青年卢卡奇是人本主义者吗？——基于《历史与阶级意识》文本的再解读

Is young Lukacs a humanist?: Re-interpretation based on the text of History and Class Consciousness

The traditional academic characterization of young Lukacs as a “umanist”, due to the lack of a clear definition of the question “what is humanism” and the neglect of the historical context in which History and Class Consciousness was written, has led to a misinterpretation of humanism as young Lukacs’s theoretical problematic, and fails to find out the antinomy of Lukacs in humanistic thought, so it is almost a kind of imposed interpretation. In fact, In fact, a re-examination of the definition of humanism shows that young Lukacs should not be called a “humanist”. Because, firstly, Lukacs criticized Feuerbach's, Schiller’s and Schelling’s humanism in philosophy and aesthetics, and he attacked the mistakes of humanism in theoretical starting point and means, but failed to distinguish between humanistic aesthetic ideal and Marxist aesthetic ideal in the view of purpose. Secondly, the Marxist-Leninist view of the subject, which Lukacs attempted to construct on the dialectical dimension of historical necessity and contingency, with class consciousness and party organization as its core elements, which transcends the humanistic subject theory of realism and nominalism.

将青年卢卡奇定性为“人本主义者”的传统观点，由于缺乏对“人本主义是什么”这一问题的清晰界定以及忽略《历史与阶级意识》成书的历史背景，导致其将人本主义错认为青年卢卡奇的理论问题式，并未能察明卢卡奇在人本主义思想上的二律背反性质，因而几近一种强制阐释。事实上，在对人本主义的定义进行重新考察后可知，青年卢卡奇不应被称为“人本主义者”。第一，卢卡奇对在哲学和美学上对费尔巴哈和席勒、谢林的人本主义进行了批判。他抨击了人本主义辩证法在理论出发点和手段上的错误，但没能在目的论上区分人本主义审美理想与马克思主义审美理想。第二，卢卡奇在历史必然性与偶然性的辩证法维度上，尝试建构的以阶级意识和政党组织为核心内容的马克思列宁主义主体观，超越了实在论与唯名论的人本主义主体理论。