and“reality tends to be thinking”. Rather thanUtopia, communism is the“necessary form and efficient principle in the next future”.Through the concrete analysis and through elaboration, this essay then presentsthe complete contents of Marx’s capital criticism of modernity clearly, and takesadvantage of Marx’s incisive comprehension to answer the basic perspective and mainview to modernity of western modern philosophy(taking Martin Heidegger’sphilosophy to be the representation and starting point) in the ending, which makes theincisiveness and superiority of Marx’s capital criticism to modernity problems becomemore prominent. After Middle Ages, liberating human nature and propagating reasondrawn by western essentialism philosophy starts to move to subjective metaphysics(such as Hegel’s modernity idea). Modern western philosophy realize this fact andhence transform its subject from asking "why exist" to "how to exist" gradually,entering into the post metaphysics of modernity criticism. Heidegger resort hisreflection of modernity to the criticism of technical“gestell”, holding the faith ofthinking and realizing the migration of thought. Being different from the "why exist"of traditional philosophy and the "let it to exist" of modern philosophy, Marx’sphilosophy is the doctrine of human liberation, namely "make all exist". On the onehand, human subjectivity and rational faculty support and promote the modernizationof human society, realizing human responsibility to the world. On the other hand,human subjectivity and rational faculty encourage and make us to reflect and critique history and reality, namely the reflection of modernity itself. Human subjectivity andrational faculty will never ring down the curtain once were activated.In the development of time, human subjectivity as well as rational facultyexperiences the contest with capital logic, and the road of capital criticism is exactlythe finality of modernity. Modernity is the general concern to human destiny ofmodern society as well as the theoretical character of modern spirit, and Marx’s capitalcriticism is also the most incisive modernity criticism.更多还原