Abstract：Modernity is a narrative paradigm that delineates the key characters of the modern world. Diagnosing the problems of modernity is a crucial topic in philosophy. Only by examining the basis of philosophy can we clarify the rationales and divergences behind different discourses on modernity. Hegel, Marx, and Habermas proposed three distinct schemes of modernity: the scheme of self-consciousness, the scheme of material practice, and the scheme of intersubjectivity.In the First Philosophy of Spirit (1803-1804), Hegel introduces the concept of consciousness and attempts to establish a modern ethical order where self-consciousness and universal consciousness coexist and reinforce each other, leading to the compatibility of the individual and the community. The intermediary structure of consciousness serves as Hegel’s means to reconcile the relationship between subject and object, particular and universal, and individual and others. The greater the universality of self-consciousness, the more compatibility there will be with others, and the more likely a unified social normative structure can be achieved. Hegel identifies language, work, and family as three progressive stages in which self-consciousness and universal consciousness are formed and transformed. Accordingly, the development of social ethical norms, ranging from natural family relations to the public sphere, becomes possible. However, Hegel’s sequence aims at rational and absolute consciousness and dismisses direct and empirical human activities. This is refuted by Feuerbach and others.Unlike Hegel, who derives the constitutive power of social order from the three stages of consciousness in language, labor, and family, Marx formulates in German Ideology the theory of historical materialism based on the three factors of productivity, social conditions, and consciousness, where productivity plays a decisive role in shaping the social order. Without access to Hegel’s Jena manuscripts, Marx discovers the central role of labor in the practice of material production and social relations. Marx also recognizes that Hegel’s category of labor is draped under the cloak of idealism. His rejection of Hegel’s concept of self-consciousness is a crucial theoretical impetus for establishing the foundation of material practice. On the one hand, Marx praises Feuerbach for reducing Hegel’s concept of self-consciousness to the sensual person. On the other hand, Marx further transforms Feuerbach’s naturalistic interpretation of humans into a practical and realistic determination of human activities. By restoring the basic status of material practice, Marx demonstrates that the concept of consciousness is not a constant but a variable that can only emerge under the historical material premise. This refutes Hegel’s understanding of self-consciousness as a given conceptual structure.In Labor and Interaction, Habermas develops the intermediary structure of Hegel’s concept of consciousness and transforms the interactive relationship based on the language medium into the conditions of social order, where interaction is regarded as superior to labor. This involves two aspects. First, according to Habermas, the Hegelian knowing subject undergoes a movement of detranscendentalization and enters social space. Second, by distinguishing between labor and interaction, Habermas criticizes the instrumentalization of Marx’s labor theory. However, this approach of interpretation not only deviates from Hegel’s context but also encounters another theoretical difficulty when Habermas criticizes Marx’s concept of labor for lacking interaction. Communicative interaction denies any given pragmatic premise and cannot transcend the premise of the lifeworld. Although these three theories differ from each other, they open a dialogue with each other from the perspective of modernity, which is instructive for us to comprehend the multiple possibilities of modernity approaches.
朱渝阳. 现代性视域下哲学基点的重审[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2023, 53(9): 131-139.
Zhu Yuyang. Re-examining the Basis of Philosophy from the Perspective of Modernity: Focusing on Hegel, Marx, and Habermas. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2023, 53(9): 131-139.
1 加］查尔斯·泰勒： 《现代社会想象》，林曼红译，南京：译林出版社，2014年。 2 万俊人： 《现代性的多元镜鉴》，《中国社会科学》2022年第7期，第4-20页。 3 汪行福： 《复杂现代性与拉图尔理论批判》，《哲学研究》2019年第10期，第58-68页。 4 Hegel G. W. F.， Jenaer Systementwürfe Ι， in Düsing K. ＆ Kimmerle H. （Hrsg.）， Gesammelte Werke， Band 6， Hamburg： Felix Meiner Verlag， 1975. 5 Habermas J.， Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne， Frankfurt am Main： Suhrkamp Verlag， 1985. 6 Hegel G. W. F.， Jenaer Schriften 1801-1807， Frankfurt am Main： Suhrkamp Verlag， 1986. 7 德］康德： 《纯粹理性批判》，邓晓芒译，北京：人民出版社，2004年。 8 Ifergan P.， Hegel’s Discovery of the Philosophy of Spirit， New York： Palgrave Macmillan， 2014. 9 美］赫伯特·马尔库塞： 《理性和革命：黑格尔和社会理论的兴起》，程志民译，上海：上海人民出版社，2007年。 10 Weckwerth C.， Metaphysik als Ph?nomenologie： Eine Studie zur Entstehung und Struktur der Hegelschen “Ph?nomenologie des Geistes”， Würzburg： Ko?nigshausen & Neumann， 2000. 11 德］马克思： 《在〈人民报〉创刊纪念会上的演说》，见中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯全集》第12卷，北京：人民出版社，1998年，第3-5页。 12 德］马克思： 《1844年经济学哲学手稿》，见中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2002年。 13 Lukács G.， Der junge Hegel： über die Beziehungen von Dialektik und ?konomie， Berlin： Aufbau Verlag， 1948. 14 德］米夏埃尔·宽特： 《卡尔·马克思哲学研究》，熊至立译，北京：商务印书馆，2021年。 15 德］马克思、恩格斯： 《德意志意识形态》，见中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。 16 德］卡尔·洛维特： 《从黑格尔到尼采》，李秋零译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2006年。 17 Habermas J.， Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie， Frankfurt am Main： Suhrkamp Verlag， 2017. 18 Habermas J.， “From Kant to Hegel and Back again，” European Journal of Philosophy， Vol. 7， No. 2 （1999）， pp. 129-157. 19 Wildt A.， Autonomie und Anerkennung： Hegels Moralit?tskritik im Lichte seiner Fichte-Rezeption， Stuttgart： Klett-Cotta， 1982. 20 邓安庆： 《国家与正义——兼评霍耐特黑格尔法哲学“再现实化”路径》，《中国社会科学》2018年第10期，第24-38页。 21 王珩： 《交往理论开端上的“命运”冲突——重审哈贝马斯早年对黑格尔耶拿精神哲学的解读》，《社会学评论》2022年第1期，第91-109页。 22 Cannon B.， Rethinking the Normative Content of Critical Theory： Marx， Habermas， and Beyond， New York： Palgrave， 2001. 23 Latour B.， We Have Never Been Modern， Cambridge： Harvard University Press， 1993.
2023, Vol. 53 
