(1) further perfected and developed the epistemology system proposed in " Materialism and Empirical Criticism "
Some people think that " Philosophical Notes " is opposite to "Yipiao". The basic point of view of the former is practical dialectical materialism , while the basic point of view of the latter is intuitive metaphysical materialism. This view is wrong. "Philosophical Notes" is the inheritance and development of "Weipi" and further develops the cognitive dialectics thought of "Weipi".
In order to oppose idealism, Lenin emphasized the objective existence of things and the objectivity of knowledge in "Only Philosophy", focusing on demonstrating materialism and reflection theory, but his argument was based on the practical point of view, which is completely different from intuitive materialism. In "Philosophical Notes" Lenin further developed the practical point of view.
He clearly defines practice as “requirements (1) and external reality (2)”, which fully affirms the subjectivity of practice and its role in transforming the external world. Lenin's famous assertion: "Human consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but also creates it." He is also talking about the transformation of the external world.
In "Philosophical Notes", Lenin spoke highly of Hegel's views on the dialectical unity of subject and object, subjectivity and objectivity. He clearly pointed out the subjectivity of knowledge and said: "The concept of human beings is subjective in terms of its abstraction and separation, but it is objective in terms of the whole, process, sum, trend and source." Then he said: ""Encyclopedia of Philosophy" 》Section 225 is very good, where ‘cognition’ (‘theoretical’), ‘will’, and ‘practical activities’ are described as two aspects, two methods, and two means of eliminating the ‘one-sidedness’ of subjectivity and the ‘one-sidedness’ of objectivity. "
Lenin advocated that people's practical activities and cognitive activities are both subjective and objective. It is one-sided to use objectivity to exclude subjectivity, and to use subjectivity to deny objectivity. Of course, Lenin talked about the dialectical unity of subject and object, subjectivity and objectivity in human practice and cognitive activities under the premise of materialism, rather than talking about their dialectical unity under the premise of idealism like Hegel did.
Lenin also further demonstrated the dialectical relationship between practice and knowledge in "Philosophical Notes". He believes that comparing the two, practice is the foundation, knowledge is the product of practice and part of practice, and practice includes knowledge. He materialistically transformed Hegel's judgment and proposed: "Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, because it not only has the character of universality, but also has the character of direct reality."
Both practice and knowledge are universal. The brilliance or superiority of practice is that it can change the world. Knowledge alone cannot do this, but practice without the guidance of correct knowledge cannot achieve the purpose of changing the world. Lenin said: "Knowledge... discovers that what really exists in front of oneself is the existing reality that is not subject to subjective opinions (settings).... The reason why human will and human practice itself hinders the achievement of one's own goals... is because it separates oneself from knowledge and does not recognize external reality as true. Things that really exist (are objective truths). Knowledge and practice must be combined. "
The cognitive process itself can be divided into two stages: perceptual knowledge and rational knowledge . Lenin fully discussed the dialectical relationship between the two in "Philosophical Notes". He believed that rational knowledge has obvious advantages over perceptual knowledge, and pointed out: "Representation cannot grasp the entire movement. For example, it cannot grasp the movement with a speed of 300,000 kilometers per second, but thinking can and should grasp it." "When thinking rises from concrete things to abstract things, it does not leave ——If it is correct...——The truth, but close to the truth. "
However, to obtain scientific rational knowledge, we must start from perceptual knowledge, "start with experience to understand and study, and rise from experience to the general. To learn to swim, you must get into the water." So, how to move from perceptual knowledge to rational knowledge? Lenin did not discuss this issue centrally, but he touched on it in many places.
He roughly put forward the following thoughts: This is a process of repeated practice and knowledge, perceptual knowledge and rational knowledge, that is, a process of repeatedly testing and revising knowledge through practice and finally forming a scientific theory. The axioms and logical formulas in science are also formed in this way. He said: "Human practice has been repeated hundreds of millions of times and is fixed in logical formulas in human consciousness. It is (and only) because of hundreds of millions of repetitions that these formulas have the solidity and axiomatic nature of previous opinions."
This is also a process of repeatedly using the logical methods of induction and deduction , analysis and synthesis, from abstraction to concreteness, from intellectual recognition to rational understanding. In the history of philosophy, Kant began to distinguish between the two abilities of intelligence and rationality. Intellectuality is the thinking of empirical science, which is characterized by the absence of contradictions; rationality is philosophical thinking, which is characterized by contradictions, that is, antinomies.
Hegel inherited and developed Kant's thoughts, regarding intelligence as abstract thinking or metaphysical thinking; regarding reason as concrete dialectical speculative thinking. Marx, Engels and Lenin mainly absorbed the meaning of abstract thinking and concrete thinking, and believed that scientific understanding must go from abstract to concrete (rational concrete rather than perceptual concrete) on the basis of practice, that is, from intellectual to rational understanding before it can be formed into a scientific theoretical system.
Therefore, what we generally call the rational stage actually includes the process from intelligence to rationality. Due to historical reasons, the concepts of rationality and abstract thinking can be divided into broad and narrow senses. The broad sense of rationality includes intelligence, and the broad sense of abstract thinking includes concrete thinking.
Lenin has a passage that is a relatively complete summary of the dialectical process of cognition: "Abstraction of matter, abstraction of natural laws, abstraction of value, etc., in a word, all scientific (correct, solemn, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, more correctly, and more completely. From vivid intuition to abstract thinking, and from abstract thinking to practice, this is the dialectical way to understand the truth and objective reality."
(2) proposed a theory to analyze the epistemological roots and class roots of idealism.
Lenin believed that human understanding is a dialectical process, "infinitely similar to a series of circles, similar to a spiral curve. Any fragment, fragment, or small section of this curve can be turned (one-sidedly turned into) an independent complete straight line" and "develop (expand, expand) into an absolute that is separated from matter, separated from nature, and deified." "Linearity and one-sidedness, rigidity and rigidity, subjectivism and subjective blindness are the epistemological roots of idealism."
This conclusion was reached by Lenin after studying various idealist schools in the history of philosophy and the dialectical process of human understanding. This overcomes the shortcomings of , old materialism, and , which simply regard idealism as nonsense. Lenin further discovered in his research that although the errors of some idealist views are very obvious, some people still insist that this cannot be explained clearly by their epistemological roots. There must be a deeper reason, that is, class interests. Specifically, "the class interests of the ruling class will consolidate it there."
This is the class root of idealism (in class society , and even in classless society, idealism will have its social roots). Analyzing the epistemological roots can help us understand where a certain idealist school failed; analyzing the class roots can help us understand the social reasons for its formation. Of course, the analysis should be specific, not simplistic.
The theory on the epistemology and class roots of idealism is the continuation and development of the philosophy party spirit principle theory in "Wei Pi", and has important theoretical and practical significance. Long-term theoretical work has proven that it is not only an effective method to profoundly analyze and criticize various idealisms, but also a necessary means to seriously treat various idealisms and materialistically absorb their reasonable elements to enrich and develop dialectical materialism .In the past, there were simplification errors when applying this theory, and we should draw useful lessons from it. However, if we completely deny it because of this, we will stop eating because of choking.
(3) Philosophically, he effectively criticized metaphysics and sophistry
Since Lenin revealed that the core of dialectics is the law of the unity of opposites , he also revealed that the key to the fundamental opposition between dialectics, metaphysics, and sophistry is the attitude towards the law of the unity of opposites. In " Talking about Dialectics ", he pointed out: Dialectics and metaphysics are two opposing views of development, and their opposition lies in whether to recognize that "development is the unity of opposites." As for the opposition between dialectics and sophistry, Lenin pointed out in "Philosophical Notes" and many articles that the opposition lies in whether to treat the law of the unity of opposites objectively.
Lenin analyzed and criticized sophistry in articles such as "The Bankruptcy of the Second International", "Socialism and War", "Socialism and the Right of National Self-Determination", "Pamphlet on Junius" and "Philosophical Notes" that criticized social chauvinism; the sophistry that Lenin mentioned was not the usual nonsense and arrogance, but a way of thinking that looks like dialectics but is actually anti-dialectics.
If metaphysics opposes dialectics from the front, then sophistry opposes dialectics from the negative side, that is, pretending to be dialectics, but in fact it is an exaggeration, distortion, and denial of a certain feature of dialectics.
Lenin mainly talked about the following specific forms of sophistry in the above-mentioned article and "Philosophical Notes": (1) Playing with the principle of universal connection between and . According to the fact that everything is in universal connection and is subject to the conditions of its existence, it is always possible to find some "ground" from complex reality to defend any point of view. This is the most used sophistry in the history of philosophy and in social chauvinist rhetoric.
(2) plays with the principles of movement and change of things and believes that since everything is in eternal movement and change and is relative, there is no stability and absoluteness at all. This is relativism that makes relativity absolute. Lenin pointed out: "For objective dialectics, there is an absolute in the relative. For subjectivism and sophistry, the relative is only relative, and therefore excludes the absolute."
(3) Playing with the principle of the unity of opposites, piecing together various irrelevant factors, either without distinction of origin or priority, and pretending to be comprehensive, this is eclecticism. Lenin pointed out: "The comprehensive and universal flexibility of concepts has reached the flexibility of the identity of opposites... This flexibility used subjectively = eclecticism and sophistry."
There is no substantial difference between sophistry and metaphysics, only superficial differences. Sophistry is metaphysics in disguise. It can be said that if there is a principle of dialectics, there is a principle of metaphysics, and at the same time there is also a principle of sophistry.
