On The Threshold Of Marx's Ontology Revolution

In this paper, by studying Schmidt’s comprehension of Marx’s concept of material transformation; what’s more, by studying Schmidt’s comprehension of Marx’s theory of nature and Marx’s thought of epistemology, to analyze Schmidt’s basic principles of philosophical ontology whether reach the level of Marx’s principle of philosophical ontology or not. Or he just touches the philosophy ontology of Marx and still invests in the embrace of old materialism.By expounding the idea of "the nature intervened by social practice", Schmidt refuses to the road to explain Marx’s materialist on the level of substance ontology. That is to say, it ceases to take material entity as the basis of the Marx’s materialist ontology and takes practice or labor as the starting point of Marx’s materialist ontology. However, since Schmidt does not really understand the principle of "activity" contained in the concept of Marx’s "labor", So Schmidt straightly takes the concept of "labor" or "material transformation" as a concept of natural science. To talk about the concept of labor on the level of natural science is just to talk about the concept of labor on the level of metaphysics. That is to say, it dissolves the principle of "activity" that contained in the concept of "labor".Digestion of the Subjectivity principles of labor that makes Schmidt holds on the material ontology covertly that he refused from the beginning when he starts to explain the Marx’s theory of nature, and also makes Schmidt still remains in the framework of interpretation of modern philosophy when he starts to explain the Marx’s epistemological though, which shows that Schmidt does not understand the Marx’s thought of ontology thoroughly. Therefore, Schmidt eventually just stands on the threshold of the Marx’s revolution of ontology and does not really understand the idea of Marx’s ontology.