关于费尔巴哈的提纲 中英对照..doc

1，马克思 关于费尔巴哈的提纲 (马克思1845年稿本)2， 马克思论费尔巴哈 （恩格斯1888年发表的稿本）3， Karl Marx 1845 Theses On Feuerbach4, Theses On Feuerbach 马克思关于费尔巴哈的提纲(马克思1845年稿本)关于费尔巴哈一 从前的一切唯物主义（包括费尔巴哈的唯物主义）的主要缺点是：对对象、现实、感性，只是从客体的或者直观的形式去理解，而不是把它们当作感性的人的活动，当作实践去理解，不是从主体方面去理解。因此，和唯物主义相反，能动的方面却被唯心主义抽象地发展了，当然，唯心主义是不知道现实的、感性的活动本身的。费尔巴哈想要研究跟思想客体确实不同的感性客体：但是他没有把人的活动本身理解为对象性的gegenstndliche活动。因此，他在基督教的本质中仅仅把理论的活动看作是真正人的活动，而对于实践则只是从它的卑污的犹太人的表现形式去理解和确定。因此，他不了解“革命的”、“实践批判的”活动的意义。二人的思维是否具有客观的gegenstndliche真理性，这不是一个理论的问题，而是一个实践的问题。人应该在实践中证明自己思维的真理性，即自己思维的现实性和力量，自己思维的此岸性。关于思维离开实践的思维的现实性或非现实性的争论，是一个纯粹经院哲学的问题。三 关于环境和教育起改变作用的唯物主义学说忘记了：环境是由人来改变的，而教育者本人一定是受教育的。因此，这种学说一定把社会分成两部分，其中一部分凌驾于社会之上。环境的改变和人的活动或自我改变的一致，只能被看作是并合理地理解为革命的实践。四 费尔巴哈是从宗教上的自我异化，从世界被二重化为宗教世界和世俗世界这一事实出发的。他做的工作是把宗教世界归结于它的世俗基础。但是，世俗基础使自己从 自身中分离出去，并在云霄中固定为一个独立王国，这只能用这个世俗基础的自我分裂和自我矛盾来说明。因此，对于这个世俗基础本身应当在自身中、从它的矛盾 中去理解，并在实践中使之革命化。因此，例如，自从发现神圣家族的秘密在于世俗家庭之后，世俗家庭本身就应当在理论上和实践中被消灭。五费尔巴哈不满意抽象的思维而喜欢直观；但是他把感性不是看作实践的、人的感性的活动。六费尔巴哈把宗教的本质归结于人的本质。但是，人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和。费尔巴哈没有对这种现实的本质进行批判，因此他不得不：（）撇开历史的进程，把宗教感情固定为独立的东西，并假定有一种抽象的孤立的人的个体。（）因此，本质只能被理解为“类”，理解为一种内在的、无声的、把许多个人自然地联系起来的普遍性。七因此，费尔巴哈没有看到，“宗教感情”本身是社会的产物，而他所分析的抽象的个人，是属于一定的社会形式的。八全部社会生活在本质上是实践的。凡是把理论引向神秘主义的神秘东西，都能在人的实践中以及对这个实践的理解中得到合理的解决。九 直观的唯物主义，即不是把感性理解为实践活动的唯物主义至多也只能达到对单个人和市民社会的直观。十 旧唯物主义的立脚点是市民社会，新唯物主义的立脚点则是人类社会或社会的人类。十一哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，问题在于改变世界。写于年春，原文是德文，选自马克思恩格斯全集，第卷第页马克思论费尔巴哈（恩格斯1888年发表的稿本）一 从前的一切唯物主义包括费尔巴哈的唯物主义的主要缺点是：对对象、现实、感性，只是从客体的或者直观的形式去理解，而不是把它们当作人的感性活动，当作实践去理解，不是从主体方面去理解。因此，结果竟是这样，和唯物主义相反，唯心主义却发展了能动的方面，但只是抽象地发展了，因为唯心主义当然是不知道现实的、感性的活动本身的。费尔巴哈想要研究跟思想客体确实不同的感性客体，但是他没有把人的活动本身理解为对象性的gegenstndliche活动。因此，他在基督教的本质中仅仅把理论的活动看作是真正人的活动，而对于实践则只是从它的卑污的犹太人的表现形式去理解和确定。因此，他不了解“革命的”、“实践批判的”活动的意义。二人的思维是否具有客观的gegenstndliche真理性，这不是一个理论的问题，而是一个实践的问题。人应该在实践中证明自己思维的真理性，即自己思维的现实性和力量，自己思维的此岸性。关于离开实践的思维的现实性或非现实性的争论，是一个纯粹经院哲学的问题。三 有一种唯物主义学说，认为人是环境和教育的产物，因而认为改变了的人是另一种环境和改变了的教育的产物，这种学说忘记了：环境正是由人来改变的，而教 育者本人一定是受教育的。因此，这种学说必然会把社会分成两部分，其中一部分凌驾于社会之上。（例如，在罗伯特欧文那里就是如此。）环境的改变和人的活动的一致，只能被看作是并合理地理解为变革的实践。四 费尔巴哈是从宗教上的自我异化，从世界被二重化为宗教的、想象的世界和现实的世界这一事实出发的。他做的工作是把宗教世界归结于它的世俗基础。他没有注意 到，在做完这一工作之后，主要的事情还没有做。因为，世俗基础使自己从自身中分离出去，并在云霄中固定为一个独立王国，这一事实，只能用这个世俗基础的自 我分裂和自我矛盾来说明。因此，对于这个世俗基础本身首先应当从它的矛盾中去理解，然后用排除矛盾的方法在实践中使之革命化。因此，例如，自从发现神圣家 族的秘密在于世俗家庭之后，对于世俗家庭本身就应当从理论上进行批判，并在实践中加以变革。五费尔巴哈不满意抽象的思维而诉诸感性的直观；但是他把感性不是看作实践的、人的感性的活动。六费尔巴哈把宗教的本质归结于人的本质。但是，人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和。费尔巴哈没有对这种现实的本质进行批判，因此他不得不：（）撇开历史的进程，把宗教感情固定为独立的东西，并假定有一种抽象的孤立的人的个体；（）因此，他只能把人的本质理解为“类”，理解为一种内在的、无声的、把许多个人纯粹自然地联系起来的普遍性。七因此，费尔巴哈没有看到，“宗教感情”本身是社会的产物，而他所分析的抽象的个人，实际上是属于一定的社会形式的。八社会生活在本质上是实践的。凡是把理论导致神秘主义的神秘东西，都能在人的实践中以及对这个实践的理解中得到合理的解决。九直观的唯物主义，即不是把感性理解为实践活动的唯物主义，至多也只能做到对“市民社会”的单个人的直观。十旧唯物主义的立脚点是“市民”社会；新唯物主义的立脚点则是人类社会或社会化的人类。十一哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，而问题在于改变世界。写于年春，原文是德文，第一次作为附录发表于路德维希费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结年版单行本，选自马克思恩格斯全集，第卷第页Karl Marx 1845Theses On FeuerbachWritten: by Marx in Brussels in the spring of 1845, under the title “1) ad Feuerbach”;Marxs original text was first published in 1924, in German and in Russian translation, by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in Marx-Engels Archives, Book I, Moscow. The English translation was first published in the Lawrence and Wishart edition of The German Ideology in 1938. The most widely known version of the “Theses” is that based on Engels edited version, published as an appendix to his Ludwig Feuerbach in 1888, where he gave it the title Theses 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 Object der Gegenstand, actuality, sensuousness, are conceived only in the form of the object Objekts, or of contemplation Anschauung, but not as human sensuous activity, practice Praxis, 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 objects Objekte, differentiated from thought-objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective gegenstndliche activity. In The Essence of Christianity Das 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 Erscheinungsform. 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-sidedness Diesseitigkeit of 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-change Selbstvernderung can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.4Feuerbach starts off from the fact of religious self-estrangement Selbstentfremdung, of the duplication of the world into a religious, imaginary world, and a secular weltliche 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 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 annihilated vernichtet theoretically and practically.5Feuerbach, not satisfied with abstract thinking, wants sensuous contemplation Anschauung; but he does not conceive sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity.6Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man menschliche Wesen = human nature. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In 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 regarded by itself, and to presuppose an abstract isolated - human individual.2. The essence therefore can by him only be regarded as species, as an inner dumb generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way.7Feuerbach consequently does not see that the religious sentiment is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual that he analyses belongs in reality to a particular social form.8All 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.9The highest point reached by contemplative anschauende materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is the contemplation of single individuals and of civil society brgerlichen Gesellschaft.10The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society or social humanity.11Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.Feuerbach firba:k Archives :kaivz n collection of records especially about an institutionTheses On Feuerbach Written: by Marx in the Spring of 1845, but slightly edited by Engels;First Published: As an appendix to Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy in 1888;Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Volume One, p. 13 15;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 the Creative 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 the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side 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 as objective activity. Hence, in The 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 purely scholastic question. 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 as revolutionary 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 individ