A Restudy Of Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation

Frankly speaking,the study of Marx’s Doctoral Thesis has come to the clear conclusion that,from the standpoint of Bauer’s philosophy of self-consciousness,Marx wrote his Doctoral Thesis with the aim of elaborating the ancient Greek Epicurean philosophy of self-consciousness as a free critique of the Germanic Christian world,at a time when Marx was in the position of the young Hegelian idealist philosophy.However,reviewing the history of ideas,this conclusion seems too general and lacks an examination of the development of Bauer’s thought itself;to accept it in its entirety would not explain the fact that the letter written by Bauer to Marx during the creation of the Doctoral Thesis,published in MEGA2,Part III,Volume 1,says nothing about Marx’s writing of the thesis.It further appears from the correspondence that Bauer was not aware of Marx’s writing of the dissertation,nor was Marx aware of Bauer’s developing philosophical view of self-consciousness.Moreover,the content of the writing of the dissertation,in its generally differing notes,presents views that are inconsistent with Bauer’s philosophical position,which makes it necessary to carefully re-screen the philosophical position of Bauer’s self-consciousness that stands.Therefore,this paper places the reading of the Doctoral Dissertation in the context of the history of ideas and explores the influence of Hegel in addition to Bauer,and finally arrives at a basic view that the self-conscious philosophical position of the Doctoral Dissertation lies between Bauer and Hegel.The focus of this paper is on the interpretation of the text,and the framework of the entire text is based on the interpretation of the content of the text.Therefore,the first chapter is a preface that focuses on the differences between Marx’s and Hegel’s understanding of late Greek philosophy.Marx argues that Hegel’s understanding of late Greek philosophy is inadequate in detail,and that Hegel’s position of discursive philosophy obscures the freedom of self-consciousness that late Greek philosophy manifests after classical philosophy by taking up the non-logical function of language in a vast scheme of the history of philosophy.The fact that Epicurus,after classical philosophy,pointed out that what is conceptual is nothing more than a certain imagination of the sensible world speaks to the importance of understanding the origin of Greek philosophy after the subjective stage of conception;that is why Marx graphically likened late Greek philosophy,and Epicurus in particular,to “the key to understanding the history of Greek philosophy”.Since the “General Differences and Conclusions”section of the Doctoral Dissertation is missing,the interpretation of the text is centered on the theoretical differences between Marx and Bauer in his commentary.In order to reveal how Marx was influenced by Bauer and the differences that existed,the second chapter is a natural progression to sort out the evolution of Bauer’s thought in the years 1835-1842.This chapter argues that Bauer’s philosophy of self-consciousness and his radical religious stance did not begin in 1836 when Marx arrived at the University of Berlin,but in 1839.Bauer’s thought was still in an orthodox theological position in 1836-1838,and only from 1839 did he take a stand as a critical theologian of critical orthodoxy.Therefore,Bauer’s significant influence on Marx began largely in 1839,and because his philosophy of self-consciousness was still in its gestation,it was the subjective position of Bauer’s first manifestation of the philosophy of self-consciousness that Marx accepted in his position of religious criticism.Prior to this,Marx had reservations about Bauer’s theoretical position on philosophy because he already knew the objective position of self-consciousness as expounded by Hegel’s philosophy.This is reflected in the fact that while Bauer proposed the “philosophical-becoming of the world”,Marx proposed the “worldly-becoming of philosophy”,and that Marx was concerned not only with the theoretical aspect of the negation of the real world,but also with the constraining effect of the perceptual aspect of the transformation of the real world on pure self-consciousness.Marx is not only concerned with the theoretical aspect of the negation of the real world,but also with the role of the perceptual aspect of the transformation of the real world in constraining pure self-consciousness.Thus,the philosophy of self-consciousness is not entirely on Bauer’s side.The third chapter is a section-by-section analysis of the five parts of the detailed differences between Democritus and Epicurus.Objectively,Marx’s exposition has the purpose of defending Epicurus,and the study of Democritus is very inadequate.From the material of the argument,in fact,Marx only needs to dig carefully to be able to point out the differences between the two,but he brings the gaze of Hegel’s philosophy as well as Bauer’s philosophy to care for ancient atomism philosophy in a specific historical context.So,from the methodological point of view,the writing relies on Hegel’s dialectic in an attempt to reconstruct the structure of atomic movement,linking the skewed movement of the atom to the negativity of the dialectic,and deriving human freedom and its bearer,the self-consciousness.From the side of the philosophical background of the writing,Marx on the one hand draws on Epicurus’ atomic theory to explain the independence of the subject’s self-consciousness and its freedom,and on the other hand is more entangled with the limits of freedom and its possibilities.Thus,the theoretical position at this time presents a contradictory side,on the one hand,and on the other hand,it is more determined to put aside the Hegelian position of rational self-consciousness for the time being and to manifest the freedom of individual self-consciousness in the social context of the time;therefore,in the argument of the heavenly signs,the manifestation of individual self-consciousness expounded by Epicurus is greatly appreciated,and he is called the ancient Greek Enlightenment thinker.The fourth chapter is devoted to reading the retention of Epicurus implied in the differences of detail.As far as the boundaries of the “absolute nature of individual self-consciousness” are concerned,Epicurus argues that individual self-consciousness is absolute,and Marx,while agreeing more from the standpoint of critical religion,does not consider it absolute in his transformation of social reality,if self-consciousness itself is not linked to the Other,when the theory is oriented towards the real world in a practical manner,it is only a depiction of the future.If self-consciousness itself is not linked to the Other,when theory is oriented towards the real world in a practical manner it is only a depiction of the future,so it is not absolute and therefore maintains its own dynamic and negative role in a complex relationship with the Other.As far as “the freedom of self-consciousness is not manifest in the unfolding of the many determinate being”,Epicurus argues that absolute freedom must be in some determinate being and even rise to the premise of indeterminacy;Marx,relying on dialectics,argues that this solution is certainly necessary for the critique of religion;but for the individual,the realisation of his freedom must be held in a determinate being,so that the manifestation of individual freedom is mediated by the links of the prescriptive.Finally,in the celestial theory,Marx stands in the context of his time and expresses his dissatisfaction with the absolute freedom of representational self-consciousness.Self-consciousness is no longer a medical treatment for inner illnesses,but has to play an energetic role in transforming the world,so that the Epicurean perspective,on the other hand,lacks presuppositions.