Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front Phil Chin    2012, Vol. 7 Issue (1) : 128-141
The End of the Supersensory World’s Mythology: Marx’s Ontological Revolution and Its Contemporary Significance
WU Xiaoming()
Department of Philosophy, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
Download: PDF(254 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

The whole of Western metaphysics, particularly Platonism, sets up a partition between the sensory world and the supersensory world, laying the foundation for the mythology of the supersensory world. After Descartes set contemporary metaphysics on its course, Feuerbach became the first to attack the essence of the supersensory world on an ontological level and to transfer the criticism of theology to that of metaphysics in general. While in the final analysis Feuerbach’s criticism fails, Marx’s revolution appeals to the ontological notion of “sensory activity” or “objective activity” (i.e., practice), the core of which rests in piercing and overturning the fundamental framework of contemporary metaphysics—“the immanence of consciousness.” It is this ontological revolution which reveals the camouflage of the supersensory world’s mythology (i.e., ideology) and which simultaneously establishes a solid foundation for the critical analysis of the latter. Marx’s “science of history” is based on this foundation and develops from it.

Keywords Marxist philosophy      ontology      supersensory world      mythology      ideological criticism     
Corresponding Author(s): WU Xiaoming,   
Issue Date: 05 March 2012
 Cite this article:   
WU Xiaoming. The End of the Supersensory World’s Mythology: Marx’s Ontological Revolution and Its Contemporary Significance[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(1): 128-141.
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
WU Xiaoming
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] MA Lin. Toward a Multi-Layered Chiasme-Focused Topology: A Reading of Merleau-Ponty’s Later Writings[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(2): 242-269.
[2] SUN Ning. Embodied Perception and the Schemed World: Merleau-Ponty and John Dewey[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(3): 423-434.
[3] SUN Zhengyu. Chinese Marxist Philosophy Since Reform and Opening-Up[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 430-448.
[4] Selusi Ambrogio. Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 55-71.
[5] DONG Xinchun. Western Marxism’s Misreading of Marx’s Critique of Capitalism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(3): 466-482.
[6] ZHENG Kai. Ontology and Metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(3): 408-428.
[7] David Chai. On Pillowing One’s Skull: Zhuangzi and Heidegger on Death[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 483-500.
[8] Jeevan F. D’Souza,C. Kelly Adams. On Measuring the Moral Value of Action[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 122-136.
[9] Tom Stoneham. Quine on Quantification and Existence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 54-72.
[10] Markus Gabriel. The Meaning of “Existence” and the Contingency of Sense[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(1): 109-129.
[11] Helen STEWARD. Agency, Properties and Causation[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(3): 390-401.
[12] James O. YOUNG. The Ontology of Musical Works: A Philosophical Pseudo-Problem[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(2): 284-297.
[13] DENG Xiaomang. The Phenomenological Ontology of Literature[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2010, 5(4): 621-630.
[14] YU Wujin , . Marx’s ontology of the praxis-relations of social production[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2009, 4(3): 400-416.
[15] YE Xiushan. Levinas faces Kant, Hegel and Heidegger: Debates of contemporary philosophy on ontology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2008, 3(3): 438-454.
Full text