【摘要】： 法學按照其層次從淺到深可概括為制度、理念、方法論,任何一種制度都由理論引導,而每種理論都有其方法論基礎,換句話說,如果方法論失當,由此而形成的理念和制度就天然的具有缺陷。本文并非要全然推翻由失當?shù)姆椒ㄕ撍傻睦砟詈椭贫?而是要指出其中的缺陷以使得對各種理論的思考更加全面。 當今中國法學界相當多的理論將西方自然法個人主義的天賦人權(quán)理念之上形成的契約論作為至上真理,不予論證而將其作為各種理論的前提,比如在張文顯系統(tǒng)闡述其“權(quán)利本位論”的《當代中國法哲學研究范式的轉(zhuǎn)換——從階級斗爭范式到權(quán)利本位范式》一文中,他直接借用契約論“國家權(quán)力來源于個人權(quán)利”“私法優(yōu)于公法”“社會與國家相分離”等觀點作為中國法的基本理念,但是他沒有看到這種西方法治理念的歷史發(fā)展,這種理念是與維護對資本主義有利的經(jīng)濟結(jié)構(gòu)和政治、文化理念相一致的,只是資本主義現(xiàn)實的片斷截取,它的邏輯與歷史并不相一致,于是,它對前資本主義社會的狀態(tài)只能用虛擬的自然狀態(tài)和由資本主義法的邏輯篡改過的自然法來描述。同樣的,按照歷史唯物主義的方法,社會主義社會同資本主義社會經(jīng)濟狀況相區(qū)別,資本主義社會以自由市場為基礎,而社會主義社會中不僅僅存在的是自由市場,更重要的是公有制經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展,所以,直接套用西方的法治理念是不合適的。在法理學之外法學領(lǐng)域,尤其是民商法界,這種指導法學發(fā)展和法的建設的思維方式更是非常盛行。這種情況反映了兩方面問題:一方面,法學研究者較少關(guān)注本國現(xiàn)實問題,更少關(guān)注本國其他學科,尤其是哲學、社會學、經(jīng)濟學的研究思路和成果;另一方面,法學研究者對作為法學指導思想的馬克思主義缺乏深入研究,在運用歷史唯物主義方法論進行研究的時候容易產(chǎn)生兩種錯誤,一是教條主義,一是以簡單的經(jīng)濟決定論和階級斗爭為綱的理由予以全盤否定。而對歷史唯物主義作深入的理解將會有助于摒棄法學理論界簡單的拿來主義和教條主義傾向。 馬克思主義是中國法學理論的指導思想,作為馬克思主義核心方法論的歷史唯物主義和作為馬克思主義終極價值觀的“一切人的自由”是馬克思主義精神中不可分割的兩個支點,因此,它們也是中國法學理論的方法論和價值觀,其中,歷史唯物主義是最根本的,因為價值觀脫離了正確的方法論就無法得以真正實現(xiàn)。馬克思主義經(jīng)典作家去世以后,資本主義社會發(fā)生了重大變化,法制和法學發(fā)展日益成熟,西方馬克思主義者運用馬克思主義思想方法對新環(huán)境、新問題展開了深入討論,特別集中于對西方主流法學理念的批判,這些理論對中國法學理論的發(fā)展有深刻的啟示意義。當然,西方馬克思主義者身處西方發(fā)達國家,其理論不可避免的有西方主流思想的烙印,但是,正是因為這些烙印,我們才能發(fā)現(xiàn)他們對馬克思主義的偏離,從而,從另一側(cè)面加深對馬克思主義的理解。 本文第1章將從方法論和價值觀的視角——近代西方哲學的缺陷——主客體二元對立、形而上學的方法論導致價值觀上的抽象的人兩方面闡述馬克思主義哲學對近代西方哲學的超越以及其與轉(zhuǎn)向后的現(xiàn)代西方哲學的聯(lián)系,繼而重點闡釋馬克思主義哲學與西方馬克思主義哲學的關(guān)系,尤其是西方馬克思主義對馬克思主義的繼承和偏離。其中,為了使得本文對西方馬克思主義方法論的闡述更具針對性,對西方現(xiàn)代法學影響力最大的代表哈耶克的理論進行了剖析,揭示其方法論基礎。在全球化條件下,古典自由主義經(jīng)濟學再次盛行,作為其新發(fā)展的新自由主義思潮的影響力在當今世界尤其是中國算是最大的,其涉及政治、法學等各個領(lǐng)域,當然,也包括它的方法論。而這一思潮的代表理論無疑是哈耶克理論,一方面,他作為西方新自由主義最具現(xiàn)實影響的經(jīng)濟學家深諳西方經(jīng)濟學的思路,以此來發(fā)展其法學,因而,他的法哲學具有典型意義;其二,其理論所代表的思路正是西方馬克思主義的主要批判對象。哈耶克首先是一個現(xiàn)代西方法哲學的代表,他將之前西方法哲學的理論路徑分為兩支,一支是建構(gòu)理性主義,一支是進化理性主義,他摒棄的是西方近代法哲學以盧梭、黑格爾為代表的形而上學的理性主義自然法理論,而他尊崇的是以亞當斯密、休謨等為代表的經(jīng)驗論的進化理性主義。進化理性主義,在哈耶克來說,建立在人的無知論和知識分散論之上,這無非是庸俗經(jīng)濟學的自由市場理論在哲學上的變種,是為思想市場。每個人的知識都是有限的,只有在思想市場中根據(jù)市場規(guī)則自由交換才能獲得指導自己行為的信息,這個市場里,人是分散的,是原子式的個人,知識是分散的,依照個人之間形成的自發(fā)秩序才能組織起來推動社會進步,而政府的命令不能違背這個秩序和它的規(guī)則。哈耶克的理論里,人還是抽象的人,只不過是能夠簽訂自由契約的人,至于他的財產(chǎn)、地位等等真實內(nèi)容都已經(jīng)被抽出去了。無疑,這依舊是另一種脫離物質(zhì)生產(chǎn)條件的形而上學。 第2章通過西方馬克思主義理論最具代表性和統(tǒng)領(lǐng)性的理論對西方馬克思主義的思維方法進行總體上的分析,這些理論包括有:體現(xiàn)“社會存在決定社會意識”的盧卡奇的總體論、體現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟基礎和上層建筑原理的葛蘭西:“國家=政治社會+市民社會”、體現(xiàn)馬克思主義價值觀的阿爾杜塞理論,最后是全面體現(xiàn)西方馬克思主義對馬克思主義方法論和價值觀的繼承性的馬爾庫塞理論。 第3章,通過西方馬克思主義者對西方法學理念的具體分析來詳細看其方法論,與此同時,將這種視角與中國理論界的理論和中國社會的現(xiàn)實包括全球化、環(huán)保技術(shù)、政治民主中的法理念及現(xiàn)實制度等問題相聯(lián)結(jié),以更好的探求西方馬克思主義對法學方法論的意義。 結(jié)論在于,只有在方法論上深入理解西方主流法學理念的背景和內(nèi)涵,并且將法學和其他學科的方法和成果相聯(lián)系,才能真正學會用馬克思主義方法論指導法學理論的發(fā)展。從對西方馬克思主義的研究中,我們可以看到其與西方各種哲學和思潮的根本區(qū)別,就是,它著力恢復歷史唯物主義這個方法論基礎和“人的全面發(fā)展、一切人的自由”的馬克思主義價值理念。法學研究最需要的是,運用歷史唯物主義對各種社會現(xiàn)實問題進行分析,堅持馬克思主義的價值觀,不應該被西方的法治邏輯套牢,不要以法學世界觀狹隘地觀察世界。西方馬克思主義對現(xiàn)當代資本主義社會和社會主義社會的社會政治實踐的社會歷史分析,為我們更加深入的理解資本主義運行機制包括法哲學和法的內(nèi)在結(jié)構(gòu)提供了豐富的資源,同時為社會主義在新的歷史條件下的法的理念、法的本質(zhì)、結(jié)構(gòu)和法的職能提供了諸多參考。從法學研究和法的理念來看,重中之重就是方法論問題,方法論不僅僅是指歷史唯物主義這個宏觀方法論,注重在經(jīng)濟、政治和文化方向上全面地考察問題,在微觀上,更應該注重社會學研究,不單是將社會學作為一種方法,也要將社會學研究本身作為資料和理論來源,以此來防止西方式法治的形而上學特性。
[Abstract]:Jurisprudence can be summarized as system from shallow to deep according to its level. Idea, methodology, any system is guided by theory, and each theory has its methodological basis. In other words, if methodology is improper, the resulting ideas and systems are naturally defective. We should point out shortcomings in order to make all kinds of theories more comprehensive.
A considerable number of theories in Chinese jurisprudence today regard the contract theory formed on the basis of the innate human rights concept of Western individualism of natural law as the Supreme truth, and regard it as the premise of various theories without argumentation. For example, in Zhang Wenxian's systematic exposition of the transformation of the paradigm of contemporary Chinese philosophy of law from the perspective of class In the article from the struggle paradigm to the right-based paradigm, he borrowed the contractual theory that "state power comes from individual rights", "private law is superior to public law", "society and state are separated" as the basic concepts of Chinese law, but he did not see the historical development of this western concept of rule of law, which is to safeguard the owner of capital. The economic structure, politics and cultural concepts of righteousness and advantage are consistent with the capitalist reality, but the logic of which is inconsistent with history. Therefore, it can only describe the state of the pre-capitalist society in terms of the fictitious natural state and the natural law falsified by the logic of the capitalist law. Similarly, according to historical materialism. The socialist method is different from the capitalist social and economic conditions. The capitalist society is based on the free market. In the socialist society, there is not only the free market, but also the development of the public economy. Therefore, it is not appropriate to apply the western concept of the rule of law directly. This situation reflects two problems: on the one hand, law researchers pay less attention to the practical problems of their own country, and less attention to the research ideas and achievements of other disciplines, especially philosophy, sociology and economics; Law researchers lack in-depth study of Marxism as the guiding ideology of law. They are prone to make two mistakes when using the methodology of historical materialism. One is dogmatism. The other is to negate it wholly on the grounds of simple economic determinism and class struggle. Understanding will help to discard the simple doctrinal and dogmatic tendencies of legal theory.
Marxism is the guiding ideology of Chinese jurisprudence theory. Historical materialism as the core methodology of Marxism and "freedom of all people" as the ultimate value of Marxism are two inseparable fulcrums of Marxist spirit. Therefore, they are also the methodology and values of Chinese jurisprudence theory. Historical materialism is the most fundamental, because values can not be truly realized without correct methodology. After the death of Marxist classical writers, great changes have taken place in capitalist society, the development of legal system and law has become increasingly mature, Western Marxists use Marxist ideological methods to new environment, new problems. Deeply discussed, especially focusing on the criticism of the western mainstream jurisprudence, these theories have profound implications for the development of Chinese jurisprudence. Of course, western Marxists in the western developed countries, their theories inevitably have the brand of the western mainstream ideas, but it is precisely because of these brand, we can issue them. Now they deviate from Marx doctrine, thus deepening the understanding of Marx's theory from another aspect.
Chapter 1 of this article will elaborate the transcendence of Marxist philosophy to modern western philosophy and its relationship with modern western philosophy after turning from the perspective of methodology and values-the defect of modern western philosophy-the binary opposition between subject and object, and the abstract human being caused by metaphysical methodology. This paper expounds the relationship between Marxist philosophy and Western Marxist philosophy, especially the inheritance and deviation of Marxism from Western Marxism. In order to make this paper more pertinent to the interpretation of Western Marxist methodology, Hayek's theory, the most influential representative of Western modern jurisprudence, is analyzed and exposed. Under the condition of globalization, classical liberal economics prevails again, and the influence of neo-liberalism as its new development is the greatest in the world, especially in China. It involves politics, law and other fields, including its methodology, of course. The representative theory of this trend of thought is undoubtedly Haye. On the one hand, as the most influential economist of Western neo-liberalism, he knows the thought of western economics deeply and develops his jurisprudence by it, so his philosophy of law has typical significance; on the other hand, the thought represented by his theory is the main object of criticism of Western Marxism. Hayek is first of all a modern West. The representative of the philosophy of law, he divided the theoretical path of the former western philosophy of law into two branches, one is constructive rationalism, the other is evolutionary rationalism. He abandoned the metaphysical rationalistic natural law theory represented by Rousseau and Hegel in the modern western philosophy of law, and he respected the classics represented by Adam Smith and Hume. Evolutionary rationalism, in Hayek's case, is based on human ignorance and knowledge decentralization. It is nothing more than a philosophical variant of the free market theory of vulgar economics, for the ideological market. Everyone's knowledge is limited and can only be freely exchanged in the ideological market according to market rules. In this market, people are dispersed, atomized individuals, knowledge is dispersed, organized in accordance with the spontaneous order among individuals to promote social progress, and government orders can not violate this order and its rules. The person who can sign a free contract, as to his property, status, and so on, has been withdrawn. This is still another metaphysics, no doubt, out of material conditions of production.
Chapter 2 makes an overall analysis of the thinking methods of Western Marxism through the most representative and dominant theories of Western Marxist theory. These theories include Lukacs'totalism which embodies "social existence determines social consciousness", Gramsci who embodies the economic foundation and the principle of superstructure: "state = politics" "Society + Civil Society" embodies the Althusser theory of Marxist values, and finally is the Marcuse theory that fully embodies the inheritance of Western Marxism to Marxist methodology and values.
Chapter 3, through the specific analysis of Western Marxist legal concepts to see its methodology in detail, at the same time, this perspective and the theory of Chinese theoretical circles and the reality of Chinese society, including globalization, environmental protection technology, political democracy in the concept of law and the reality of the system to better explore Western Mark. The significance of thinking theory to the methodology of law.
The conclusion is that only when we have a deep understanding of the background and connotation of the western mainstream jurisprudence and the connection between the methods and achievements of jurisprudence and other disciplines can we really learn to use Marxist methodology to guide the development of jurisprudence. The fundamental difference between learning and ideological trend is that it focuses on restoring the methodological basis of historical materialism and the Marxist value concept of "all-round development of human beings and freedom of all human beings". Western Marxism's social and historical analysis of the social and political practice of modern and contemporary capitalist and socialist societies has provided us with a rich understanding of the capitalist operating mechanism, including the philosophy of law and the internal structure of law. Rich resources also provide many references for the concept, essence, structure and function of law under the new historical conditions of socialism.Jurisprudence research and the concept of law show that the most important thing is methodology.Methodology is not only the macro-methodology of historical materialism, but also the economy, politics and culture. In order to prevent the metaphysical characteristics of Western rule of law, we should pay more attention to sociological research, not only as a method, but also as a source of information and theory.
【學位授予單位】：中國人民大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2008
【分類號】：D90

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 李強;當前中國社會的四個利益群體[J];學術(shù)界;2000年03期

2 郭忠華;吉登斯對歷史唯物主義的反思與“重建”[J];現(xiàn)代哲學;2005年04期

3 李紅專;吉登斯社會歷史觀研究——一種批判性的解析[J];學術(shù)探索;2004年09期

，

本文編號：2199441