文章编号：1672-3104(2018)02-0008-07

摘 要： 高超博士在《略论对〈资本论〉的越界阐释》一文中从三个不同层次分析并提出了当今《资本论》研究领域所呈现出的几个问题：①《资本论》科学性的弱化；②哲学作品的泛化；③《资本论》革命性的曲解。他认为，《资本论》的科学性来自数学的应用，强调对其哲学意义的阐发代表对其科学意义的否定，而且从其内容和外延来看，《资本论》不应划入哲学，最后，既然“革命”应该是同一领域内的新学说代替旧学说，恩格斯的“术语革命”就意味着马克思的《资本论》应该被定义为政治经济学著作。但是，文章中的一些内容存在值得商榷之处，一是《资本论》的科学性来自数学的应用；二是《资本论》被哲学泛化解读；三是混淆了唯物史观著作及其哲学思想。

关键词： 《资本论》；形式；内容；科学；哲学

Abstract: In his essay “Trans-boundary Interpretation ofDas Kapital,” Dr. Gao Chao analyzes and puts forward several problems in the recent research ofDas Kapitalfrom such three different levels as the weakening of the science nature ofDas Kapital, philosophical explaining of different works and the revolutionary distortion of capital. He believes that the science nature of capital comes from the application of mathematics, that emphasizing its philosophical meaning means negation to its scientific significance, that from the content and extension of the work,Das Kapitalshould not be classified into philosophy, and finally that, since the “revolution” should be the new theory in the same field instead of the old one, Engels’ term “revolution” means that Marx'sDas Kapitalshould be defined as a work of political economics. However, some of the views in Dr. Gao's essay are debatable, among which the first is that the science of capital comes from the application of mathematics, the second is thatDas Kapitalis interpreted by the philosophical generalization, and the third is the confusing of historical materialism and its philosophical thought.