关于费尔巴哈的提纲(德文原版,1888年恩格斯版,1969年版,2002年版).doc

德文版MIADeutschMarxistenMarx/EngelsEinleitungKarl MarxThesen ber Feuerbach1. ad Feuerbach(1845)Geschrieben im Frhjahr 1845.Nach der Verffentlichung des Marx-Engels-Lenin-Instituts, Moskau 1932.Diese Version aus Karl Marx u. Friedrich Engels,Werke, Bd.3, Berlin 1978, S.5-7.Transkription u. HTML-Markierung:Einde OCallaghanfr dasMarxists Internet Archive.1Der Hauptmangel alles bisherigen Materialismus (den Feuerbachschen mit eingerechnet) ist, da der Gegenstand, die Wirklichkeit, Sinnlichkeit nur unter der Form desObjekts oder der Anschauunggefat wird; nicht aber alssinnlich menschliche Ttigkeit, Praxis; nicht subjektiv. Daher diettigeSeite abstrakt im Gegensatz zu dem Materialismus von dem Idealismus der natrlich die wirkliche, sinnliche Ttigkeit als solche nicht kennt entwickelt Feuerbach will sinnliche von den Gedankenobjekten wirklich unterschiedne Objekte: aber er fat die menschliche Ttigkeit selbst nicht alsgegenstndlicheTtigkeit. Er betrachtet daher imWesen des Christenthumnur das theoretische Verhalten als das echt menschliche, whrend die Praxis nur in ihrer schmutzig jdischen Erscheinungsform gefat und fixiert wird. Er begreift daher nicht die Bedeutung der revolutionren“, der praktisch-kritischen“ Ttigkeit.2Die Frage, ob dem menschlichen Denken gegenstndliche Wahrheit zukomme ist keine Frage der Theorie, sondern einepraktischeFrage. in der Praxis mu der Mensch die Wahrheit, i.e. Wirklichkeit und Macht, Diesseitigkeit seines Denkens beweisen. Der Streit ber die Wirklichkeit oder Nichtwirklichkeit des. Denkens das von der Praxis isoliert ist ist eine reinscholastischeFrage.3Die materialistische Lehre von der Vernderung der Umstnde und der Erziehung vergit, da die Umstnde von den Menschen verndert und der Erzieher selbst erzogen werden mu. Sie mu daher die Gesellschaft in zwei Teile von denen der eine ber ihr erhaben ist sondieren.Das Zusammenfallen des nderns der Umstnde und der menschlichen Ttigkeit oder Selbstvernderung kann nur alsrevolutionre Praxisgefat und rationell verstanden werden.4Feuerbach geht von dem Faktum der religisen Selbstentfremdung, der Verdopplung der Welt in eine religise und eine weltliche aus. Seine Arbeit besteht darin, die religise Welt in ihre weltliche Grundlage aufzulsen. Aber da die weltliche Grundlage sich von sich selbst abhebt und sich ein selbstndiges Reich in den Wolken fixiert, ist nur aus der Selbstzerrissenheit und Sichselbstwidersprechen dieser weltlichen Grundlage zu erklren. Diese selbst mu also in sich selbst sowohl in ihrem Widerspruch verstanden als praktisch revolutioniert werden. Also nachdem z.B. die irdische Familie als das Geheimnis der heiligen Familie entdeckt ist, mu nun erstere selbst theoretisch und praktisch vernichtet werden.5Feuerbach, mit demabstrakten Denkennicht zufrieden, will dieAnschauung; aber er fat die Sinnlichkeit nicht alspraktischemenschlich-sinnliche Ttigkeit.6Feuerbach lst das religise Wesen in dasmenschlicheWesen auf. Aber das menschliche Wesen ist kein dem einzelnen Individuum inwohnendes Abstraktum. In seiner Wirklichkeit ist es das ensemble der gesellschaftlichen Verhltnisse.Feuerbach, der auf die Kritik dieses wirklichen Wesens nicht eingeht, ist daher gezwungen:1. von dem geschichtlichen Verlauf zu abstrahieren und das religise Gemt fr sich zu fixieren, und ein abstrakt isoliert menschliches Individuum vorauszusetzen.2. Das Wesen kann daher nur als Gattung“, als innere, stumme, die vielen Individuennatrlichverbindende Allgemeinheit gefat werden.7Feuerbach sieht daher nicht, da das religise Gemt“ selbst ein gesellschaftliches Produkt ist und da das abstrakte Individuum, das er analysiert, einer bestimmten Gesellschaftsform angehrt.8Alles gesellschaftliche Leben ist wesentlichpraktisch. Alle Mysterien, welche die Theorie zum Mystizismus veranlassen, finden ihre rationelle Lsung in der menschlichen Praxis und in dem Begreifen dieser Praxis.9Das Hchste, wozu der anschauende Materialismus kommt, d.h. der Materialismus, der die Sinnlichkeit nicht als praktische Ttigkeit begreift, ist die Anschauung der einzelnen Individuen und der brgerlichen Gesellschaft.10Der Standpunkt des alten Materialismus ist die brgerliche Gesellschaft, der Standpunkt des neuen die menschliche Gesellschaft oder die gesellschaftliche Menschheit.11Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschiedeninterpretiert, es kmmt drauf an, sie zuverndern.Anfang der SeiteZuletzt aktualisiert am17.11.20061888年版Marx/Engels Internet ArchiveTheses On FeuerbachWritten:by Marx in the Spring of 1845, but slightly edited by Engels;First Published:in German as an appendix to German edition ofLudwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophyin 1888;Source:Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Progress Publishers 1946.1The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism that of Feuerbach included is that the things Gegenstand, reality, sensuousness, are conceived only in the form of theobjector ofcontemplation, but not assensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, it happened that theactiveside, in coradistinction to materialism, was set forth by idealism but only abstractly, since, of course, idealism does not know real, sensuous activity as such.Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the conceptual objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself asobjectiveactivity. Hence, inDas Wesen des Christenthums, he therefore regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and defined only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearance. Hence he does not grasp the significance of “revolutionary”, of “practical-critical”, activity.2The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e. the reality and power, the this-worldliness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolates from practice is a purely scholastic question.3The materialist doctrine thaty men areproducts of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products pf other circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who chnage circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence, this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society (in Robert Owen for example).The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.4Feuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-estrangement, of the duplication of the world into a religious, imaginary world and a real one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis.He overlooks the fact that after completing this work, the chief thing stil remains to be done. For the fact that the secular basis lifts off from itself from itself and establishes itself in the clouds as an independent realm can only be explained by the inner strife and intrinsic contradictoriness of this secular basis. The latter must itself, therefore, first be understood in its contradiction and then, by the removal of the contradiction, revolutionized in practice. Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and transformed in practice.5Feuerbach, not satisfied withabstract thinking, appeals tosensuous contemplation; but he does not conceive sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity.6Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence, is hence obliged:1. To abstract from the historical process and to define the religious sentiment Gemt regarded by itself and to presuppose an abstract isolated human individual.2. The essence of man, therefore, can with him be regarded only as “species”, as an inner, mute general character which unites the many individuals onlyin a natural way.7Feuerbach, consequently, does not see that the “religious sentiment” is itself asocial product, and that the abstract individual whom he analyses belongs to a particular form of society.8Social life is essentiallypractical. All mysteries which mislead theory into mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.9The highest point attained bycontemplativematerialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is contemplation of single individuals and of “civil society.”10The standpoint of the old materialism is “civil” society; the standpoint of the new ishumansociety, or associated humanity.11The philosophers have onlyinterpretedthe world, in various ways; the point, however, is tochangeit.1969年版Marx/Engels Internet ArchiveTheses On FeuerbachDownload PDFWritten:by Marx in the Spring of 1845, but slightly edited by Engels;First Published:As an appendix toLudwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophyin 1888;Source:Marx/Engels Selected Works, Volume One, p. 13 15.Note that this version differs from the version of Engels edition published in MECW Volume 5, pp. 6-8;Publisher:Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR, 1969;Translated:W. Lough from the German;Transcription/Markup:Zodiac/Brian Baggins;Copyleft:Marx/Engels Internet Archive() 1995, 1999, 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of theCreative Commons ShareAlike License;Proofread:by Andy Blunden February 2005.IThe chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism that of Feuerbach included is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of theobject or of contemplation, but not assensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, theactiveside was developed abstractly by idealism which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself asobjectiveactivity. Hence, inThe Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of “revolutionary”, of “practical-critical”, activity.IIThe question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purelyscholasticquestion.IIIThe materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only asrevolutionary practice.IVFeuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-alienation, of the duplication of the world into a religious world and a secular one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis.But that the secular basis detaches itself from itself and establishes itself as an independent realm in the clouds can only be explained by the cleavages and self-contradictions within this secular basis. The latter must, therefore, in itself be both understood in its contradiction and revolutionized in practice. Thus, for instance, after the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice.VFeuerbach, not satisfied with abstract thinking, wants contemplation; but he does not conceive sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity.VIFeuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence, is consequently compelled:1. To abstract from the historical process and to fix the religious sentiment as something by itself and to presuppose an abstract isolated human individual.2. Essence, therefore, can be comprehended only as “genus”, as an internal, dumb generality which naturally unites the many individuals.VIIFeuerbach, consequently, does not see that the “religious sentiment” is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual whom he analyses belongs to a particular form of society.VIIIAll social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.IXThe highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is contemplation of single individuals and of civil society.XThe standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity.XIThe philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.2002年版Karl Marx 1845Theses On FeuerbachWritten: by Marx in Brussels in the spring of 1845, under the title “1)adFeuerbach”;Marxs original text was first published in 1924, in German and in Russian translation, by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism inMarx-Engels Archives,Book I, Moscow. The English translation was first published in the Lawrence and Wishart edition ofThe German Ideologyin 1938.The most widely known version of theThesesis that based on Engels edited version, published as an appendix to hisLudwig Feuerbachin 1888, where he gave it the titleTheses on Feuerbach;Translated: by Cyril Smith 2002, based on work done jointly with Don Cuckson.1The main defect of all hitherto-existing materialism that of Feuerbach included is that the Objectder Gegenstand, actuality, sensuousness, are conceived only in the form of the objectObjekts, or of contemplationAnschauung, but not as human sensuous activity, practicePraxis, not subjectively. Hence it happened that the active side, in opposition to materialism, was developed by idealism but only abstractly, since, of course, idealism does not know real, sensuous activity as such.Feuerbach wants sensuous objectsObjekte, differentiated from thought-objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objectivegegenstndlicheactivity. InThe Essence of ChristianityDas Wesen des Christenthums, he therefore regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and defined only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearanceErscheinungsform1. Hence he does not grasp the significance of revolutionary, of practical-critical, activity.2The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is apracticalquestion. Man must prove the truth,i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidednessDiesseitigkeitof his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.3The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changeSelbstvernderungcan be conceived and rationally understood only asrevolutionary practice.4Feuerbach starts off from the fact of religious self-estrangementSelbstentfremdung, of the duplication of the world into a religious, imaginary world, and a secularweltlicheone. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis. He overlooks the fact that after completing this work, the chief thing still remains to be done.For the fact that the secular basis lifts off from itself and establishes itself in the clouds as an independent realm can only be explained by the inner strife and intrinsic contradictoriness of this secular basis. The latter must itself be understood in its contradiction and then, by the removal of the contradiction, revolutionised. Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilatedvernichtettheoretically and practically.5Feuerbach, not satisfied withabstract thinking, wantssensuou