Philosophical Party Spirit.pdf (309.4 KB)
This article is my understanding of the issue of philosophical party spirit. I hope that, based on the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, it can provide some help for everyone’s study of philosophy.
Can you just send the text directly? Looking at the PDF is too cumbersome, and it’s not convenient for everyone to discuss here.
Okay, I’ll try it
I. Philosophical Party Spirit
Worldview is the fundamental view and perspective of people on the world and all things; philosophy is a systematic and theoretical worldview. Fundamentally, philosophy must also contain party spirit, which is the opposition and struggle between the two basic philosophical lines of materialism and idealism. In class society, philosophy is the worldview of a certain class, and it also inherently possesses class characteristics; party spirit is the highest and most concentrated reflection of these class characteristics. Chairman Mao once said: “Philosophers all serve their current politics. The development of proletarian philosophy is like this, and the development of bourgeois philosophy is also like this.” As a tool of class struggle, philosophy reflects politics; the essence of philosophical struggle is class struggle. As Lenin said: “Factional struggles in philosophy ultimately reflect the tendencies and ideological systems of hostile classes in modern society.”
Marxism-Leninism philosophy openly admits its proletarian class nature and declares itself as the worldview of the proletariat.
Ydanov once said: “The history of scientific philosophy is the history of the embryonic development and evolution of the scientific materialist worldview and its laws. Since materialism grew and developed from struggles against idealist schools, the history of philosophy is also the history of the struggle between materialism and idealism.”
Ydanov’s definition of the history of philosophy is scientific and adheres to party principles. The scientific history of philosophy we speak of is precisely the embryonic, developmental, and evolutionary history of Marxist philosophy (dialectical materialism and historical materialism). From ancient Greek slave society to the emergence of Marxist philosophy in the 1840s, this was a fundamental revolution in philosophy. The entire history of philosophy is a history of the struggle between materialist and idealist philosophies, intertwined with the struggle between dialectics and metaphysics. This is the essence of the history of philosophy and the fundamental reflection of the principle of party spirit in philosophy.
Because thoroughgoing materialism is a scientific worldview, reflecting the fundamental interests of advanced, revolutionary classes, the root of the opposition between materialism and idealism in class society lies in the contradiction between classes, specifically the opposition between revolutionary and reactionary classes. In today’s era, it is also the fundamental opposition between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Therefore, adhering to the principle of party spirit in philosophy has two meanings: first, firmly standing on the position of thoroughgoing dialectical materialism, and conducting a thorough, uncompromising struggle against idealism and metaphysics; second, firmly standing on the revolutionary position of the proletariat, with the two aspects being opposites yet unified.
II. Basic Problems of Philosophy
What are the basic problems of philosophy? Engels said: “The major fundamental problem of all philosophy, especially modern philosophy, is the relationship between thought and being.” The relationship between thought and being refers to two issues: one is whether thought or being (matter and spirit) is primary; the other is whether thought and being are identical.
Lenin said: “Through many novel sophistries and pedantic verbose expressions, we invariably see the two basic lines and factions in the struggle between materialism and idealism. The root of thousands of errors and muddled ideas lies in the fact that under the surface of various terms, definitions, verbose phrases, and sophistry, people fail to see these two fundamental tendencies.”
Phenomena in the world are nothing but material phenomena and spiritual phenomena; since philosophy is a question of worldview, it necessarily involves studying the relationship between matter and spirit (thought and being).
There are two opposing views on the issue of “thought and being being identical.”
To correctly understand the unity of thought and being in materialism, as Engels said, we must ask: can our thought correctly reflect and understand objective existence? Different answers to this question represent the opposition between agnosticism and gnosis.
People’s thinking can correctly reflect existence, and the key lies in practice.
Humans understand and transform the world through practice, and the relationship between thought and being is fundamentally a practical issue. Is practice subjective or objective? This leads to the opposition between the two basic lines of materialism and idealism. We believe that practice and matter are not opposed; practice is the “bridge” between matter and spirit; it is the active material activity of humans to transform the objective world; practice is the unity of subject and object. Objective matter without human practice is meaningless. The view of practice is the primary and fundamental standpoint of dialectical materialist epistemology. Without understanding the relationship between thought and being, it is impossible to understand the essence of practice.
The essence of humans is the sum of all social relations; human essence is practice. Mao Zedong said: “Through practice, we discover truth; through practice, we verify and develop truth. From sensory knowledge to active rational knowledge, and from rational knowledge to actively guiding revolutionary practice, transforming the subjective and objective worlds—this cycle, repeatedly and infinitely, each time reaching a higher level. This is the entire epistemology of dialectical materialism, and the unity of knowledge and action.”
Only on the basis of practice can human thought correctly reflect existence, with subjective reflection of the objective.
The history of philosophy is a struggle between materialism and idealism, intertwined with the struggle between dialectics and metaphysics. Given this, can we say that the fundamental problems of philosophy are not one but two?
Dialectics and metaphysics are two opposing worldviews and developmental views. The issue is that, fundamentally, dialectics and metaphysics remain opposites in worldview; their struggle runs through the entire history of philosophy. Can this be considered the fundamental problem of philosophy?
Hegel, as a thorough idealist, is called so because, as Engels said, he was the first to depict the entire world as a process of constant movement, change, transformation, and development, attempting to reveal the internal connection of this movement and development—this is dialectics. The law of unity of opposites, as the core of dialectics, is the fundamental law of the world. When revealing this law, a premise must be addressed: is the world ultimately unified in materiality or spirituality?
The world is a material world; absolute motion is the fundamental attribute of matter, and the origin of material motion lies in the inherent contradiction of matter; motion itself is contradictory. The reason why objective dialectics is objective is because it recognizes that the world exists independently of subjective will, as an objective reality, and the laws of dialectical movement are inherent fundamental laws of the material world. This is the thorough materialist viewpoint.
Thus, the question is clear: the reason the relationship between thought and being is the fundamental problem of philosophy is because it is the root of all other philosophical problems; solving this fundamental problem is the prerequisite and foundation for resolving a series of other philosophical issues.
III. On Practice
Concepts are scientific knowledge that reflect the essence of objective things, and practice is one of the most fundamental issues of Marxism-Leninism. Correctly understanding the concept of practice becomes a crucial issue. Is it correct to say that all subjective human activities related to objective social activities can be considered practice? Is this correct? This reflects a one-sided and superficial understanding of the issue. Such a view blurs the essence of the problem with seemingly plausible phenomena. According to this view, equating theoretical study with practice is reasonable; similarly, eating, brushing teeth, and washing face are also practice. Undoubtedly, developing this view further is extremely dangerous; it greatly vulgarizes the concept of practice.
Marx said: “For Marxist-Leninists, the entire problem lies in revolutionizing the existing world, practically opposing and changing the current state of affairs.”
Practice is the active material activity of humans to transform the objective world. The Marxist-Leninist view of practice is revolutionary; social practice is revolutionary practice, specifically manifested in class struggle, production struggle, and scientific experiments—these are the three major revolutionary practices. Practice is struggle; practice is revolution. Practice and theory are unified; therefore, the scientific Marxist-Leninist view of practice refers to the process of transforming the objective world under the guidance of theory. The so-called “active” means the conscious connection between social activity and theory. In fact, rather than speaking of the three major revolutionary practices, it is better to focus on the “two major revolutionary practices,” namely, class struggle and production struggle, because these are the direct revolutionary practices of transforming the world. The purpose of scientific experiments is ultimately to serve class struggle and production struggle; this is the scientific connotation of “being active.”
As subjective reflection of objective material activity, practice reflects the universality of contradictions; as an active, revolutionary social activity, practice reflects the particularity of contradictions. The essence of practice is the unity of subject and object.
Lenin said: “Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge because it possesses not only universal character but also immediacy.”
What is the universal character of practice? It means that in any specific practice process, as long as the common and universal conditions of subject and object are met, the same results will occur regardless of when and where. This is the universal character of practice. Naturally, theory also has a universal character. Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought are the universal truths. It is obvious that the universality of theory is merely a reflection of the universality of practice.
What is the character of immediacy of practice? Does theory have the character of immediacy? Because practice can directly act on and transform objective existence, it is activity that directly changes the objective world. Theory, however, does not have this feature; it only has indirect immediacy. Theory is not an active material activity; it is a reflection of the objective things and their laws of motion. Fundamentally, theory still belongs to the realm of spirit and ideas. Only through practice can the theoretical ideas become material forces; this is what Lenin called: “The transformation of ideas into reality.” Mao Zedong said: “Spiritual ideas turn into material things.” Therefore, theory divorced from practice and lacking direct immediacy is entirely unrelated to reality. From the perspective of practice’s direct immediacy, practice is superior to theory.
Once we truly understand the scientific meaning of the Marxist-Leninist concept of practice, analyzing the process of “theoretical learning” becomes straightforward. Theoretical learning is a subjective activity of individuals, not a material activity of struggling to transform the world. Only by applying theoretical knowledge from books to guide the three major revolutionary practices and engaging in the struggle to transform the world can social activities truly be considered social practice.
The correct understanding of subjective initiative.
Subjective initiative refers to the influence of human consciousness on the objective world; it is the subjective understanding of the objective world based on practice and the material activity of transforming the world. What does it mean to base this on practice? On one hand, it means that to correctly exert subjective initiative, it must conform to objective laws, which are reflected through truth, and truth itself comes from practice; on the other hand, the purpose of correctly exerting subjective initiative is to better carry out revolutionary practice, thereby more accurately exerting subjective initiative in revolutionary practice.
Therefore, subjective initiative is concrete action in practice, the unity of subject and object, and the specific activity of subjective understanding of the objective. (For the profound meaning of the dialectical relationship between subjective initiative and objective laws, see “On the First of Thought—The Dialectical Relationship between Objective Laws and Subjective Initiative.”)
Engels said: “Human thinking is supreme, yet not supreme; its capacity for knowledge is infinite, yet also limited.”
Lenin said: “The criterion of practice essentially cannot fully confirm or refute any human appearance. This criterion is also uncertain so as not to turn human knowledge into an absolute, yet it is also certain enough to wage relentless struggle against all varieties of idealism and agnosticism.”
The recognition of the opposition and unity of subjective understanding and objective reality involves the unity of absoluteness and relativity, the opposition of infinity and finiteness (the unity of supremacy and non-supremacy). Humanity’s understanding of the objective world is also infinite in the process of infinite development and endless practice.
Since the view of practice is the most fundamental standpoint of dialectical materialist epistemology, practice is the criterion for testing knowledge, the “bridge” between subject and object, and this criterion itself is the unity of the opposing concepts of certainty and uncertainty, and of the absolute and the relative.
Naturally, due to subjective-objective conditions and the limitations of specific, historical practice, the unity of subject and object can only be a historical and finite unity, within certain time and space conditions. The opposition and unity of subject and object, contradiction, are infinite; the movement of contradiction is absolute. The continuous resolution of contradictions between subject and object depends on people’s ongoing practice.
This is the true essence of understanding that “practice is the unity of subject and object in opposition.”
Therefore, general social activities like “theoretical learning” cannot be classified as practice, as previously mentioned. However, we can say that correct theoretical learning is the proper exercise of subjective initiative because reading and studying are themselves subjective understanding of the objective; it is the human’s subjective struggle and transformation. Of course, for individuals, the ultimate purpose of theoretical learning is to serve subsequent social practice, and the exercise of subjective initiative afterward is the subjective understanding of social practice.
IV. Does Idealism Have Progressiveness?
Lenin said: “All of Marx’s philosophical statements are centered on explaining the fundamental opposition between materialism and idealism.”
Correctly analyzing idealist philosophy requires adhering to the principle of party spirit, which is the most fundamental issue. Using the dialectic of universality and particularity of contradictions helps deepen our correct understanding of idealism. The commonality of historical idealist philosophy is its ideological route and philosophical essence; its particularity lies in specific, unique, and different idealist philosophical theories.
The principle of “main contradiction determines the secondary contradiction” means that once the main contradiction is resolved, all other problems are naturally solved. If we can truly understand the principle of party spirit in philosophy, then analyzing idealism correctly becomes natural.
The key to correctly evaluating Hegel’s philosophy is understanding whether idealism has progressiveness.
Marx critically adopted the “rational core” of Hegel’s dialectic and abandoned his idealist system. This is a well-known view, but the fact is quite simple. Hegel’s philosophical system is objective idealism; however, the progressiveness and positivity of Hegel’s philosophy do not lie in its idealist ideas but in its dialectics, which to some extent reflects the dialectical movement of the objective material world. The progressiveness here has nothing to do with his idealist “shell”!
How to correctly understand Lenin’s statement: “Clever idealism is closer to clever materialism than stupid materialism”?
Lenin also said: “Eugene Engels was able to abandon Hegel’s idealism and understand the genius truth of Hegel’s dialectic, which was for the purpose of dialectical materialism.” This also shows that the so-called “clever idealism” is not about idealism itself but about the “rational core” of some idealists, namely dialectics, which is the “cleverness” that should be abandoned. Lenin also said: “Marx and Engels regarded Hegel’s dialectic as the greatest achievement of German classical philosophy, the most comprehensive, profound, and rich development doctrine.” This further emphasizes that Lenin’s affirmation is about the great significance of Hegel’s dialectic, not his idealist philosophical route.
Lenin once said: “Idealism is undoubtedly a flower that bears no fruit, yet it grows on the living, fruit-bearing, real, powerful, omnipotent, objective tree of human knowledge.”
How should we correctly understand this statement? Revisionists take Lenin’s words out of context, but Lenin explicitly mentioned earlier that he deliberately ignored this. Lenin said: “And monasticism (=philosophical idealism) obviously has epistemological roots; it is not without foundation. Subjectivism and subjective blindness are the epistemological roots of idealism.”
Since human knowledge is not linear but roughly circular or spiral, any segment or point on the curve can become an independent, complete straight line (in geometry, a tangent to the curve at a point), leading people into the mud (idealism). The curve of human cognition is infinite; segments and points on the curve are infinite, and the straight line (the “tangent”) derived from it is also infinite. Erroneous ideas are infinite.
What Lenin meant is that idealism is the root of epistemology (separation of subjective and objective, theory and practice). This root is an important reason for the emergence of idealism, but it does not mean that idealism itself has any so-called “progressiveness” or that it “supplements” dialectical materialism. Because idealism fundamentally contradicts the correct materialist epistemology.
How to correctly understand the opposition and unity of materialism and idealism?
Materialism and idealism are united under certain conditions, as two aspects of a contradiction. The boundary between them is clear; they oppose and struggle against each other. The struggle between materialism and idealism is absolute because it always fundamentally opposes the question of which comes first: thought or being. Their unity is also based on this fundamental opposition, but this connection is relative because it is based on the absolute struggle of water and fire, as Mao Zedong said: “Under certain conditions, the two aspects of contradiction are connected and achieve unity. The contradiction is embedded in the unity, and without struggle, there is no unity.”
The unity of materialism and idealism is based on struggle and develops through struggle; struggle is absolute.
As for the transformation of the unity between materialism and idealism, Mao Zedong said it has two meanings: “It is not enough that the two sides of contradiction depend on each other; more importantly, the contradictory things transform into each other. That is, the two aspects of internal contradiction, under certain conditions, transform into each other, turning toward their opposite side.”
This means that the transformation between materialism and idealism involves both the transformation of nature and the transformation of position.
Since materialism and idealism are fundamentally opposed, materialism cannot fundamentally transform into idealism, nor can idealism transform into materialism. However, due to the incompleteness of specific philosophical theories and systems, there are certain idealist factors within them. Under the law of quantitative change leading to qualitative change, there is a real possibility of transforming from materialism to idealism. Fichte is a good example; due to his incomplete materialist view, he fell into idealism in his view of history. But this does not mean that scientifically correct materialism can transform into idealism.
The transformation of the status of materialism and idealism is easier to understand and less controversial. Social existence determines social consciousness, and social consciousness also has relative independence. The development of class struggle and production struggle promotes the dominance of materialist philosophy under certain conditions, which is a basic feature of socialist society. Engels said: “Any ideological system, once formed, develops in conjunction with all existing ideas and further transforms the existing ideas. Otherwise, it cannot be called an ideological system, that is, it is not treated as an independent entity with its own development and laws.” Philosophy, as a form of ideology, has relative independence; in the struggle with idealism, materialism develops and improves continuously, and under certain conditions, it transforms into the ruling ideology.
Development is the struggle of opposites; the root and driving force of the development of materialist philosophy is the struggle against idealism. The importance of this struggle affirms that idealism has no “supplement” to materialism, nor does it have any commendable aspects; idealism fundamentally reverses the dialectical relationship between matter and spirit, thought and existence, and is a reactionary philosophical line—there is no progress in it!
Some comrades recognize the reactionary nature of idealism but are confused about peasant uprisings.
Leaders like Zhang Jiao and Hong Xiuquan used religious forms of idealism to mobilize peasant revolts. Does this indicate that idealism has some progressiveness under certain conditions? Zhou Enlai said: “The class struggle in China is inseparable from philosophical struggle.” Since ancient times, revolutionary movements in China have been like a storm of wind and rain, never stopping. The more the class struggle develops, the more intense the struggle in philosophy becomes, and the more robust the worldview of materialism grows. Take Zhang Jiao as an example: although he used the religious form of “Taiping Religion,” in actual revolutionary practice, he adhered to the basic principles of materialism. Content-wise, this was revolutionary materialism, and this is precisely the most critical point—the philosophical root of the progressiveness of peasant uprisings. Naturally, content and form are in contradiction; this reflects the complexity of specific philosophical theories and also the limitations of the peasant class. However, this should not be used to deny the absolute struggle between philosophical lines of materialism and idealism.
V. Summary
In summary, adhering to the principles of philosophy means maintaining the unity of scientificity and revolutionary character based on practice, the unity of the proletariat’s stance, viewpoints, and methods, and the unity of theory and practice.
Our firm stance on maintaining the party spirit of philosophy is to uphold the fundamental interests of the proletariat and the broad masses of the people, enabling them to rid themselves of the influence of idealism and bourgeois ideology, and to clearly delineate the boundaries between materialism and idealism, proletariat and bourgeoisie—absolutely and unmistakably!
The issue of the party nature principle in philosophy is indeed very important because the philosophical struggle under class society is a form of class struggle. However, Zhao Jing’s article hardly discusses this issue, because the entire article talks very little about this aspect. In “1. The Party Nature of Philosophy,” the class struggle is only an abstract concept, and does not elaborate on the social basis of class struggle or why philosophical struggle serves class struggle; in “2. The Basic Problems of Philosophy,” it only discusses what the basic problems of philosophy are using formal logic methods, and why the basic problems are the relationship between thought and existence, without discussing the relationship between basic problems and party nature principles; in “3. On Practice,” it mainly discusses practice and subjective initiative, with a tone of etymological analysis; in “4. Does Idealism Have Progress,” it only discusses why to negate idealism, even exaggerating the analogy of spiral-like recognition movement and describing recognition movement with geometric relations. Therefore, it is hard to say that this article discusses the party nature principle of Marxist philosophy. Secondly, this article also contains several factual and logical errors.
Here, it is said that party nature is the opposition and struggle between the two major philosophical schools, which equates the class nature reflected in philosophy with the struggle between philosophical schools. The essence of party nature is the class nature of philosophy, for example, Marx and Engels engaged in theoretical work for the proletarian revolution, treating the achievements in human knowledge with the proletarian party principles, thus establishing dialectical materialism.
Additionally, most of the latter part of this section quotes Marx and Yudinov without discussing what the class nature of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are, what the roots of their class struggle are, and why philosophy reflects this class struggle.
Marx, by establishing historical materialism and the theory of surplus value, on one hand revealed the historical inevitability of capitalism, and on the other hand, uncovered the economic roots of the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the working class. In simple terms, the surplus value theory discovered how capitalists enslave and exploit the working class under wage labor, and more importantly, as capital accumulates, workers’ working conditions further deteriorate, wages further decrease, and the more workers work, the more they strengthen their own slavery. On the other hand, capital accumulation makes individual capital production more orderly, but social production becomes more chaotic, and economic crises become more severe, indicating that the capitalist mode of production can no longer accommodate technological progress, and a transformation is imminent. This reveals the direction of social progress: the entire society owning the means of production and conducting planned social production. The class leading this revolution and construction is the working class, because it is a class that arises and increases with social mass production, and since workers have nothing, they are the most selfless. Therefore, the class nature of the working class determines that its systematic worldview, the philosophy of workers, is the most thorough materialism, the most thorough epistemology of materialism. Since the proletarian revolution is a complete break with private ownership and private property concepts, the guiding theory of this revolution is the most thorough materialism.
Practice is the material activity of humans actively transforming the world, but saying that material activity has no meaning without practice is too abstract, because meaning is a form of human cognition. It’s like saying that if the objective leaves the subjective, then whether the objective exists or not becomes meaningless. But it is precisely because of the reflection of the material world that humans and consciousness are created in the infinite movement of the material world.
Another major problem of this part is that it does not explain what the response to the fundamental philosophical questions reflects regarding party principles. Instead, it discusses why the basic philosophical problem is the relationship between existence and thought, and why dialectics and metaphysics are not the fundamental problems (and I think the method used to discuss this issue is not very good).
First, philosophy is the science of general laws, and when humans engage in cognitive activities, the content of knowledge generally boils down to material and mental activities. This is the most abstract induction, so philosophy as the science of general laws must study the relationship between thought and existence, and guide practice with this relationship. Here, the relationship is divided into two aspects: mainly, the question of what is primary—thought or existence—within the contradiction between subjective and objective. Different answers to this question produce materialism (material as primary) and idealism (thought as primary). Since ancient times, progressive classes have held a materialist stance because the movement of the material world always progresses from simple to complex, from low to high. Therefore, classes advocating social change must understand laws to promote social transformation, which necessarily involves recognizing that matter determines consciousness (additionally, the progressive classes are also actively recognizing and transforming the world through production activities, which is the source of practice, for example, the feudal landlord class in ancient China). However, all progressive classes in history have been exploiters, so their materialism is limited. The proletariat, only by liberating all humanity, can also liberate itself; only through thorough transformation can the proletariat achieve its goals. Therefore, the philosophy of the proletariat is the most revolutionary and thorough materialism. Reactionary classes are idealist because they want to maintain their decayed and declining rule, and even after social change has occurred, they still try to turn back the wheels of history. So they strive to depict the world as they imagine.
The second aspect concerns whether thought and existence are identical. Answers to this divide into epistemological positions: knowability and unknowability. Generally, the progressive classes are epistemologists because they align with the direction of social and historical development, so they recognize that the world can be known, as Lenin said, “Without revolutionary theory, there is no revolutionary movement.” Reactionary classes, to prevent revolution, promote unknowability.
Moreover, in Marxist philosophy, identity is not just about the two sides of contradiction coexisting within a unity, but also about the transformation of their primary and secondary positions—“matter transforms into spirit, spirit transforms into matter”—this is the principle. The idea that matter transforms into spirit means that human cognition is not a mirror reflection but an active reflection, capable of understanding the internal logic of things through dynamic phenomena, thus using laws to achieve goals. For example, understanding of civil engineering and mechanics allows the creation of bridges that do not exist in nature, and before being built, the bridge exists in human consciousness with a purpose. More importantly, this reflects the heroic spirit of the proletariat to thoroughly transform the world, because it shows that understanding the world is for transforming it, understanding laws is for utilizing laws, and nothing is beyond cognition or change. Therefore, during socialism, many inventions and creations emerged. For example, in the Land of Dawn, workers at Shenyang Machine Tool Factory, to improve efficiency and standardize the production of lathe beds, organized design work and created a machine tool that could grind six surfaces simultaneously. The old bourgeoisie opposed this, and I remember Yang Xianzhen strongly opposed it, claiming that the Great Leap Forward and the general line exaggerated spiritual power.
The developmental view is an important aspect of philosophy, which studies the general laws of motion. In reality, pure motion does not exist, so…
3 Likes
(Since the previous reply basically discussed three aspects of the party’s principles of nature, the following mainly addresses the errors in the article)
You are too arrogant, directly modifying the three major revolutionary movements proposed by Chairman Mao. First, production struggle, class struggle, and scientific experiments are closely related but independent. Production struggle refers to social production itself, involving material production, so this struggle is between humans and natural forces. But humans are also social beings, and production occurs within certain relations of production, so class struggle exists within production, and class struggle can also be reflected in production. For example, the militarization of the national economy in capitalist society is the bourgeoisie to resolve excess productive forces, increase military power to suppress revolution internally and colonial peoples externally, and vie for world dominance; during socialist times, it involves whether agricultural production prioritizes grain to support socialist industrialization or only produces economic crops for personal wealth. The difference with scientific experiments is that scientific experiments do not create material data and may even consume accumulated social wealth. Scientific experiments aim to understand the laws of material motion and to control variables to bring about change. Scientific experiments are also conducted by specific people, so class struggle is involved here too. For example, in socialism, whether scientific research mobilizes the masses, whether it seeks personal fame and profit or contributes to socialist construction. If the purpose of scientific experiments is only to serve production and class struggle, dividing human activities into these two, then the difference is not seen. According to this logic, all things could be reduced to class struggle, since social production also reproduces relations of production.
This paragraph and the next are basically about literal interpretation, which is not very meaningful. Universality indicates general regularity, and direct reality refers to activities that change the material world. Moreover, this sentence also has issues; the universality of theory reflects general laws, not the universality of human activities in transforming the material world.
Here, talking about subjective initiative essentially refers to the nature of human practice, that is, the property of human material motion. But here, the property and the process of motion are defined together.
However, this paragraph does not discuss the party principles of idealism.
This is the part I mentioned earlier about exaggerating through analogy. Enlarging the curve into a straight line essentially states that human cognition is iterative; a comprehensive understanding of a thing requires repeated practice. Erroneous understanding is to exaggerate partial understanding into absolute understanding. But what does this have to do with the infinity of erroneous thoughts? Is it that a curve has a tangent, and there is an analogy between the thinking process and this tangent, so the properties of the tangent can describe the properties of thought?
Can Marxist philosophy, as a specific philosophical school and ideological system, transform into idealism? What idealist factors exist in Marxist philosophy, which is the most thorough materialism? This is essentially an abstract discussion of materialism without discussing the party principles of philosophy. Fichte, as a German bourgeois philosopher, dared not challenge the Prussian monarchy, which is why he fell into historical idealism in his view of history. It is not because any specific philosophical school necessarily contains idealist factors. The entire discussion of the opposition and unity of idealism and materialism is mainly a formal logical discussion, lacking concrete content, merely abstractly discussing the relationship between materialism and idealism. In essence, the relationship between materialism and idealism reflects class relations; Fichte’s philosophy reflects the duality of the German bourgeoisie at that time. Without grasping class struggle, discussing philosophical issues will lead to such abstraction.
6 Likes