-
Materialism is precisely the conscious adoption of the naive beliefs formed by people through long-term social practice as its theoretical foundation.
-
Social existence is primary, social consciousness is secondary, and social consciousness is a reflection of social existence; it is not social consciousness that determines social existence, but social existence that determines social consciousness.
-
Since the emergence of Marxist philosophy, all attempts to reconcile materialism and idealism have been directed against Marxist philosophy. For example, old and new revisionists have all mutilated the revolutionary soul of Marxism, mixing it with subjective idealism (such as New Kantianism, Machism), and using this mixture to justify imperialist interests.
-
In primitive societies with very low levels of material productive forces, people can only produce enough to meet basic needs without surplus, so there can be no division between mental and physical labor, no class differentiation. As productive forces develop, surplus production appears, private ownership arises, and class differentiation and exploitation of people by people emerge. The exploiting class forces the oppressed to engage in physical labor, living off the labor of others. Some members of the exploiting class then use their leisure and wealth to engage in mental labor and research activities. This provides the premise for the emergence and development of philosophical thought. Without this premise, initial philosophical ideas (whether materialist or idealist) could not have arisen.
-
The proletariat, through its ideological representatives, has proposed the most revolutionary and scientific philosophy reflecting its fundamental interests — dialectical materialism and historical materialism — as weapons in ideological struggle;
-
In the famous essay “Talks on the Dialectical Method,” Lenin provided a profound analysis of the epistemological roots of idealism. He pointed out: “Human cognition is not linear (nor does it proceed along a straight line), but is infinitely approximated by a series of circles, approximated by a spiral curve. Any fragment, shard, or segment of this curve can be turned (or partially turned) into an independent complete straight line, which can lead people (if they only see the trees and not the forest) into a quagmire, into clericalism (where the interests of the ruling class are consolidated). The linearity and partiality, rigidity and ossification, subjectivism and subjective blindness are the epistemological roots of idealism.” He also said: “Philosophical idealism is the development (or exaggeration, expansion) of a certain feature, aspect, or part of cognition in a one-sided, exaggerated, and excessive manner… developing into an absolute that is divorced from matter, divorced from nature, and deified.”
-
Sometimes, idealism contains a reasonable core within its overall erroneous system (the error of idealism lies in its one-sided exaggeration of a certain component of cognition as something divorced from matter, not in discussing this component itself. If this exaggerated aspect is set aside, there may still be reasonable elements within its discussion), and critically transforming these reasonable cores can serve as nourishment for materialism;
-
As long as contradictions between subjective and objective exist, contradictions between the advanced and the backward, and contradictions between social productive forces and relations persist, the contradiction between materialism and idealism will also exist in socialist and communist societies, manifesting in various forms. This means that in communist society, when classes are abolished, the class roots of idealism also cease to exist; but this does not mean that the social roots of idealism disappear. After ten thousand years, contradictions between productive forces and relations, old and new, reform and conservatism will still exist; those who stand on the old and conservative side will still need to use idealism to defend their views. This is one aspect. On the other hand, the epistemological roots of idealism still exist, and the possibility remains for people to view problems subjectively, one-sidedly, and superficially. Therefore, even in communist society, the struggle between materialism and idealism will not end, but this struggle will no longer have the nature of class struggle, and idealism may not necessarily appear in the form of a complete philosophical system.
When Jian Sheng is taking notes, does he remember the contents of the book in his mind?
Indeed, my notes are somewhat doctrinal, but I use them to seriously memorize sentences such as “social consciousness is a reflection of social existence,” and I also make some associations, or think of sentences I can use when debating with others.
The simplest way to understand abstract principles is to give examples and see if they can be combined with reality. The method of giving examples is not only a way to teach knowledge but also a way to self-study and a way to test whether one’s knowledge is solidified. Especially in the study of philosophy, it is necessary to use this method frequently to grasp concepts. I often illustrate things with examples and also think of examples while studying.
When I think of some absurd idealist assertions, I can still use this knowledge to understand and refute them. But once I return to my own professional field and analyze specific problems in detail, it becomes very abstract and I can’t make sense of it. Let me give an example: I can understand that the internal space and external form of a building should be unified. I can’t understand whether a building needs decoration, what kind of decoration it should have, whether the geometric shape and color of the building need to have symbolic meaning. I am a bit confused about environmental psychology or color psychology—whether the colors and spatial shapes here will give people universal, consistent feelings. This is where I am puzzled.
For example, whether the form of a workers’ club should have strong sculptural qualities and whether it would be intended to be less serious, with a relaxed atmosphere. I don’t understand.
Exaggerating a form’s personal impact on individuals is certainly a fallacious idealist view, but is it necessary to shape a particular form to evoke or create a universal, normal atmosphere? For example, the exterior and spatial form of the Great Hall of the People are very serious and proper, unlike the atmosphere of an entertainment venue. But actually, I wonder why meetings must be serious and solemn, and why they can’t be relaxed, harmonious, and open for more participation by the masses of the proletariat?
The style, decoration, and color of a building are all part of the superstructure. The proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and smashing the bourgeois superstructure does not mean that the proletariat has no superstructure. I believe these still need to be considered.
In class society, there is no existence beyond classes. Taking the Potala Palace in Tibet as an example, you should know as an architect that its core colors and style have remained almost unchanged for hundreds of years. It is now called a holy place, a place to cleanse the soul, but previously it was a religious site for the royal family, where countless slaves who were tortured to death are buried, and their bones were made into various religious implements. Such a place would make slaves hate it to the bone. Is it the change in colors and shapes that turned the Potala Palace from a bloody place into a holy site? Moreover, you mentioned the Great Hall of the People, which is actually rented out. Do those who rent the hall for weddings or banquets really see it as a solemn and dignified place like petitioners do?
I believe the focus of architecture is not whether it should be serious or lively, nor can it provide a universal, consistent feeling for everyone. What is important is who designed it (the class), and more importantly, whom it serves (the class).
And there is no abstract seriousness or ease. A certain seriousness and solemnity are also reflections of the proletarian revolutionary worldview. The same applies to being lively and relaxed.
I took the exam this morning, took the train tonight, and I will get back to you tomorrow.
In fact, this statement is more idealistic. I think the reason why the “mainstream” discourse treats the Potala Palace as a spiritual sanctuary for the petite bourgeoisie is just to cover up the fact that Chinese Buddhism and the bourgeoisie regard the Potala Palace as a consumer symbol, aiming to extract profits through tourism. After thinking carefully, I realize that most of the environmental and color psychology knowledge of the bourgeoisie is also idealistic, similar to how I often see the following in my work when participating in project proposals:
Based on the seaside characteristics of the site, the project boundary conditions, and planning constraints, by retreating the vertical stacking space, rotating and twisting it, to enrich the spatial form, create diverse traffic routes, and enhance the spatial hierarchy and touring experience of small-scale buildings. The twisted top space forms a cantilever volume, bringing a strong visual hierarchy to the building’s shape and highlighting structural expressiveness. Responding to the natural seaside environment with simplified geometric forms, demonstrating a profound interpretation of the environmental context. Facing the sea, large glass curtain walls are used to blur indoor and outdoor boundaries, better echoing the site’s advantageous conditions, allowing the light and shadow of the ocean to penetrate the interior, strengthening the interaction between humans and nature. The exposed concrete material not only reflects the sculptural sense of the building but also establishes a tactile harmony with the surrounding rugged natural elements. The water features integrated into the building serve not only as a continuation of the formal language but also deepen the spatial narrative, abstracting the ocean’s dynamic characteristics into perceptible design vocabulary, conveying ideas of ecological protection and coexistence of life.
In simple terms, this lengthy formal language basically describes: it is a twisting building facing the sea, made of concrete, and what the architect wants to express as a so-called idealistic narrative is probably beyond anyone’s comprehension, let alone the client. The client only needs such a rhetoric that gently guides the petite bourgeoisie.
Yes, the so-called Potala Palace is a sacred place, unrelated to the suffering proletariat. (I’m not praising it, just giving an example)
Of course, just as this passage says:
The environment and color research of the bourgeoisie can be said to be filled with trash, but there are still some viewpoints that can be utilized and transformed, such as a building volume in the overall plan that is V-shaped, which indeed can give a sense of acceleration or movement toward the central endpoint; also, several rows of orderly columns that extend forward give a feeling of stability; and the bright red color gives a stimulus rather than allowing for the deconstruction of various strange and bizarre connotations.
So I think that regarding the external form of architecture, just as my comrades have taught me, without saying abstract words, just erase these excessive greasy, superfluous symbols of the bourgeoisie, and openly, simply, practically display the external form of the building along with the internal space and structure. It can be said that at this moment we seem to be returning to what so-called bourgeois architects call “returning to rationality,” but in fact, it is very different—we are returning to science!
I know, hahaha, it’s okay, let’s learn together! Progress!
So I think I can use this sentence to explain:
So we cannot treat buildings as an eternal monument, an entity of idealism that will never die. Since we the proletariat believe in science, believe that new and advanced things will eventually replace old ones, even in our socialist society, our buildings must keep pace with the times, keep up with the cultural trends of the proletariat, keep up with the development of building materials and structural technology, and move forward along the path of science!