This post was created because some comrades previously suggested I create a theoretical thread for easier learning. Recently, I have had a lot of free time and decided to put this into practice, starting to read from tomorrow.
8 Likes
I had a question while reading the first chapter, first section: Comrade Li Da said, “As a special form of social consciousness, philosophy differs from other specific sciences in that its task is not to study the particular laws of specific fields, but to study the general laws of the entire world.” According to my understanding, the entire world includes the spiritual world and the material world, but I am not clear on what the development laws of the spiritual world are. Does it refer to the process of cognitive development in the theory of practice? 
Could any comrade help me answer?
Human thoughts actually follow objective laws; there is no subjective spiritual world independent of the objective because thinking itself is a form of material response. All subjective things originate from the objective and cannot exist independently of objective content.
The development laws of the entire world are the same, all based on the three main laws of dialectical materialism (contradiction and unity, quantitative change and qualitative change, affirmation and negation). The spiritual world has no independent development laws from the material world, nor can it have. There are two reasons for this: one is that consciousness reflects the material world, and the material world is the source of consciousness. This is easy to understand—if there were no world, what would consciousness reflect? The other is that the carrier of consciousness—the brain—is also made of matter. Without a brain, consciousness cannot exist. Some idealists refute that the material world is the source of consciousness, and claim that consciousness has its own independent development laws, arguing that everything in the world is just one’s feelings, and that these feelings are subjectively generated in the brain (why do they appear subjectively? This essentially introduces God). This kind of fallacy cannot be refuted solely through formal logic, because no matter how many times materialism points out that feelings originate from the material world, idealists will sophistically argue that everything they touch and see are feelings. Only social practice can refute this. For example, make you hungry for three meals, then let you eat based on your impression of the food, and see if you can really get full.
6 Likes
Understood
I just looked at the fundamental principles of materialism, and I can understand the statement that social existence determines social consciousness, but I don’t understand what the relationship is between spiritual life and social consciousness in social life.
Same question.
You can take a look at “Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism,” which provides a detailed explanation of what social consciousness is.
Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism Trial Lecture Notes Volume 1 (Department of Philosophy, Wuhan University) (Z-Library).pdf (15.2 MB)
Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism Trial Lecture Notes Volume 2 (Department of Philosophy, Wuhan University) (Z-Library).pdf (19.5 MB)
4 Likes
Okay, okay
It’s been a long time since I last updated here. I usually read books as well. Today, I asked a question and found a solution, but after reminders from comrades and some thinking, I still feel I should continue posting:
In the Outline of Marxist Philosophy, why does it say that after the realization of communism, the social roots of idealism still exist? I can understand the existence of epistemological roots, but since classes have been abolished, there should be no roots of existence anymore, right? I don’t quite understand this
Comrade Screw’s explanation: “It is also mentioned above that due to different levels of human cognition, there will still be progress and backwardness, subjectivity and objectivity contradictions, and the contradictions between productive forces and relations of production in a communist society will also lead to the struggle between materialism and idealism,” and Comrade Red and Green’s explanation: “Perhaps it is because their erroneous thoughts in their minds prevent them from correctly understanding the world, thereby making wrong practices.”
This made me realize that any contradiction in productive relations must be within the scope of consideration. It can never be viewed as a static, unchanging process but as an eternal movement.
5 Likes
Even if classes are eliminated, there is still struggle. Idealism is not religion; as long as the struggle between the advanced and the backward exists, it will always exist.
6 Likes
In the outline of Marxist philosophy, it is difficult to understand the dialectical relationship between the last stage of the development of the absolute idea in Hegel’s epistemology of absolute idealism and the first two stages. On one hand, Hegel is said to be an idealist, an objective idealist who believes that everything is a product of the development of the “absolute idea.” The natural world is the absolute idea, a product externalized after reaching a certain stage. The continued development of the natural world enters the spiritual stage. The continued development of the spiritual stage produces humanity. Thus, the natural stage enters the spiritual stage. This is Hegel’s philosophy. But isn’t he an objective idealist? Since the absolute idea itself is an objective spirit, does he consider the spirit developed by natural evolution to be an objective spirit or a subjective spirit? If he considers the spirit developed from nature to be a subjective spirit, can it be understood that Hegel believes that the derived form of the objective spirit is a subjective spirit?
I am completely confused about the philosophy part I studied. I learned it very chaotically (it seems I understood it, but I understand and don’t understand at the same time). I only know it is divided into Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, but I don’t know the specifics. For example, which part does the concept of development belong to? Is it Dialectics, Materialism, or Epistemology? I’m confused. Also, what is Dialectics, what is Materialism (do consciousness, motion, and the concepts of time and space belong to Materialism)?