毛澤東算不算個哲學家？

這個話題值得理性地討論一下。我有淘書的習慣，經常在Garage sale，花個一元錢，搬回幾本舊書。我就在我的書架上，看看能不能找到老毛在西方哲學中的影響。如果老毛的東西出現在西方哲學的書裏，也算是老毛是不是哲學家的某種證據。

首先去找的是一本我以前曾翻讀過的，法國結構主義哲學家Jean-Marie Benoist寫的“The Structural Revolution”，這本書首版於法國，那是1975年，英文版則是1978年由St Martin’s Press在紐約出版的。這本書的第二章的題目是：New Adventures of the Dialectic. 講的是辯證法的新進展，以及如何過渡到結構主義的。這本書中，引用了許多老毛的“矛盾論”的觀點。這本書的35，36，47，48，55－58，97，103和143頁，都提到了老毛的觀點。其中36頁的段話值得引用一下。 

這節的標題是The cost of enrichment, 作者總結討論了四個方麵，而第四點時，講到了老毛：

Finally, the hierarchy between principle contradiction and secondary contradiction, plus diverse aspects connected with this. It is to the essay “On Contradiction” by Mao Tse-tung that we own the introduction of this fertile conceptuality, as Philippe Sollers has pointed out in an article that has also become famous.

這段話裏可以看到，結構主義中的一個重要的命題是老毛在矛盾論中首次提出來的。

我淘到的另一本老書，是A.K. Bierman和James A. Gould編的“Philosophy for a new generation”, 這本書的首版於1970年，紐約的Macmillan Company （注意這是個有名的出版商）.  我的這本則是1973年的第二版。這本689頁厚的書裏，分十個部分。收集了柏拉圖，康德，馬克思到薩特等幾十位哲學家的著作。重要的是，這書中收集的Mao Tse-tung的四篇文章： Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom(百花齊放); Combat Liberalism（反對自由主義）; In Memory of Norman Bethune （紀念白求恩）和On Contradiction (矛盾論)。

再看看，Penguin在1997年出的Dictionary of Philosophy, 在這本哲學詞典中有Maoism一項。這個詞典中說老毛 has no independent philosophical merit. 並說some extreme-left political groupings in France, Peru, Cambodia,etc. have continued to profess allegiance to this ideology.

重要的是，最近一年Maoism在美國知識界又引發了爭議，美國的金融危機讓人重新反省資本主義與Maoism, 特別是奧巴馬的醫療保險的改革有帶有Maoism的影子。比如1998年諾貝爾經濟獎得主Amartya Sen，現在在哈佛教經濟與哲學的，在2009年3月26日The New York Review of Books發表了一篇文章反省資本主義和自由市場，其中有一段關於中國的討論：

The failure of the market mechanism to provide health care for all has been flagrant, most noticeably in the United States, but also in the sharp halt in the progress of health and longevity in China following its abolition of universal health coverage in 1979. Before the economic reforms of that year, every Chinese citizen had guaranteed health care provided by the state or the cooperatives, even if at a rather basic level. When China removed its counterproductive system of agricultural collectives and communes and industrial units managed by bureaucracies, it thereby made the rate of growth of gross domestic product go up faster than anywhere else in the world. But at the same time, led by its new faith in the market economy, China also abolished the system of universal health care; and, after the reforms of 1979, health insurance had to be bought by individuals (except in some relatively rare cases in which the state or some big firms provide them to their employees and dependents). With this change, China's rapid progress in longevity sharply slowed down.

This was problem enough when China's aggregate income was growing extremely fast, but it is bound to become a much bigger problem when the Chinese economy decelerates sharply, as it is currently doing. The Chinese government is now trying hard to gradually reintroduce health insurance for all, and the US government under Obama is also committed to making health coverage universal. In both China and the US, the rectifications have far to go, but they should be central elements in tackling the economic crisis, as well as in achieving long-term transformation of the two societies.

這段話，沒有提到老毛，但是明確指出了鄧小平的改革放棄了老毛的公費醫療與合作醫療是一種曆史的退步，而且已經帶來了人均壽命的降低。正是這段話引發了其他老美的爭議，認為Sen是為Maoism唱讚歌。見Amartya Sen on Moralism, Maoism, and Capitalism （http://blogs.nyu.edu/fas/dri/aidwatch/2009/03/amartya_sen_on_moralism_maoism.html）

綜上所述，我認為老毛不但是一流的思想家，也應該算是一流的哲學家。因為我認為一流的思想家往往具有哲學上的遠見與洞徹。這也是為什麽哲學詞典要將Maoism列為一項，我個人認為，Maoism在人類曆史的影響將會越來越重要。

[sunzi888]

怪哉！

毛澤東先生作為一個偉大哲學家的曆史地位難道還需要洋大人的首肯麽？

恕不才冒犯。。。

-逸寬