“路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结”一书序言

马克思在“政治经济学批判”（1859年在柏林出版）的序言中说，1845年我们两人在布鲁塞尔决定“共同钻研我们的见解”——特别是由马克思所制定的唯物主义历史观，——“同德国哲学思想体系的见解之间的对立，实际上是把我们从前的哲学信仰清算一下。这个心愿是以批判黑格尔以后的哲学的形式来实现的。八开本两厚册的原稿早已送到威斯特伐里亚的出版所，后来我们才接到通知说，由于情况改变，不能付印。既然我们已经达到了我们的主要目的——自己弄清问题，我们就情愿让原稿留给耗子的牙齿去批判了”[407]。

从那时起，已经过了四十多年，马克思也已逝世了。不论他或我，都再没有过机会回到这个题目上来。关于我们和黑格尔的关系，我们曾经在某些地方做了说明，但是无论哪个地方都说得不够全面系统。至于费尔巴哈，虽然他在某些方面是黑格尔哲学和我们的观点之间的中间环节，我们却从来没有回顾过他。

这期间，马克思的世界观远在德国和欧洲境界以外，在文明世界的一切语言中都找到了代表。另一方面，德国的古典哲学在国外，特别是在英国和斯堪的那维亚各国，好像有点要复活的样子。甚至在德国，各大学里借哲学名义来施舍的折衷主义残羹剩汁，看来已惹得人人都讨厌起来了。

因此，我越来越觉得把我们和黑格尔哲学的关系，即我们怎样从这一哲学出发并且怎样同它脱离，做一个简要而有系统的说明是很必要的了。同样地，我认为我们还欠着一笔信誉债，就是要完全承认，在我们那个狂风暴雨时期，费尔巴哈给我们的影响比黑格尔以后任何其他哲学家都大。所以，当“新时代”杂志编辑部要我写一篇批评文章来评述施达克那本论费尔巴哈的书[408]时，我也就欣然同意了。我的这篇文章发表在该杂志1886年第4期和第5期上，现在这个版本是经过修订的单行本。

把这几页稿子送去付印以前，我又把1845—1846年的旧稿找出来，重读了一遍。其中关于费尔巴哈的一章没有写完。已写好的一部分是解释唯物主义历史观的；这个解释只是表明当时我们在经济史方面的知识还多么不够。在旧稿里面对于费尔巴哈的学说本身没有批判；所以，旧稿对于我们现在这一目的是不适用的。可是我在马克思的一本旧笔记中找到了十一条关于费尔巴哈的提纲，拿来作为本书的附录。[409]这是一份供进一步研究用的匆匆写成的笔记，根本没有打算付印。但是这些笔记作为包含着新世界观的天才萌芽的第一个文件，是非常宝贵的。

弗里德里希·恩格斯

1888年2月21日于伦敦

载于1888年在斯图加特出版的弗·恩格斯“路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结”一书

原文是德文

中文根据“马克思恩格斯全集”1962年柏林狄茨出版社德文版第21卷译出

注释：

[407]见“马克思恩格斯全集”中文版第13卷第10页；这段引文中指的是马克思和恩格斯的著作“德意志意识形态”（见“马克思恩格斯全集”中文版第3卷第11—640页）。——第411页。

[408]C．N．Starcke．《Ludwig  Feuerbach》．Stuttgart，1885．——第412页。

[409]见“马克思恩格斯全集”中文版第3卷第3—6页。——第412页。

出处：马克思恩格斯全集第21卷

Frederick Engels

Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy

Foreword

In the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, published in Berlin, 1859, Karl Marx relates how the two of us in Brussels in the year 1845 set about: “to work out in common the opposition of our view” — the materialist conception of history which was elaborated mainly by Marx — to the ideological view of German philosophy, in fact, to settle accounts with our erstwhile philosophical conscience. The resolve was carried out in the form of a criticism of post-Hegelian philosophy. The manuscript, two large octavo volumes, had long reached its place of publication in Westphalia when we received the news that altered circumstances did not allow of its being printed. We abandoned the manuscript to the gnawing criticism of the mice all the more willingly as we had achieved our main purpose — self-clarification!

Since then more than 40 years have elapsed and Marx died without either of us having had an opportunity of returning to the subject. We have expressed ourselves in various places regarding our relation to Hegel, but nowhere in a comprehensive, connected account. To Feuerbach, who after all in many respects forms an intermediate link between Hegelian philosophy and our conception, we never returned.

In the meantime, the Marxist world outlook has found representatives far beyond the boundaries of Germany and Europe and in all the literary languages of the world. On the other hand, classical German philosophy is experiencing a kind of rebirth abroad, especially in England and Scandinavia, and even in Germany itself people appear to be getting tired of the pauper’s broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities there under the name of philosophy.

In these circumstances, a short, coherent account of our relation to the Hegelian philosophy, of how we proceeded, as well as of how we separated, from it, appeared to me to be required more and more. Equally, a full acknowledgement of the influence which Feuerbach, more than any other post-Hegelian philosopher, had upon us during our period of storm and stress, appeared to me to be an undischarged debt of honor. I therefore willingly seized the opportunity when the editors of Neue Zeit asked me for a critical review of Starcke’s book on Feuerbach. My contribution was published in that journal in the fourth and fifth numbers of 1886 and appears here in revised form as a separate publication.

Before sending these lines to press, I have once again ferreted out and looked over the old manuscript of 1845–46 [The German Ideology].

The section dealing with Feuerbach is not completed. The finished portion consists of an exposition of the materialist conception of history which proves only how incomplete our knowledge of economic history still was at that time. It contains no criticism of Feuerbach’s doctrine itself; for the present purposes, therefore, it was unusable. On the other hand, in an old notebook of Marx’s I have found the 11 Theses on Feuerbach, printed here as an appendix.

These are notes hurriedly scribbled down for later elaboration, absolutely not intended for publication, but invaluable as the first document in which is deposited the brilliant germ of the new world outlook.

Frederick Engels

London

February 21, 1888