On The Nature Of Marxist Philosophy

This paper which revolves around to the 'Korsch Problem' focuses on the nature of Marxist philosophy. Although a debate between the nature of philosophy and science of Marxism which act as the internal logic of Marxism composition has been earned a great attention to the academic circles of our country, it cannot be fully understood by limiting it within the basic framework of modern western philosophy. Someone who tried to emphasize the relationship between Feuerbach and Marxism has finally put the latter as some kind of 'positive science' or 'empirical positivism'. Others laid great stress on Hegel's philosophy that made Marxism as 'a branch' or 'a development' of the former eventually. At any rate, the nature and the meaning of philosophy of Marxism were still covered in the contemporary perspective. Consequently, the 'Korsch Problem' which is to represent the relation between Marx's 'philosophy' and his 'science' cannot be clarified too. In order to prove the point that Marxism is a kind of philosophy indeed and to emphasize the essential differences between the Marxism philosophy and the previous philosophy, the paper started from a basic or a key conception of Marx's thought:the Basis of Ontology. Therefore, this article was divided into there chapters. In the Chapter One, we discuss two main points of view or of argument what are regard to the relationship between Marx's 'philosophy' and his 'science ('Korsch Problem') in present academia. Then a new route which is established in basis of the theory of being has been brought forward. It can prove that Marxism is some kind of philosophy. We return to the earlier Marxists in the Chapter Two:Merlin and Plekhanov represented by the Second International Theorists, and Georg Lukacs and Karl Korsch presented by the early Western Marxism. Here, I pay a significant attention to the fact how they explained respectively the nature of Marxism philosophy and I was enlightened by the concept of'Historical Science'that belonged to Marx himself originally. I concluded that if we wanted to get a better interpretation of Marx's'Historical Science'and bestowed it any characteristics or significances of philosophy in the contemporary perspective, we would first and foremost put the'practice'as the Basis of Ontology of Marx's thought. It was because it cannot demonstrate the nature of Marxist philosophy well if we put the concept of 'material-entity' and 'dialectic' as the foundation of Marx's thought only. The Chapter Three traced back to Marx himself directly and continued to focus on two questions: 'why we should put the 'practice' theory as the basis of the theory of being of Marx's thought' and 'why the'practice' theory could make Marxism as some kind of philosophy'. For the purpose of proving the nature of philosophy of Marxism, we start from the 'practice' theory eventually and make some further discussions for opening a new dimension of philosophy of Marxism by exploring those territories with regard to liberation of mankind.