[Temporary] Some notes & questions while reading the Marxist philosophy outline (long-term update)

[螺丝钉]

Preface: I have always been reading books offline, and my notes have always been written directly on the books. Now that I have reached the second chapter, it is not only quite difficult (due to too many photos) to upload all the notes from previous pages at once, but also the notes are messy and not suitable for review. Therefore, I will temporarily post my questions from my reading here as a temporary post, and find another way to organize the notes. When the time comes, I will compile them into a comprehensive post.

First article, Chapter 3, Section 2:

Sophistry does not deny the relevant connections of things in an unusual way, but it opposes objective, specific analysis of the real connections of a particular thing. It can, according to the needs of bourgeois interests, extract scattered fragments from the entire real connection of things and arbitrarily fabricate some connections that do not actually exist.

This paragraph is quite abstract. Please give an example for better understanding.

Second article, Chapter 1, Section 1:

1. It states:

Animism divides the world into flesh and spirit (i.e., matter and spirit), also showing the beginning of human conscious struggle against nature.

Why? Does the struggle specifically refer to human productive activities?

2. It states:

······ On the other hand, due to the development of productive forces, the emergence of surplus products, the formation of private property, the appearance of slavery, etc., the fact that social forces are incomprehensible continues under new social conditions.

What is meant by the incomprehensibility of social forces?

3. It states:

In primitive times, productivity was extremely low, and individuals had to rely on clans for survival. Therefore, clan relationships and blood relationships at that time are aspects of production relations.

Please give an example related to sophistry.

[vvv]

@Screw

Please give an example for better understanding.

An example I thought of, not sure if it’s appropriate: feudal parents wash your clothes and cook for you, support your studies, and raise you into a parasite who is unskilled in physical labor and ignorant of grains. They call this being good for you, but what is the actual situation?

[typhoon]

@螺丝钉

Sophistry does not deny the relevant connections of things in an unusual way, but it opposes the objective and specific analysis of the real connections of a particular thing. It can, based on the needs of bourgeois interests, extract scattered fragments of things from the entire real connection of the whole, and arbitrarily fabricate some connections that do not actually exist.

For example, it is clear that workers produce social wealth through labor, but the bourgeoisie is just a parasite that survives by exploiting the surplus value of workers through their right to use the means of production. But the bourgeoisie extracts the fact that capitalists pay wages to workers and claims that the boss is supporting the workers.

@螺丝钉

Animism divides the world into flesh and soul (i.e., matter and spirit), which also reflects the beginning of human conscious struggle against nature.

Because animism believes that natural phenomena and the changes in natural objects’ movement are the activities of their souls, this is an attempt to understand the internal laws of motion of things. Only through human conscious struggle against nature can understanding be deepened to grasp the essence of things.

@螺丝钉

… but on the other hand, due to the development of productive forces, the appearance of surplus products, the formation of private ownership, the emergence of slavery, etc., the incomprehensible facts of social forces continue under new social conditions.

The incomprehensibility of social forces means not understanding why private ownership appears and why phenomena of oppression of one person by another occur. A correct understanding of social movements can only be achieved through Marx’s creation of historical materialism, whereas all previous old philosophies in the social realm are idealist.

@螺丝钉

The production forces in primitive times were extremely low, and individuals had to rely on clans to survive. Therefore, the clan relations and kinship relations at that time were aspects of the relations of production.

Because productive forces were low, people could not survive relying on just one person, and could only work collectively and distribute collectively within primitive communes. This formed the relations of production of primitive communism in primitive society.

[螺丝钉]

Now that the reading plan is set, there must be some effect; it can’t be all talk and no action, so I’m starting to write reading notes again. Please, Fenghuo, remove the word “temporary” from the title, I can’t edit it here. The main content of the notes is examples I gave myself; if there are any biases, comrades please point them out.

First Article

Preface

Worldview is people’s general view of the entire world.

“General view” means people’s views on fundamental questions about the world. For example, is there a god or not? Do humans have souls? These kinds of questions.

Each class has its own worldview, and each class must understand and transform the world according to its own worldview. The struggle between different worldviews reflects and serves the economic and political struggles between different classes.

That is to say: 1. There is no worldview above class; 2. There will be struggles between different worldviews, and these struggles accompany class struggles. Regarding “…and transform the world,” I don’t quite understand. Can it be understood as: believers who trust religion and think the world has a god (under their own worldview) will go around preaching their doctrines, building churches, and recruiting believers (transforming the world)?

Everyone has a certain class worldview and observes and handles problems under some worldview, although some people may not consciously realize this; their worldview may not take a systematic or theoretical form.

This again confirms that there is no worldview above class. Some people have everyday thoughts and feel philosophy is far from their lives and unnecessary to study, but they are still observing and handling problems under their class worldview, which is usually very simple and not a systematic theory.

Thinkers of each class, based on their class position and interests, using certain knowledge of production struggle and class struggle as material, create a systematic and theoretical worldview to serve their class. This systematic and theoretical worldview is philosophy.

This defines philosophy: since philosophy is a worldview, there is also no philosophy above class. The so-called “philosophy of life” promoted by revisionists seems to be for everyone, ignoring class altogether.

The following is a bit long, organized as:

1. Philosophy is not far from real life; people’s production struggles and class struggles are inseparable from these issues. An example of a capitalist and a worker was given, vividly illustrating the class nature of philosophy. Reactionary classes oppose workers’ strikes because of their class interests, so they try to prevent and divide workers’ struggles by promoting idealism and metaphysical thoughts, making people believe a god will save them instead of fighting for their rights themselves. This also explains why the revisionist state claims to be atheist yet idealism and religion flourish, and some party members are believers. My sister is like this; she is a party member but believes in feng shui.

2. Philosophy has class and party nature; reactionary classes always claim their class philosophy is impartial and serves all humanity to deceive people. Marxists resolutely expose this lie, point out the class and party nature of all classes, and openly declare their philosophy serves the proletariat. This is the third time the class nature of philosophy is mentioned. (Since Marxist philosophy serves the proletariat, then woodlee, this petit-bourgeois indulging in debauchery, praising dialectical materialism, is probably just a hypocrite, with no real desire to transform.)

3. The most important and fundamental issue in thousands of years of philosophical struggle is the relationship between spirit and matter. This issue has two aspects: first, which is primary, spirit or matter? Those who believe matter is primary and determines spirit are materialists; the opposite is idealism. Idealists in ancient Greece include Socrates and Plato; in China, Confucius and Laozi. They defended reactionary slave-owning classes, and their doctrines were later used by feudal landlords and the bourgeoisie, such as Emperor Wu of Han dismissing other schools and promoting Confucianism (though I heard Emperor Wu still implemented Legalism, and the Han dynasty later truly adopted Confucianism), Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism and the eight-legged essay imperial exams, and now the revisionists promoting “excellent traditional Chinese culture,” etc. I don’t know much about Western philosophy history, only that Berkeley and Hume were mentioned in a reading club. Back to the main topic.
   Second, can spirit know matter? Those who believe spirit can know matter are agnostic; the opposite is agnostic skepticism. One of my classmates advocates agnosticism, believing the world is unknowable, and used the limitation of induction—that one cannot be sure the next practice will follow the law—to refute me. I couldn’t respond at the time, but comrades later pointed out that phenomena not conforming to the law only mean new laws exist, not that old laws are wrong.

4. Questions about whether the world develops, why it develops, and how it develops are also major issues in philosophical struggle. Those who believe all things have internal opposing elements, i.e., contradictions, and that things develop and change driven by contradictions, including quantitative and qualitative changes, hold the dialectical view of development. Conversely, those who believe things have no contradictions, no qualitative change, only quantitative change, hold the metaphysical view of development. Here I have a doubt: I gave the example of bamboo shoots slowly growing into bamboo, but I can’t find the contradiction in this example. Class contradictions, contradictions between productive forces and relations of production, etc., feel like social science examples. Since contradictions exist in all things, what are the contradictions in natural phenomena? I hope comrades can explain. If this example is inappropriate, I hope comrades can provide new examples.

5. In summary, progressive classes generally support materialism, agnosticism, and dialectics; reactionary classes support idealism, agnostic skepticism, and metaphysics.

6. Why was philosophy before Marxism never truly scientific or thoroughly revolutionary?
   Answer: First, previous philosophy was basically the philosophy of exploiting classes, which distorted the true appearance of the world due to class interests. Second, due to underdeveloped productive forces and lack of scientific knowledge. Philosophy in the 16th and 17th centuries was like this; lacking materials to study connections between things, people could only guess these connections. The proletariat, suffering exploitation and oppression, is the most progressive and revolutionary class; they demand a truthful depiction of the world. Moreover, under capitalism, productive forces developed and scientific knowledge greatly enriched, so Marxist philosophy serving the proletariat is truly scientific and thoroughly revolutionary.

[vvv]

@螺丝钉

And transforming the world" here I don’t understand

The purpose of understanding the world is to transform it. If it’s just thinking about it without practice, then it is completely meaningless and will not have any impact on the material world. If the ruling class does not transform the world according to their own worldview, they will not be able to maintain their class status, just as the bourgeoisie believes exploitation is justified and thus engages in exploitation activities, which is to continuously reproduce capitalist production relations and maintain their exploitative position. The proletariat, on the other hand, believes exploitation is unjust and must overthrow all systems of exploitation and oppression, hence the need for proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat, to elevate themselves to the ruling class, overthrow all exploitative classes, eliminate all old ideas and old culture, and achieve true human liberation. However, once there is any relaxation, bourgeois legal rights tend to expand, ultimately leading to the revival of capitalism. Therefore, merely understanding the world is far from enough.

@螺丝钉

The example of bamboo shoots gradually growing into bamboo, but I can’t find the contradiction in this example

The fundamental contradiction in biological movement is the contradiction between assimilation and alienation. When an organism grows strong, assimilation is the main aspect, while when it declines, alienation becomes the main aspect. When the organism dies, the struggle between these two contradictions also terminates.

[AfterBurner]

@螺丝钉

“General opinion” refers to people’s views on fundamental questions about the world. For example, is the world divine or atheistic? Do humans have souls? These kinds of questions.

The “general” in “general opinion” means widespread. It’s not just about big questions, but also about universally applicable issues like “whether to acknowledge that contradictions exist within things.”

[兴无]

@螺丝钉

Emperor Wu of Han dismissed the hundred schools and exclusively respected Confucianism (but I heard that Emperor Wu of Han still promoted Legalist policies, and only later did the Han Dynasty truly adopt the Confucian route)

Emperor Wu of Han was a Legalist figure; he implemented a policy of external Confucianism and internal Legalism. In history, many Confucian loyalists cursed Emperor Wu of Han. He also employed many Legalist politicians such as Sang Hongyang and Shu Fuhui. Moreover, it was through Emperor Wu’s series of reforms that the feudal system was thoroughly consolidated, with no worries of a slave system revival.
As for Dong Zhongshu, he was not heavily utilized during Emperor Wu’s reign; the old scholar was merely assigned a nominal position because he promoted Confucianism and fiercely opposed Emperor Wu’s Legalist measures, even being thrown into prison at one point. It was only during Emperor Yuan’s reign that the ideas of respecting Confucianism and opposing Legalism were actually implemented.

[螺丝钉]

Understood, thank you

[螺丝钉]

This is assimilation and alienation, right? I found alienation in the “Philosophy Mini Dictionary,” but it wasn’t biological. I had to look it up online to understand.

[vvv]

Yes, you can also refer to Engels’ description of the relationship between assimilation and alienation.

Similarly, it is impossible to determine the exact moment of death, because physiology proves that death is not sudden or instantaneous, but a long process. Likewise, at every moment, any organism is itself and yet not itself; at every moment, it assimilates substances supplied from the outside and excretes other substances; at every moment, cells in its body are dying and new cells are forming; after a longer or shorter period, the material of this organism is completely renewed, replaced by atoms of other substances, so every organism is always itself and at the same time something else. — “Anti-Dühring”

[红术]

@螺丝钉

Chapter 3, Section 2 of the First Article:

Sophistry does not generally deny the relevant connections of things, but it opposes objective analysis of the real connections of a specific thing. It can, according to the needs of bourgeois interests, extract scattered fragments of things from the entire real connection of the whole thing and arbitrarily fabricate some connections that do not actually exist.
This passage is quite abstract, so everyone please give an example for better understanding.

Because sophistry aims to use the perspective of connections to prove a point, it does not generally deny the universal connections between things; however, it distorts facts. For example, the bourgeois claim that Liu Qiangdong is a great benefactor because he provides social security for delivery riders through JD.com; but in reality, Liu Qiangdong is actually trying to seize the market to become a new monopoly giant in the delivery industry, using useless social security to bind riders and then exploiting them through various means, essentially supporting the platform with the riders’ labor, etc. This fact is erased, and only the point that Liu Qiangdong pays social security is highlighted.
Another example is the popular claim promoted by bourgeois academia that someone lives a good life because they study hard and get good grades, while someone who lives a hard life does so because they do not study well and have poor grades. In fact, living standards are determined by class and social status, not by academic opportunism, which is also decided by the bourgeoisie. The educational resources in big cities versus small towns, the resources and conditions enjoyed by the bourgeoisie and the masses, differ greatly—so much so that even if someone succeeds through opportunism, it often means they have become a worker elite, leveraging bourgeois power to exploit workers and live a good life. These aspects are ignored—they only isolate the issue of academic opportunism and ignore the broader social relations.
The “Small Dictionary of Philosophy” (on Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism) discusses sophistry:

@螺丝钉

2. The text states:

······ But on the other hand, due to the development of productive forces, the emergence of surplus products, the formation of private ownership, the appearance of slavery, etc., the fact of social forces that cannot be understood continues under new social conditions.
What does “the fact of social forces that cannot be understood” mean?

This essentially means that after humans entered the private ownership society, although they gradually freed themselves from the control of natural forces, social forces appeared. Various complex social phenomena spontaneously move and develop. Without mastering a scientific worldview, it is impossible to fully understand them. This is the “incomprehensibility” of social forces. Therefore, religion still exists, even today with highly advanced science and technology, because idealism—this distorted philosophy of the real world—is advantageous for maintaining the ruling class’s dominance. The exploiting class uses this to spread fallacies and deceive the masses; meanwhile, the people, suffering from brutal oppression, seek a way out but cannot find one, so they often accept religion as an opiate to numb themselves, using idealist religion to explain social forces they cannot understand. For example, in the past, people believed in divine creation theories; today, many still hold views like “Your bad life is because you are cursed by heaven,” “Women are destined to marry,” or “Children must obey their parents”—these seem like disbelief in gods but are actually faith in gods (which is a characteristic of Confucianism).
Another example is commodity fetishism. The essence of commodities is the exchange of labor between people, a social relation; but people who lack a scientific worldview tend to mistake the external features of commodities for their natural properties, believing that commodities are inherently objects. For instance, a computer is only a commodity when it is sold; it is not inherently a commodity. Commodity fetishism is to regard commodities as natural objects, ignoring the exploitative relations behind them, and to develop a worship of commodities, believing they can dominate everything in society.

[红术]

The recommended must-reads should include the “Philosophy Mini Dictionary” series. Mimang can download it; it explains many concepts.

[螺丝钉]

Speaking of sophistry, Woodlee comes to mind as a very good example. His tactics of concept shifting, arbitrary slander, and turning accusations back on others perfectly fit sophistry. So how can one overcome sophistry? I once firmly believed in the idea promoted by the Academy of Capital that speculative living is good and non-speculative living is bad. I even somewhat thought Liu Qiangdong was a great person when I saw him pay social security for delivery riders.

[spirit.boxers]

Primero, aprender y usar más el marxismo. Segundo, trabajar más en la sociedad, practicar y tratar con personas de diferentes clases para aumentar la experiencia. Combinar la teoría con la práctica puede superar en gran medida este problema.

[螺丝钉]

Thanks to Hongshu’s suggestion, in future reading notes, when I encounter concepts I don’t understand, I will first check a small dictionary and the internet and annotate the unknown terms; questions will be marked in italic bold.

Chapter One

Section One

The only criterion dividing the two major philosophical schools is the problem of the relationship between consciousness and matter.

Why is this the only fundamental problem of philosophy?
The reason is that first, philosophy, as a special form of social consciousness^[1], is a theoretical worldview. Unlike other sciences such as physics, mathematics, mechanics, etc., it does not study special problems or special laws, but studies the general laws of the whole world. After the appearance of humans, the phenomena of the whole world are only two kinds: matter (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis) and spirit (e.g., depression). Therefore, any philosophy must answer the question of the relationship between these two phenomena.
Secondly, other philosophical problems are all based on the problem of the relationship between spirit and matter. Different answers to the problem of the relationship between spirit and matter lead to different views on other problems (I don’t understand, it feels like saying because it is the fundamental problem of other problems, it is the fundamental problem of philosophy — isn’t this tautology?)
Thirdly, the problem of the relationship between spirit and matter is also the fundamental problem in all human practical activities. People’s attitudes toward understanding and transforming the world depend on the answer to this question. Any philosophical school, in order to implement its worldview and explain and transform the world according to its worldview, must first answer this question.
In summary, the problem of the relationship between spirit and matter becoming the fundamental problem of philosophy is not accidental, nor is it artificially stipulated, but is due to the nature of philosophy itself (probably because it is a form of social consciousness) and the developmental laws of human cognition history (I don’t understand how cognition history is related here)

The problem of the relationship between thinking and existence is divided into two aspects: 1. Which is primary, thinking or existence? 2. Can thinking know existence? Based on different answers to the first aspect, all philosophical schools are divided into two camps: existence is primary and consciousness is secondary — this is materialism; consciousness is primary and existence is secondary — this is idealism.

Why can schools only be divided according to this criterion, and not by other criteria to form different or more schools?
The reason is that as stated above, the problem of the relationship between thinking and existence is the fundamental problem of philosophy, and which is primary is the primary aspect of this problem (The book mentions the second aspect is subordinate to the first, here my half-baked dialectics sound crude; it should be the distinction between principal contradiction and secondary contradiction, right?) The answer to this primary aspect of the fundamental problem reflects the essence of each philosophical school and their general principle and direction for solving all problems. In other words, no matter how different the doctrines among philosophical schools are, as long as they give the same answer to this primary aspect, other differences are always secondary. (This should also be the distinction between principal and secondary contradictions, right?)

Therefore, it can be seen that the primary aspect of which is primary, thinking or existence, has been the clue of philosophical struggle for thousands of years; only by grasping this can one avoid losing direction. Philosophers before Marxism (I guess also because previous philosophers were from exploiting classes and distorted the true appearance of the world) never found the true criterion for dividing schools, and modern bourgeois idealists, for class interests to prevent people from rising up in rebellion, further conceal this criterion. They either advocate “no debate,” claiming this is an “old” problem and refuse to answer it, or fabricate new terms, promoting their so-called “super-class” philosophy that “neither leans to materialism nor idealism” (I have a classmate like this; he is very superstitious about fortune-telling and always boasts how accurate his fortune-telling is in front of others. When I talked to him about materialism, he said, “Your materialism can’t explain why my fortune-telling is so accurate, but idealism is too extreme, so I think the middle is correct.”) Or they use conspiratorial means: although admitting materialism and idealism exist, they deliberately confuse the boundaries between materialism and idealism. For example, some claim that pursuing material enjoyment is materialism, while pursuing “noble virtues” is idealism. However, they have not truly avoided the fundamental problem of philosophy; they are disguised idealists. (There should be many like this in revisionist Marxism too.)

Fundamental Thesis of Materialism

• Viewpoint: Materialism holds that the world is composed of matter; apart from matter, there is nothing else in the world. Spirit is only the reflection of matter in the brain; spirit cannot exist independently of matter and depends on matter for existence, while matter can exist independently of spirit. (Therefore, people’s death is truly death; there is no “soul.” So-called “paranormal phenomena” arising from this, such as inexplicable high fever after worship, can only be said to be scientific mysteries that provide a refuge for idealism.)
• Proof:
  1. Materialism completely accords with tens of millions of years of human practical experience. For example, workers and farmers do not doubt that the hammer, hoe, and other tools in their hands exist independently of their consciousness. Therefore, materialism is completely consistent with people’s practical experience and common sense; its theoretical foundation is the naive belief formed in millions of years of social practice.
  2. Materialism also fully accords with natural sciences. Astronomy and geology prove that matter existed before humans, when there was no spirit, refuting the fallacy that the world “was born” only after humans appeared. Biology also proves that spirit is the reflection of matter in the brain; spirit does not exist without matter.
• Supplement: Marxist philosophy extends the principle that matter constitutes the world and spirit is the reflection of matter to social phenomena (this is historical materialism, right?), that is, material life (probably social existence) and spiritual life (probably social consciousness), social consciousness reflects social existence.^[1:1] (Question: In ancient times when productive forces were low, did humans have only material life and no spiritual life?)

Summary: The fundamental thesis of materialism is: existence is primary, consciousness is secondary; consciousness is the reflection of existence; existence determines consciousness. Extending this conclusion to the social field means social existence determines social consciousness, and social consciousness reflects social existence. All other materialist doctrines start from this thesis.

Fundamental Thesis of Idealism

• Viewpoint is completely opposite to materialism: spirit constitutes the world; matter is merely a product of spirit. From this viewpoint, idealism is divided into two kinds: objective idealism and subjective idealism.

• Objective idealism holds that “before” the world there is an “absolute idea” independent of any person or matter; the material world is a product of this “absolute idea.” Obviously, the Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism sayings “before this qi, there was this li” and “li precedes matter” are objective idealism. “Li” is synonymous with “objective spirit” or “absolute idea.” The famous fallacy — the Big Bang — also promotes objective idealism. Since the world has a beginning, who made it “explode”? It can only be the “objective spirit,” i.e., God. So it can be seen that this “absolute idea” or “li” or whatever name is just a disguised synonym for “God.” Objective idealism is religion purified by philosophers.

• Subjective idealism holds that the real world does not exist; the whole world is only “my” idea, my sensation. Spirit is not a reflection of the real material world but becomes the “origin” that constitutes the material world. This is absurd. For example, suppose I am a blacksmith, and beside me is a piece of red-hot iron just taken out of the furnace and a hammer. According to subjective idealism, if I just imagine the hammer hitting the iron in my mind, does the hammer really hit the iron in reality? Impossible; this never happens.
  Subjective idealism regards everything as “my” sensation, leading to the conclusion that everything is “my” sensation and the world does not exist! If the world does not exist, where is the worldview? (I once believed this for a long time due to extreme individualism and was deeply poisoned.) A famous example is the “brain in a vat.”

• Whether subjective or objective idealism, both conflict with people’s practice and scientific conclusions. Therefore, modern idealism does not dare openly and straightforwardly react but invents new terms, as mentioned in the paragraph before the fundamental thesis of materialism. Similarly, extending the materialist view to the social field leads to apriorism, genius theory, and hero worship. The material life and material relations of society (What are material relations? Production relations?) are not regarded as the decisive forces of historical development; laboring people are not seen as creators of history but instead fawn over a few “geniuses” and “heroes.” This is Lin Biao’s theory. Revisionist Marxism also promotes genius theory strongly; last year there was a math competition super genius Jiang Ping, CCTV even interviewed and reported, but it was exposed as a teacher’s fraud, and revisionist Marxism almost lost face and had to issue a document to deal with the teacher.

In summary, the fundamental thesis of idealism is: consciousness is primary, matter is secondary; consciousness determines existence. Extending this conclusion to the social field means social consciousness is primary, social existence is secondary; social consciousness determines social existence.

Dualism and Eclecticism

• First, it must be stated that the parties derived from different answers to the fundamental problem of philosophy are only materialism and idealism; there can be no intermediate parties. However, as I mentioned above, some people have fabricated new theories — namely dualism and eclecticism.
• Dualism holds that matter and spirit do not depend on each other; they are independent and simultaneously constitute the world. This view tries to find a balance between science and religion and seeks reconciliation. Since there is no super-class philosophy, dualism does not transcend materialism and idealism but wavers between them. I think those who adopt dualism probably have a pragmatic philosophical view: “speak human language when with humans, speak ghost language when with ghosts.” When studying the material world, they are materialists; when studying society and human spirit, they leave room for gods and are idealists. I wonder if this view is correct. Dualism tries to reconcile the contradictions between materialism and idealism, which is impossible, so dualism is an incomplete philosophy.
  Now the bourgeoisie have given dualism many new names, dazzling like entering a supermarket: “subject-object,” “principle equivalence,” “experience,” etc.; they are all disguised idealism.
• Eclecticism is very disgusting; it is the bourgeoisie, forced by scientific conclusions, plagiarizing fragments of materialism and other correct theories, then mixing them with their idealistic views to make a messy soup. However, this does not mean they are not idealists; it only means they are very confused idealists. The most obvious example here, I think, is revisionist Marxism’s “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics!” Combining rubbish like Keynesianism with the red skin of socialism is very deceptive.

---

1. Social consciousness refers to views such as politics, law, philosophy, history, education, literature, art, morality, etc. Social existence is the sum of the material living conditions of society, mainly referring to the mode of production of social material resources. According to historical materialism, social existence determines social consciousness. Social consciousness has a significant reaction on social existence; reactionary social consciousness (e.g., Confucianism) hinders the development of productive forces, while advanced social consciousness (e.g., Legalism) promotes the development of productive forces. Social consciousness has class character and reflects class relations and class struggle; the social consciousness of the ruling class in each era plays a dominant role. ↩︎ ↩︎

[螺丝钉]

Finally finished writing the reading notes for Chapter 1, Section 1. The italic bold text represents my questions.

[青松]

@Screw

Question: During ancient times when productivity was low, did humans only have material life and no spiritual life?

Of course they did. Archaeological excavations have uncovered some primitive people’s murals, which already show that they had certain artistic concepts. Many pottery pieces from Chinese primitive societies also feature artistic patterns.

[龙志飞]

@Screw

This paragraph is quite abstract, please give an example for better understanding.

For example, no matter what mistake you make, your mother will say you are playing on your phone, which is a sophism (causing and effect are wrongly attributed, such as linking playing on the phone to declining grades or illness).

[螺丝钉]

Because I have always been indulging in pleasure and studying less, my posts on reading notes have not been updated. But if I continue to be so idle and unproductive, my brain will degenerate and my thoughts will slide. Therefore, I must continue to learn.

Below are some questions that arose during my reading:

• Page 82, why does the theory that all things have spirits show the beginning of human consciousness of fighting against nature?
• Page 83, why is the initial form of religious belief the worship of ancestors’ spirits?
• Page 86, how to understand Heraclitus’s statement that “the process of turning from fire into all things and from all things back into fire is ongoing”?
• Page 87, what does “atoms are constrained by necessity” mean?
• Page 97: “Since the Germans conquered the ancient world, after the wheel of history moved from slave society to feudal society, the philosophy and science developed in the ancient world were severely damaged.” As the productive relations progressed from slave society to feudal society, why were the philosophy and science “severely damaged”? What happened?
• Page 102, “The fundamental property of matter is extension,” what is extension?
• Page 103, Locke divides experience into external and internal experience, both of which are seen as sources of knowledge. Why does this open the door to idealism?

[赫伯提_布]

@螺丝钉

Why does the theory of all things having spirits manifest the beginning of human consciousness of the struggle against nature?

The theory of all things having spirits is essentially that humans have already recognized that all things are not only in motion and change but also have inherent regularities. However, due to shallow understanding, they cannot recognize what governs these regularities (according to Marxist philosophy, this is the internal contradiction of things). Therefore, the theory of spirits was fabricated. This marks the beginning of humans understanding the regularities of the world. Conscious struggle is the active use of natural laws to transform the world. So, the theory of all things having spirits reflects the beginning of humans consciously fighting against the natural world.

@螺丝钉

Why is the initial form of religious belief worship of ancestors’ spirits?

In society, production can be divided into two categories: one is the reproduction of material means, and the other is human production itself. In primitive society, productive forces were extremely backward and had not broken through the scope of human production. After clans emerged, human society was organized according to kinship. The clan system initially confirmed property inheritance through the matrilineal line, so a clan could be linked to a common female ancestor. However, primitive humans could not understand this according to historical materialism, which is why they developed the worship of ancestors’ spirits.

@螺丝钉

How to understand Heraclitus’s statement that “the process of turning from fire into all things and from all things back into fire is endless”?

Essentially, it aims to argue that the world is in eternal motion, with things interconnected and transforming into each other. Heraclitus believed that all things are connected through fire. He compared the relationship between fire and specific things to the relationship between gold and commodities: all commodities can be exchanged for gold, and gold can be exchanged back into commodities, so that everything can be exchanged and transformed mutually. The fire here essentially expresses the contradiction in a naive way.

@螺丝钉

What does “atoms are subject to necessity” mean?

This means that the movement of atoms is not arbitrary or lawless, but governed by their regularity. Democritus believed that the vortex movement of atoms is the cause of all forms of things, and thus everything is constrained by necessity (my understanding is that matter is composed of atoms, and the regular movement of atoms is the cause of things, so all things are governed by laws). This essentially combines matter and motion together.

@螺丝钉

“Since the Germans conquered the ancient world, after the wheel of history moved from slave society into feudal society, the philosophy and science developed in the ancient world have been severely damaged.” When moving from slave society into feudal society, productive relations advanced, and scientific culture and the superstructure should have developed, why were they “severely damaged”? What happened?

(My own historical knowledge is limited, so this might not be entirely accurate.) This should refer to the period after the development of feudalism into the Middle Ages, when the feudal landlord class transformed from an progressive class into a reactionary one. Feudal authorities controlled the superstructure, which led to the destruction of the scientific research guided by naive materialism and naive dialectics during the Greek democratic period, as well as academic freedom. Instead, scholastic philosophy and Aristotle’s syllogism dominated, and natural science research was confined within the scope of the Bible. My understanding is particularly in astronomy: before Copernicus established the heliocentric theory, astronomy was limited to Ptolemy’s geocentric model. This refers to the severe damage to philosophy and science. Later, the bourgeoisie launched the Renaissance (reviving Greek arts and literature) and humanist ideas to overthrow feudal society.

@螺丝钉

What is meant by “the fundamental property of objects is extension”?

Extension refers to the scope of existence of objects, the space they occupy (length, width, height).

@螺丝钉

Locke divided experience into external experience and internal experience, both regarded as sources of knowledge. Why does this open the door to idealism?

Knowledge should be a form of rational understanding, and the only source of rational understanding is sensory experience. Locke regarded the sources of knowledge as external experience and internal experience. External experience refers to the experience generated by objects acting on the senses, while internal experience refers to subjective feelings. In other words, subjective feelings are as much a source of rational understanding as sensory experience. This does not adhere to materialist epistemology but compromises with idealism. Therefore, it opens the door to idealism.