| The interpretation of Marx's Philosophy has come into a rigid situation, which confines thoughts to some extent. Therefore, we have two philosophical tasks today. One is to oppose rigidification, the other is to re-read Marx's Philosophy. However, although we have found out the rigid and dogmatic problems, we cannot confirm the reason that causes such situation. We point to the traditional paradigm of the interpretation and regard it as the essential reason of rigidification. Within this tradition, people still can make reformed efforts of opposing rigidification, which makes it impossible to exhibit logical falsification. In addition, new interpretation reflects over the living environment and development status from respective view. Cut in multidimensionally to get out of obscure state, new comprehension divergence has appeared which leads the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy from the original monologue dilemma to the present polylogia dilemma. Then, we are bogged down in vexatious debates. In my opinion, the reason lies in the fact that the interpreters haven't understood the self-consistent rationality each other and produced ambiguity of concepts. We should reflect on a more prerequisite problem, that is, whether we have expressed our views to each other without ambiguity. Adopting the principles of semantic ascent, we postpone the discussion of the core essence of Marx's Philosophy and the truth temporarily. Furthermore, we discuss the philosophical concept, the conceptual framework, the meaning of the discourse system and their mutual relationship to offer valuable reference to the current interpretation of Marx's Philosophy.There are several similarities and correlations between concepts of philosophy and daily languages. For example, words form sentences to express ideas and concepts form propositions to express ideas. Concepts can be regarded as words in the philosophical field. Therefore, the dialectical relationship between words and sentences plays a critical role in understanding the relationship between concepts and propositions in philosophy. Besides, concepts in philosophy have special nature which words haven't, which concerns the complexity of philosophical creation and interpretation. Hegel and Deleuze, two important philosophers in modern history, have reflected on concepts. Hegel believes that philosophy is just self-evolution and self-realization of concepts, a monodrama of concepts. All, from the inferior to the superior, are contained in concepts and fulfilled from the internal to the external reality gradually. The concept is a so-called single-threaded development and pedigree existence, which represents a vertical thinking mode. Hegel presents the logic of human intellectual activities in the form of self-movement of concepts, which is the product of the modern scientific times and the times of the ideological system. On the contrary, In Deleuze's opinion, philosophy must elude the metaphysical thinking mode. He denies"identity"and admits"divergence". Opposite to the vertical thinking mode, he proposes a horizontal thinking mode. Philosophical concepts are created and not discovered, which carry individual creativity of philosophers. Any concept is a vibration center, all of which are vibrating. The connection between concepts is generated and there is no regular direction. Deleuze's comprehension of concepts has a more profound historical rationality to the current interpretation of Marx's Philosophy. His comprehension breaks the traditional closed self-consistence of concept nodes and provides conditions for new perspectives.Philosophical concepts connect with each other and are understood in a conceptual net, which forms a conceptual framework. The conceptual framework theory put forward by Wartofsky is the extension of Hegel's ideas of concepts. For Wartofsky, the exact connotation of concepts ensures the construction of the conceptual framework, which ensures the mutual connection between the internal thinking and reasoning and maintains the consistence of thoughts. The consciousness of conceptual framework originated in"scientific times". Therefore, it only adapts to the scientific field and can't solve the debated problems of the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy arrogatingly.On the contrary, Deleuze's concepts present a meaning of new conceptual framework. Because the connotation of such concepts is vibrating, the connection of concepts is not monosemantic, that is to say, the same propositions formed by the same concepts assume ambiguity. Thus, thoughts in philosophy are not directly realized from concepts to propositions, but they're realized through the recessive intermediate links which are carried by different conceptual frameworks. The conceptual framework is not the construction in which the scientific activities within certain paradigm ensures its consistency of thoughts, but a logic guarantee of clarifying ambiguity of thoughts in philosophical activities.The consciousness of conceptual framework is the consciousness of semantic ascent in the reflection on the interpretation of philosophy. So several characteristics are related to linguistic philosophy and are nested more complexly. In conclusion, the main characteristics of the conceptual framework in philosophy are as following: arbitrariness, generativeness, constructiveness, integrity and invisibility. The arbitrariness means that the link between signifier and signified in philosophical concepts is arbitrary. It also means that the connotation vibration of concept itself is macroscopically arbitrary. In addition, certain conceptual framework formed by the combination of connotation sites between concepts is macroscopically arbitrary. The generativeness implies that, because concepts are realized artificially in the process of being created and deduced, concepts are also a process of being created and deduced in the process of forming different conceptual frameworks, which is completed by philosophers or philosophers'community. The constructiveness means that, once philosophical conceptual framework is formed, it will naturally take on new philosophical thoughts and interpretations from a new conceptual framework to new ideological interpretation, which is filled with logical compliance. The integrity means that, a complicated and self-healing net is intermingled among the independent concepts in the conceptual framework. In the philosophical thoughts constructed by the conceptual framework and the philosophical interpretation, various opinions and theoretical principles are also intermingled into such tough net. The invisibility is relative to the concepts and propositions, the two polarities of the conceptual framework. They are dominant. Because dominant appearance cannot reflect the connotation switching of concepts rather than to comprehensive ambiguity, the invisibility of conceptual framework reveals the complexity of philosophical comprehension.After analyzing the meaning and characteristics of philosophical conceptual framework, I select three typical kinds of philosophical concepts,"Philosophy-Science","Materialism", and"Ontology"to inspect their conceptual frameworks. This dissertation tries to expound the conceptual vibration because of different comprehension to the connotation of concepts. Such vibration results in divergence in standpoints of conceptual frameworks. People show different attitudes to the propositions formed by the previous concepts.First of all, we reflect on the"Philosophy-Science", which is a couple of concept joints and consists of"Philosophy"and"Science", two basic concepts in the philosophical thoughts. People tend to inspect their relation on the basis of etymological meaning and the meaning of subject development history to find the positive trend. This dissertation argues that whatever inspection will meet doctrinal plight. Their real relation cannot be explored from the aspect of pure doctrine. There are different comprehensive connotations whether philosophy is science or not. Moreover, people master the rationality of recognition and rebuttal according to different comprehension. Such inspection is aimed to seek the truth whether philosophy is science or not."To be"cannot deduce"ought to be", so we should master it by"seeking the good". The discussion on the relation between philosophy and science is closely connected with modern development of science. The development of science leads to two totally different kinds of attitudes. For the first time, the development of science brings positive impact on the world, but philosophy brings negative impact because the speculative wind prevails. Science doesn't recognize philosophy. For the second time, the development of science manages to widen its"successful experience"on every field of thoughts and expand the scientific way of thinking and standard of value excessively. The two changes cause people to comprehend the concepts of philosophy and science differently, which is the connotation vibration of comprehension. It is why there exists the controversy of the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy on the field of Philosophy-Science. The rigidification of the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy and the proposition whether Marx's Philosophy is science or not forms a kind of proposition collusion. As we reveal, the confirmation of the latter is involved in endless setback"debate and correction."Next, we reflect on"Materialism". It consists of three aspects. The first one is the problem of"material"concepts; the second one is the problem of the opposition of materialism and idealism, which results from the corresponding concept of"mind"developed by"material"; the third one is the self-contrast of"materialism", that is, the problem of the concrete form of materialism. The construction and interpretation of Marx's Philosophy is based on"materials". It is constructed in the fight with idealism first and then argues"in which materialism it is realized". When the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy becomes rigid, efforts of opposing rigidification are reflected from these aspects. The re-inspection of the evolution of"materials"breaks the plain view of the former paradigm of interpretation to some extent. It points out that material concepts with modern meanings don't exist on the initial stage of history and"materials"have been developed gradually in the long history of thoughts. This is not the inspection on the history of concepts of Hegel's style, but it can be regarded as the inspection of Deleuze's style. It not only reveals"nonlinear"development objectively but also vibrates the past connotation of concepts subjectively. The deconstruction to the standard of demarcation of"materialism and idealism"is also a kind of alienation of the former paradigm of interpretation. Traced to its very source, the opposition of materialism and idealism is just the construction of discourse of Marx's Philosophy. However, because the construction of discourse is the logical framework which the thought of Marx's Philosophy displays and the opposition of materialism and idealism are within, only when the standard of demarcation is highlighted, will the alienation reveal rationality excessively. Furthermore, it only exists as a system of checks and balances and cannot deconstruct logically. Thus, the new interpretation will develop further to"the concrete shape of materialism". According to the traditional interpretation, Marx's Philosophy inherits Feuerbach's materialism. Therefore, reflection on Feuerbach to position and confirm it becomes the logical beginning of the argument in order to put forward the position of the new materialism of Marx's Philosophy. Because of divergences in comprehension, the reflection in this field still reveals the unconscious tangle of conceptual frameworks.Finally, we inspect the conceptual framework on ontology. The western philosophy has pondered over the problem of the ontology for over two thousand years, but we consider the concept and history of ontology from the angle of modern meanings. Heidegger reconstructed the philosophy of ontology in the way of"das sein seienden", which not only symbolizes the changes of the present and former philosophy of ontology, but also is the result of his choice of concepts of ontology and re-vibration of connotation. The birth of modern philosophy of ontology distinguishes ontology from pre-modern history and general history. The traditional interpretation of Marx's Philosophy and some new modes of interpretation still remain at the pre-modern history of ontology. They regard ontology as old-style thinking mode and deny it. Heidegger's philosophy of ontology is a kind of thought of realistic care, which has integration with Marx's Philosophy. So many interpretations keep affinitive connection with"Ontological Revolution".The problem lies in the comprehensive attitudes toward ontology, which makes the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy form two kinds of conceptual frameworks. They form the self-consistence of comprehensive within the conceptual framework and cannot find the rationality each other. Quine put forward Ontological Commitment, whose real implication lies in the fact that the respective rationality in different discourse systems is admitted. However, in the process of interpretation of Marx's Philosophy, the idea is applied mechanically and becomes the theoretical basis of the rationality of"discourse of ontology", which results in the barrier between the present and former interpretations of discourse systems, which is inconsistent with the original meaning of ontological commitment. More complexly, in the community who support that Marx's Philosophy is/contains ontology, people are involved in confirmed tangle again because they cannot agree on the problem which kind of ontology Marx's Philosophy is. In such controversy, Marx's Philosophy turns into the object of being recognized and becomes second-order natural objects, which makes the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy become contention of essentialism again.We have examined the conceptual framework of Philosophy-Science, Materialism and Ontology. The situation has taken on several times, in which different comprehension of the conceptual connotation brings different attitudes. However, the comprehension of the concepts and the approved attitudes toward propositions present in the relative independent range. As far as the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy is concerned, its complexity is beyond it. The complicated argument in the original conceptual framework is not only encapsulated but also forms more advanced, complicated and shuttled interpretation argument. In the shuttle of new conceptual framework, views on the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy begin to explore the evidence chain on the other conceptual frameworks and show its strictness of self-consistence on a broader meaning. Because the interpretation of crossing the conceptual frameworks is still closed self-consistence, such interpretation may form dogma difficult to shake in a wider range. In fact, such dogma has been formed in the traditional paradigm of interpretation. It is more complicated that many new interpretations of Marx's Philosophy have formed new dogmas of interpretation in a sense because they deliberately keep apart with the former paradigm.After analyzing complex relations between conceptual frameworks and the interpretation of Marx's Philosophy, we can understand that, under the circumstance of ignoring the existence of conceptual frameworks, contrary views on interpretation cannot reach an agreement in dialogues but conduct self-rehabilitation and self-defense in the process of criticism and accusation, which results in the closeness of dialogues. The embarrassing situation of"no thorough fare"impels us to reflect on the controversy. We come back to the ignored premise inquiry whether the present interpretation of Marx's Philosophy can comprehend Marx's Philosophy more exactly than the traditional interpretation or not. It is not the fact. The original anti-rigidification and the new interpretation are both aimed at the nature of the traditional paradigm of interpretation and ignore the non-essential exterior factors: time. The original misjudgment causes a vicious circle. Unlimited fights between criticism and anti-criticism, debate and anti-debate go around the"nature". The conceptual framework doesn't recognize the"nature""beyond the conceptual framework". We should retain positive consciousness of conceptual framework in the process of the interpretation of philosophical thoughts.
|
PDF Full Text Request