| Traditional western philosophy is the philosophy of "World-View", which intuits the world with the premise of subject-object dimidiation. Ancient cosmology takes man as part of the cosmos, and understands man by direct assertions about the nature of the world; while modern philosophy is based on the consciousness of the premise of the subject-object-dimidiated epistemology, and reflects man as cognitive subject.The common characters of the traditional western theories of man in the horizon of World-View is that the theories of man are based on the explanation of the world, that they investigate man as objective object while neglecting the relation of man and its existence. Man is reduced either to spirit or to natural being, or the dualistic conbination of the anterior two. They only ask that "What is man", without asking that "How does man exist". They all understand man as a substantial being, as a ready-made being which has some determinate nature, and regulate the being of man with understanding categories. The result of such investigations thus is that the relations between man and world, between man and other men, between man and itself, come to be external and contingent. German classical philosophy already starts to overcome these defects, but it does not surpass the limitation of the philosophy of world-view. Anyway, traditional theories of man always understand man by the way of comparing man and other beings, without distinguishing man and other beings. In fact, man is not a ready-made being among the other beings at all. Man is man itself, and we can not determine man by the same way of determining other beings. The man the traditional theories understand is not the real man, but only the abstraction of man. Marx starts to break through the epistemological horizon of traditional theories of man, starts to understand man from the "Real Man", from the sensitive practice of man. This overcomes the substantialistic understanding of man, and achieves a fundamental transformation of the horizon of the theory of man. Marx also makes a profound explanation of the concrete way of the being of man. The meaning of Marx's revolution of theory of man (also the revolutionof philosophy) is not being understood adequately, it is even misunderstood. In the 20 century, Heidegger make an existential analysis of the being of man (Dasein), and builts his fundamental ontology, which is a positive response to Marx in some sense. Heidegger clearly puts forward the principles that Marx dose not clearly express, and made systemic explanation and in-depth justification to them. Moreover, Heidegger's explanation of the concrete mode of man's being is very close to that of Marx's. Thought Heidegger, we can understand the revolutionary meaning of Marx's theory of man more profoundly, and contrariwise, we can find the limitation of Heidegger's thought Marx. This dissertation is comparative study of Heidegger's theory of Dasein and Marx's theory of man.My dissertation consists of two parts.The first part mainly explains the transformation in the horizon of the theory of man which is achieved by Marx and Heidegger., the transformation of from traditional epistemology to existentialism. This transformation is manifested in the follows: (1) Marx and Heidegger do not understand man from the cognition of the external world, but went back to "matter-itself', and understood man from the being of man-itself . They do not ask "What is man", but ask "How does man exist", and they base the understanding of the word on the understanding of the way of man's existence. (2) This transformation of the start-point is based on the critique of the philosophy of consciousness and traditional naturalism. They respectively animadvert the delegates of the philosophy of consciousness in modern and contemporary times—Hegel and Husserl, and understand Hegel's "self-consciousness" and Husserl's "pure consciousness" as the real man's consciousness. They animadvert traditional materialism and nature-scientific realism, and based the understanding of the reality of the external world on man's sensitive existential practice. Thus they surpass the traditional structure of spirit-material, soul-body. By the critique of philosophy of consciousness and natural realism, they make the theory of man back to the "matter-itself, to the being of man itself, and establish respective phenomenology ofman, which are both has the meaning of "fundamental ontology". (3) It is because that Marx and Heidegger have broken through the subject-object dimidiation in traditional epistemology that they can go back to "matter-itself'. They go back to the original existential phenomenon of the pre-theory, pre-cognition, pre-deviation of subject-object. According to Heidegger, it is to go back to "the factual life experience"; according to Marx, the "factual" was "real, concrete", that is to say, it was "sensitive", so it was to go back to the "sensitive practice" of man. (4) Because of the breaking-through of the understanding of man as a ready-made being, Marx and Heidegger no longer regulate the way of man's being by the logic of understanding. Heidegger develope the method of phenomenological hermeneutic, while Marx disclose the existential foundation of dialectic, which critically inherit Hegel's dialectic method. Because these two theory are both based on the existence of man, they are communicated with each other, belonging to the same "logos" of the life.I compare the concretely explanations of the being of man bringing forward by Marx and Heideger in the second part of my dissertation. It consists of three parts. (l)Marx and Heidegger both do not understand man as ready-made being any longer, but understand it as the activity with the end of it self. Heidegger regulate the nature of man as the "existence" or " to be"; while Marx regulated it as the "free conscious activity". (2)Marx and Heidegger animadvert the traditional theory of man which understand man as a non-worldly subject, and explain the structure of the existence of man as the unitary structure of "being-in-the-world". They turn the relation between man and nature, between man and other men, between man and itself, from the external and contingent one to the internal and necessary one. They both understand the structure of man's being as the dynamic structure of these three internal relations. Marx and Heidegger have disclosed the structure of the existence of man, and take man as a being for itself in the around-world, in the common-world, in the self-world, the way of being-in-the world being based the openness of man to Being. (3) Marx and Heidegger understand man as the existing being for itself, so it is necessary that they understandman's being-in-the- world as the temporary being, that time is fundamental to man's being according to them. They both break through the vulgar understanding of time, and understand time as the one that is full of the concrete existing content. This temporary existence is the historicity of man. Marx and prophase Heidegger both understand history as the process of man's activity, and historicity as man's activity and creativity, which has surpassed the non-historical understanding of the traditional theory of man.Although comparing to the traditional theory of man, Marx's theory of man and Heidegger's theory of Dasein are basically same in the transformation of horizon and the concrete analysis of the way of man's being, their difference is obvious too. Marx's revolution of the theory of man is preparing for the historical practice for the liberation of human beings. While Heidegger's new understanding of man is for the solution of the traditional metaphysical issue of the meaning of being. Marx animadvert traditional metaphysics for man's revolution, while Heidegger does for the solution of the question of being. Marx links the explanation of man to man's practical activity, anatomize the development of these content in different historical stages, and disclose the historical process of man's naissance through its labor. But Heidegger lack Marx's broad historical horizon. Being bounded by the stand point of transcendentalism, Heidegger's explanation to man stick around a transcendental structure, neglecting the concrete content of man's practice and its historical development. So his explanation of Dasein is still abstract.
|
PDF Full Text Request