首页> 外文学位 >THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEGEL'S AND MARX'S DOCTRINES OF LOGIC (DIALECTIC, ALTHUSSER, ENGELS).
【24h】

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEGEL'S AND MARX'S DOCTRINES OF LOGIC (DIALECTIC, ALTHUSSER, ENGELS).

机译:赫格和马克思的逻辑学原理之间的差异(径向,阿尔都塞,恩格尔斯)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The explanation of the specific constitution of Marx's deductive method presupposes the delineation of the specific difference between his and Hegel's doctrines of logic. The available interpretations falsely suppose Marx's method is merely one or another variation on Kant's transcendentalism and not an elaboration on Hegel's dialecticism. These interpretations falsely assume an absolute difference between Hegel's and Marx's doctrines. The fact is, the difference between Hegel's and Marx's methods is a relative difference between the two possible modes of application of the same dialectic determinations or forms of motion. Hegel's lapse into a reiterative or impositive formalism in the mode of his application of the determinations he deduces ultimately transmutes his penultimate dialecticism into a systematic formalism. Marx's criticism of Hegel's ultimate lapse means the recognitive or self-reflective mode of his own application is the culmination and not the interruptive transmutation of methodic dialecticism.;Chapter two canvasses Marx's explanation of the difference between Hegel's method and his own. Marx claims Hegel illogically presupposes the absolute rationality of the available empiric and civic matters of fact. Hegel's mode of application fallaciously turns an historic and contradictive progression into a mystic and non-contradictive emanation of the absolute logic. Marx's distinctive mode of application is precisely the fact he never merely presupposes the available facts constitute the culmination of rationality.;Chapter three discusses the exhibition of Marx's deductive application of the dialectic determinations in his elaboration of the science of economics.;Chapter four critically evaluates Engels's fallacious assertion dialecticism is an historicism. The philosophic basis of his historicism is his conflation of intimative representations and deductive concepts. He transmutes Marx's recognitive or self-reflective application of the dialectic method into a reflective empiricism and a denominative systematism.;Chapter one elaborates Hegel's deduction of the basic determinations in the form of a criticism of Parmenides's inception of dialecticism and almost immediate lapse into formalism. A recapitulation of Hegel's deduction of the first five determinations in his science of logic focuses on the fact these determinations constitute forms of motion.;Chapter five is a criticism of Althusser's transmutation of Marx's method into an architectonic transcendentalism.
机译:对马克思演绎方法的具体构成的解释以对马克思和黑格尔的逻辑学说之间的特定区别进行描述为前提。可用的解释错误地认为马克思的方法仅仅是对康德先验主义的一种或另一种变化,而不是对黑格尔辩证法的阐述。这些解释错误地假设了黑格尔和马克思主义之间的绝对差异。事实是,黑格尔方法和马克思方法之间的差异是相同辩证法确定或运动形式的两种可能应用方式之间的相对差异。黑格尔以他推论得出的决定的方式陷入了对立或强制形式主义,最终使他倒数第二的辩证法变成了系统的形式主义。马克思对黑格尔最终失败的批判意味着马克思对自己黑格尔方法的辩解是高潮,而不是方法辩证法的颠覆性trans变。第二章探讨了马克思对黑格尔方法与他自己方法之区别的解释。马克思认为黑格尔在逻辑上以现有的经验和公民事实的绝对合理性为前提。黑格尔的应用模式将历史性的,自相矛盾的发展变成了绝对逻辑的神秘而又不矛盾的发散。马克思独特的运用方式恰恰是这样一个事实,即他从来不仅仅以现有的事实构成合理性的顶峰。第三章论述了马克思在论证经济学时对辩证决定性的演绎性应用。第四章进行了批判性的评价。恩格斯的谬论断言辩证法是历史主义。他历史主义的哲学基础是他融合了亲密代表和演绎概念。他将马克思对辩证法的认知或自我反思的运用转化为反思的经验主义和宗派的系统主义。;第一章以批评帕门尼德斯的辩证法思想和几乎立即陷入形式主义的形式阐述黑格尔对基本决定的推论。黑格尔在其逻辑科学中对前五个决定的推论的概括着重于这些决定构成运动形式的事实。第五章是对阿尔都塞将马克思的方法转变为建筑的先验主义的批评。

著录项

  • 作者

    FULLER, DENNIS JAMES.;

  • 作者单位

    The Pennsylvania State University.;

  • 授予单位 The Pennsylvania State University.;
  • 学科 Philosophy.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1986
  • 页码 266 p.
  • 总页数 266
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:50:58

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号