Annah: (1) Yesterday I looked at the small dictionary of philosophy, which mentioned “Marxist philosophy,” stating that the two basic characteristics of Marxist philosophy are its class nature and its practicality. Why are these the two characteristics? It also mentioned that Chairman Mao, in his struggle against the opportunistic line within the party and revisionism internationally, always critically addressed idealism and metaphysical reactionary worldviews from the height of philosophy, inheriting, defending, and developing Marxism in struggle. Are there any specific examples of this?
(2) Regarding “The Basic Problem of Philosophy,” it mentions that Engels pointed out: “The whole of philosophy, especially the major fundamental problem of modern philosophy, is the problem of the relationship between thinking and being.” Why is it said “especially the major fundamental problem of modern philosophy”?
(3) What is the difference between worldview and methodology? I feel they are almost the same, so why emphasize methodology separately?
Fenghuo Flame: 1) Why are class nature and practicality the two basic characteristics? Actually, the entry mentioned this; it is the expression of the unity of Marxism’s revolutionary nature and scientific nature. All previous old philosophies were mostly created by exploitative classes; they packaged themselves as class-transcending philosophies but in fact smuggled their own class interests. Marxist philosophy is different; it openly declares itself as serving the proletariat’s interests. Because Marxist philosophy is the weapon of the proletariat’s liberation struggle, and the proletariat is selfless and represents the class of historical progress, having no private interests, it recognizes the world as it truly is; thus, it openly declares its philosophical views, and there is nothing it cannot publicly discuss. All old philosophies merely explained the world, while the issue was to transform the world. Because exploitive classes wanted to deceive the people, prevent them from understanding the world, and especially from transforming it—exploitative class philosophy either fell into idealist ethics in methodology or was at best a materialism that only recognized the talents of heroes or individual practice. Marxist philosophy is different; it tells the working people “matter transforms into mind, and mind transforms back into matter,” with the latter part being the key: after understanding the world, you still have to transform it. Because revolution is about transforming the entire human society, and it must be done based on scientific mastery of objective laws, Marxist philosophy emphasizes practicality, which also manifests the unity of its revolutionary and scientific nature. In other words, these two points both embody the unity of Marxist philosophy’s revolutionary and scientific nature.
For example, Chairman Mao’s writings on “On Contradiction” and “On Practice” came after the failure of Wang Ming’s opportunist line. Chairman Mao summarized experiences and lessons and carried out the line struggle at the height of philosophy, thus writing these two works as philosophy textbooks. Also, concerning the degeneration in the Soviet Union, Chairman Mao wrote “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People,” answering at the height of philosophy whether classes, class contradictions, and class struggle still existed after the establishment of the socialist state. For the first time, it proposed the issue of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and countered the revisionist tide spreading domestically and internationally.
(2) Because in ancient society, although there were disputes about the relationship between thinking and being (that is, the debate between materialism and idealism, or what we call ontology), in ancient times the struggles between materialist and idealist camps were not systematic, focused, or sharp. The struggles often occurred broadly over various philosophical issues. Therefore, this problem became particularly important in modern society. As for why the ontology problem became so systematic, focused, and sharp only in modern society, it is because ancient natural science was underdeveloped. People more so perceived the phenomena of matter rather than matter itself, so materialism’s content about matter itself only appeared as speculation, and the contradiction and struggle between materialism and idealism did not fully unfold. On the other hand, the class struggles in ancient society were mainly within the landlord class (there was some debate on ontology during the landlord vs. slave owner periods, but due to low scientific levels it did not fully develop). Because class struggle was not fierce, philosophical struggle did not arise either. A classic example is the internal Confucian debate over principle (li), vital force (qi), Dao, and tool (qi); the materialism vs. idealism struggle was often ambiguous—for example, Zhang Zai’s doctrine was like this.
(3) In short, worldview concerns how people understand the world, while methodology concerns how people transform the world. These two are unified.
5 Likes