Prologue 1.The immediate purpose and task of this book is to clarify the relationship between the Young Hegelians and Marx's philosophical thought. Although Marx's philosophical thought was mainly formed not only on the basis of abandoning German classical philosophy, including the philosophy of the Young Hegelians, but also on the basis of the rejection of the French socialist doctrine and the British classical political economy, its underlying and internal logic are hidden in its relationship with German classical philosophy, especially with the philosophy of the Young Hegelians. 2. The purpose of studying the relationship between the Young Hegelians and Marx's philosophical thought is that it provides an opportunity to accomplish this task: to re-understand the nature and historical status of Marx's philosophy from today's historical perspective in the light of new practical experience, and to reveal the aspects and factors contained in it that are decisive for the new historical conditions. 3. In view of the currents and currents of confrontation between idealistic scientism and irrational humanism presented in the development of modern Western philosophy, especially in view of the two distinct positions and tendencies similar to subjectivism and objectivism or scientism and humanism that arise in the understanding, reception and development of Marx's philosophy, and in view of the manifestation of this theoretical opposition in social practice, and finally, in view of the development of the above-mentioned oppositions and contradictions in the present day and their historical trends, Starting from the understanding that Marx's philosophy is the organic unity of subject, object, spirit and nature, existence and essence, individual and class, necessity and freedom, truth and value, and other opposing categories, factors and principles in traditional philosophy based on practice and mediation, this book clearly elevates this organic unity to a methodology, reveals and clarifies the relationship between Young Hegelians and Marx's thought, and evaluates some research results and tendencies in this regard in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Western societies. Introduction 1.The judgment of Young Hegelian philosophy must start from the huge time difference between the "temporal error" of German history at that time, that is, the backward and contemptible state of German society and the height of the era of historical development, which defines the theme and essential characteristics of Young Hegelian philosophy. 2. The role of Young Hegelian philosophy in the German bourgeois revolution is similar to the role of French materialism in the French bourgeois revolution. It was the theoretical form on which the bourgeois social problems in Germany were solved at that time, and it was the final completion of the philosophical precursor of the German bourgeois revolution. 3. Religious criticism, which is the main historical achievement of the Young Hegelians, has the dual character of the German Enlightenment. This critique and the study of human problems in real society are just two sides of the same coin. 4. As far as the ideological and theoretical content of the Young Hegelian philosophy is concerned, it is a philosophy of subjectivity and represents the highest achievement of the study of subjectivity before the formation of Marx's philosophy. 5. The theoretical contribution of Young Hegelian philosophy to the study of subjectivity is concentrated in the discussion of the meaning of subjectivity. 6. Focusing on the discussion of the meaning of subjectivity, Young Hegelian philosophy has experienced two epistemic "circles": "entity" - "self-awareness" - "kind"; "Self-awareness" - "class" - "self". 7. The Young Hegelian philosophy reduces "God" to man in different aspects, and returns the status and nature of the subject to man himself. However, this "person" remains stuck in abstract subjectivity. 8. Beyond the work of the Young Hegelians, that is, the work of reducing abstract people to real real individuals, was done by Marx. Taking the revelation of the meaning of the subject as an opportunity, Marx abandoned the two epistemic "circles" of the Young Hegelian philosophy, or in other words, completed the synthesis of these two epistemic circles. Chapter 1 1.In his opposition to Strauss's "substance," Bauer subjectivized Hegel's philosophy and appealed to the self-consciousness of the critical individual as the core of his "critical philosophy." 2. The principle of "self-awareness" is intended to emphasize the status and nature of the subject. In practice, it is a speculative expression of the French concept of "equality". 3. Bauer used the principle of "self-awareness" to stifle Hegel's "absolute spirit" on the one hand, and resurrected it on the other. 4. Marx began by standing under the banner of Bauer's "philosophy of self-awareness." He participated in the development of the "philosophy of self-awareness" through his doctoral dissertation and, in part, through the book "Declaration of the End of Time". 5. For Marx, the principle of "self-awareness" was used as a sharp tool of radical democracy to point to the "Roman Empire" in real society. 6. Marx's comments on the negative aspects of Epicurean philosophy already contain fundamental differences between him and Bauer. Marx did not adopt Bauer's absolutist mode of thinking that put subject and object, thought and reality in extreme opposition. This hidden divergence constitutes the essential element of Marx's critique of the philosophy of self-consciousness. 7. Bauer's "philosophy of self-awareness" is a "theological caricature" of Hegel's philosophy. Thus, Marx finally liquidated Hegel's philosophy by critiquing the "philosophy of self-consciousness." 8. Marx's critique of the "philosophy of self-consciousness" is based on Feuerbach's critique of Hegel's philosophy, especially on Feuerbach's proposition that "man is self-conscious." Chapter 2 1 Feuerbach takes the conclusions of Strauss's critique of religion as the premise and starting point of his "kind" doctrine. In this sense, Feuerbach's "class" doctrine is an inevitable development of Shi's theory of entities. 2. The concept of "class" has a dual function: the abolition of God's means and the cornerstone of humanistic materialism. 3. Feuerbach's definition of "kind" is not very clear, and it is elaborated from spiritual, natural, and social aspects through the categories of "life-like", "instinct of class", "kind-relation", and "like-existence". 4. Feuerbach's stipulation of the "essence of the class" is at the heart of his doctrine of the "class." It is based on Spinoza's stipulation of the nature of "entities" and has an ontological tendency. 5. Feuerbach uses the concept of "quasi-essence" as a magic weapon to resolve and eliminate the opposition between mind and existence, spirit and nature, subject and substance, existence and essence, and general and individual. However, when he uses the "framework" of "quasi-essence" to include these opposing categories, he only turns the opposition between subject and object into opposition within the subject itself. 6. Feuerbach defines one aspect of the "quasi-essence" – the independence and ontology of "love" or "mind" into the category of "sensual being", but this leads to the "dichotomy" of "kind" and "sensual existence" (the basic form of which is "individuality"). 7. "Objectification" as a form of realization of "quasi-essence" has three connotations in Feuerbach: ontological (ontological) prescription, epistemic mode, and critical method. It is actually Feuerbach's "alienation theory." 8. Feuerbach's substantial influence on Marx occurred after the publication of Faysson's On the Judgment of the Nature of Christianity. 9. In his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law, and later in his Franco-German Yearbook, Marx adopted some basic arguments from Feuerbach's The Nature of Christianity. The Nature of Christianity (2nd edition) played an important role in Marx's establishment of philosophical materialism. 10. Feuerbach features in the 1844 Manuscript on the Philosophy of Economics are embodied in the idea that man is a quasi-being, the principle of sensibility, the concept of objectification, the idea of the unity of man and nature, and a critique of Hegel's philosophical idealism. 11. Although Marx was deeply inspired by Feuerbach in the formation of his thought, Marx never became a Feuerbachian in the true sense of the word. A letter to Lugar of March 13, 1843, foreshadowed his fundamental disagreement with Feuerbach. 12. Marx's critique of Hegel's philosophy of law has broken through Feuerbach's narrow vision of Hegel's philosophical critique. In the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law, the general principles of Feuerbach's philosophical materialism have been transformed into a historical materialist analysis of the relationship between the state and "civil society", and Feuerbach's idea of religious alienation has been extended and extended to the political and social spheres. 13. Marx's apparent transcendence of Feuerbach during the German-French Yearbook: he reversed the final conclusion of Feuerbach's religious criticism and the supreme proposition of philosophy into political demands, elevated the relationship between religion and "political emancipation" to the relationship between "political emancipation" and "universal human emancipation", and formulated the main points of the analysis of economic alienation. 14. In the 1844 Manuscript on the Philosophy of Economics, the divergence between Marx and Feuerbach is revealed by his elaboration of such important concepts as "quasi-essence", "sensibility" and "practice", and through his revelation of the rational content of Hegel's dialectic. 15. Marx's affirmation of the rationality of Hegel's dialectic means not only that Marx truly renounced and overcame Hegel, but also that he renounced and overcame Feuerbach. 16. Stirner's scathing critique of Feuerbach contributed to a radical break between Marx and Feuerbach. 17. The Theses on Feuerbach (hereinafter referred to as the Theses) and The German Ideology are Marx's final summaries of the long-standing differences between him and Feuerbach. The unique significance of the Theses lies in the fact that it contains all the main points of Feuerbach's criticism, and on the positive side, it is the outline of Marx's "new materialist" theory. Chapter 3 1 In a sense, Hess's "true" socialism is a copy of Feuerbach's "kind" doctrine of history or social philosophy. 2. Hess and Feuerbach's intellectual relationship underwent a "trilogy": Turning (second half of 1841), acceptance (beginning in the first half of 1842), and criticism (mid-1844). 3. Hess's acceptance of Feuerbach's philosophy revolves around and highlights this core: fusing Feuerbach's concept of kindness with an understanding of socialism. Its main achievements: revealing the dual connotation of the humanoid essence, that is, the quasi-essence of theory and the quasi-essence of practice, and leading the provisions of human essence to the social-material communication relationship of man; Its essential stipulation of socialism, "freedom" and "equality" and "class", is regarded as the two major elements of the survival process of "class" and the essential stipulation of "class"; Through the revelation of the nature of money, the phenomenon of economic alienation is studied, and the dual alienation forms of "externalization of theory" and "externalization of practice" are established. 4. The main points of Hess's critique of Feuerbach's philosophy: First, it only understands and prescribes the essence of man from the aspect of ideology and theory, and only completes theoretical criticism; Second, attribute the essence of the class to a single individual. The common essence lies in the failure to transcend the opposition between principle and existence, concept and action, or theory and practice. 5. Hess's critique of Feuerbach fails to touch on the "religion of love." Instead, he further elevated "love" to socialist altruism. 6. Hess's view of alienation has a mediating role between Marx and Feuerbach. It first appeared in The Philosophy of Action, and later was expressed centrally and systematically in The Nature of Money. 7. The striking similarities between Marx's 1844 Manuscript on the Philosophy of Economics and Hess's The Nature of Money in themes, basic clues, and several main arguments indicate the influence of Hess's view of alienation on Marx. 8. A certain consistency between the 1844 Manuscript on the Philosophy of Economics and Hess's view is mainly manifested in the understanding of the following questions: the nature of man and his sociality; the alienation of human essence in capitalist society; the nature, role and significance of money; the universality of alienation; the roots, rationality and rejection of alienation; Wait a minute. Chapter 4 1. Hess's Evolution of Socialist Thought: Religious Socialism (circa 1837); Philosophical Socialism (1842-1844); Ethical socialism (i.e. "true" socialism, beginning in the first half of 1844). 2. The book "The Holy History of Mankind" shows that Hess was one of the early representatives of German utopian socialism. 3. Hess's concept of a "philosophy of action" is politically a representation of socialist demands. It is in fact a philosophy that appeals to socialist practice, going beyond bourgeois ideology, including the philosophy of the Young Hegelians. 4. At the heart of Hess's essay in Twenty-One Sheets from Switzerland is an understanding of the nature of socialism. He reduced the essence of socialism to the unity of freedom and equality, to a "free community," and to the goal of socialism to constant "action." 5. The three characteristics of Hess's doctrine of ethical socialism ("true" socialism): pan-love, religion, and reformism. 6. Hess's theory of pan-love is the direct source of ideas for Fromm's "humanitarian ethics." Freund gives "love" a more distinct and prominent ontological color, but there is substance in its doctrine, Hess has already expressed. 7. Hess's ethical socialism is related to Bernsteinism and democratic socialism. Ethical socialism in the classical form and ethical socialism in the modern form. 8. Hess's socialist thought in the early 40s of the 19th century, not only in many important points, but also in the trajectory and trend of development, foreshadowed the inevitable birth of "scientific socialism" of Marx and Engels. 9. Hess's input into the French doctrine of socialism was the direct cause of Marx's attention, study, and thus turn to socialism and communism. 10. In terms of constructing socialist theory, Hess has seven major enlightenments for Marx: the understanding of the concepts of "socialism" and "communism"; the term "scientific communism"; an understanding of the relationship between philosophy and socialism; an understanding of the relationship between Feuerbach's "like" doctrine and socialism; the category of "autonomous activity"; the idea of "community"; The division between the "natural history of the spirit" (the "kingdom of necessity") and the "true history of the spirit" (the "kingdom of freedom"). 11. The divergence between Marx and "real" socialism stems from different perceptions of the socio-historical conditions in which the French doctrine of socialism rests. 12. Marx's critique of "real" socialism can be compared with his critique of Kant's ethical idealism. 13. The theoretical premise of the claim that Marx was a "true" socialist is that it separates the organic unity of the "economic-scientific interpretation principle" and the "philosophical-ethical interpretation principle" in Marx's philosophical thought, which is essentially a manifestation of the "scientism" of Marx's philosophical thought. 14. A fact that must be revealed and emphasized: Marx, in his 1844 Manuscript on the Philosophy of Economics, has established an "ontology" that embodies both social existence and human existence by elaborating the concept of labor ("alienated labor"); It not only embodies scientific logical analysis, but also embodies ethical value judgments; It embodies both dialectical and historical materialism and the scientific methodological principles of true and realistic humanism. 15. In fact, the fundamental difference between Marx and the "true" socialists is not that the latter talk about man, humanism or the essence of man, but that they always turn the concrete, real individual into an abstract "man"; It is not that the latter apply "philosophical-ethical methods of interpretation" or humanitarian scales, but that they always separate this method and scale from the "movement of reality" and from the empirical facts of "spheres of life subject to historical conditions". Chapter 5 1 Stirner's view of history derives from his knowledge of the history of individual development. Its model is: ancient man (realism) - modern man (idealism) - self (egoism). 2. Stirner's entire inference about the historical process is nothing more than to derive the inevitability of the "self" and its "egoism", that is, to appeal to its "individual" as a "real person" and its individuality. 3. Stirner's "self" and its "uniqueness" (or egoism) are nothing more than a speculative expression of his "individual" and his individuality. Therefore, his exaltation of the "self" and its "uniqueness" is the exaltation of the "individual" and his individuality. 4. Stirner's ontology of the "self" is comparable to Lao Tzu's "Tao" in terms of its abstraction. 5. Stirner's philosophical methodology is to appeal to the special or the individual detached from the general, and to equate the special with the universal and the individual with the general. 6. Stirner's egoistic "self" is actually based on the members of bourgeois society - the isolated individual of egoism, while his understanding of the state, society and community is actually based on the capitalist state, capitalist society. The difference is that he has an appreciative and positive attitude towards the former prototype, while he has a contemptuous and negative attitude towards the latter prototype. It can be seen that his theory is only a manifestation of the contradiction and opposition between "civil society" and "political state" within capitalist society. 7. Stirner's critique of Feuerbach's "kind" doctrine is devastating. His "solipsism", as the counter-thesis of the "class" theory, together with the "class" theory, constitutes the two extremes of the subjectivity theory. This is a peculiar landscape in the history of the development of human philosophy. However, since Stirner opposes one extreme to the other, it foreshadows that his own theory will also go to the opposite. 8. The positive significance of Stirner's theory or its theoretical merit lies in the fact that he proposed a thinking mode centered on the "realistic" and "individual", which opened up new ideas for the understanding of people, and made people's eyes shift from the universal to the individual, from the "kind" and the common essence to the individual. This is precisely the basic significance and important enlightenment of Stirner's "solipsism" to Marx. Marx's conception of the "actual individual" as the "starting point" clearly contains the rational elements of Stirner's solipsistic "individual" ontology. 9. Stirner's "alliance of egoists" is nothing more than an amplification of his egoistic "self," the "self" reflected as an object or projected into an object. But its rationality is: first, it is made in response to the argument of "universal union of love" (Feuerbach, Hess); Second, it focuses on the recognition and enhancement of the status of the "individual". Thus, it helps Marx to think and determine the status and significance of the individual in the communist community, or the interrelationship between the individual and the communist community. 10. Stirner attempted to move from the abstract person to the actual "individual," and the starting point and focus of this theory was inherently materialistic. However, when he separates the "individual" from people's real history and from people's actual life processes, he fails to reveal the real concrete individual, but instead falls back into abstract universality, which leads to arbitrariness. 11. Marx's double critique of Stirner: a critique of his suprahistorical idealist assertiveness and a critique of his antisocial metaphysical assertiveness. The latter batch of judgments revolves around the aspects of individual and society, individual and class, individual interests and general interests, individual obligations and social responsibilities. 12. On the question of how to develop the subject itself, Marx and Stirner have two completely different models, schemes and designs: developing the subject through the mediation of transforming the object, especially society, and allowing the lonely subject to develop itself alone. 13. One of the logical formulas used by Stirner's metaphysical assertiveness is that the relationship between what is different from me and me is the relationship of alienation. In this way, Stirner declares any object (the universal) to be an alienation of the subject (the "individual"). Therefore, Marx's critique of Shi's metaphysical arbitrariness has gone beyond the scope of methodology itself, and it is actually a critique of Shi's view of alienation. 14. Stirner critiques Feuerbach in the same way that Feuerbach criticized Hegel. Marx criticized Stirner in the same way that Stirner criticized Feuerbach. 15. The final conclusion of Marx's critique of Stirner's solipsism is that Stirner's view of history is still in fact a religious view, and Stirner's original man as the starting point of history is actually still a religious man. Conclusion 1. In the history of the development of Western philosophy, the contradictions and antagonisms with idealism and materialism are intertwined with the contradictions and oppositions of "subjectivism" with the subject as the absolute standard and the "objectism" with the object as the absolute standard. This contradiction and opposition is concretely developed through the categories of subject and "substance", man and society, spirit and nature, freedom and necessity, essence and existence, general and individual. In ancient times, the category of "entity" as a representation of objectivist principles dominated. In the Middle Ages, the principle of subjectivism was formally revered, and Christian philosophy confronted the ancient world with abstract subjectivity. 18th-century materialism showed to some extent a return to ancient philosophy, which opposed the abstract subjectivity and spiritualism of Christian philosophy with a universal abstraction of nature and matter with reason. But not only did it fail to overcome the great opposition between subjectivism and objectivism that existed in ancient times and developed with history, but German classical philosophy, including the philosophy of the Young Hegelians, actually failed to overcome this opposition. 2. Marx abandoned the philosophy of the Young Hegelians and solved this age-old problem of opposition in the history of philosophy. Therefore, Marx's philosophy is a summary, generalization and synthesis of the two philosophical traditions of subjectivism and objectivism in the entire historical development of Western philosophy before its formation. 3. This summary, generalization and synthesis determine this essential feature of Marx's philosophy: it embodies the organic unity of the relationships, factors and principles of subject and object, spirit and nature, individual and kind, necessity and freedom, science and ethics, etc., based on practice, or the organic unity of practice-based subjectivism and objectism, the ontology of human existence and the ontology of world existence, which is a generalized ontology of social existence or a generalized ontology of natural existence. It marked the final end of modern philosophy, but because of this, it also constituted the beginning of modern philosophy. 4. On the one hand, contrary to Marxist philosophy, which realizes the synthesis of the two principles of subjectivism and objectivism, in modern bourgeois philosophy, the opposition between these two principles has become more acute, so that two opposing trends of thought, idealistic "scientism" and irrational "humanism", have been formed. On the other hand, while Western bourgeois philosophy has sharply diverged and generally followed the two lines of scientism and humanism, two similar opposing positions and tendencies have emerged on the question of how to interpret, receive and develop Marxist philosophy, which have been expressed in socialist practice. 5. The convergence of these two principles, which present simultaneously with the splitting tendencies of the two principles of subjectivism and objectivism, scientism and humanism, may be a sign of a return to Marx's philosophy as the unity of the two principles and its development at a higher level.（AI翻译）