To form a scientific theoretical system, there must be three prerequisites: First, what is the object of this science? Second, what is the content of this science? Third, what are the principles used to construct a system? Object determines the content, and principles determines how to arrange the content and make it a system.
Philosophy object determines the content of philosophy. Since philosophy is a science about the world and its general laws, philosophy should include categories that have general meaning to the whole world, such as existence and non-existence, essence and phenomena, causes and results, etc. This is undoubtedly true, but are these categories only? Can they include those slightly more specific categories?
such as consciousness, cognition, thinking, and truth. These are not the general categories of the whole world, but only the general categories of the spiritual world. Can they be the content of philosophy? According to which principles are used to form a philosophical system? Lenin's idea of the same three involves the issue of philosophical object and the principle issue of constituting the system. The sixteen articles of "elements of dialectics" he proposed also involve content issues and the principle issues of constituting the system. It is necessary to make some analysis of the sixteen articles.
The content of dialectics is its component. What is it called? Stalin Talk about dialectics There are four characteristics, and the feature is a name. The textbooks we use now are called laws and categories, that is, three laws and several categories. In this way, a question arises: What is the difference between laws and categories? Many articles have been published in newspapers, which distinguish laws and categories.
According to my understanding, there are generally three views: (1) The law reveals the driving force for the development of things, and the scope reveals several aspects of things. According to this view, only the law of opposite unity is the law, and the others are categories; (2) The law reveals the whole process of development of things, and the category reveals some small stages, or the sides of small stages. According to this view, the three laws are laws, and the others are categories; (3) The difference between laws and categories is only formal, and there is no difference in content. The form of
law is judgment, and the form of category is concept. For example, the unity and struggle of opposites are the driving force for the development of things. This is a law and a judgment, but unity and struggle are a pair of categories and concepts. If we want to clarify the relationship between unity and struggle, the result is the law. Rules should be expressed in categories. They have no difference in content, only in form. According to this view, it can be said that all categories of dialectics are laws, and all laws are expressed by categories. Let’s take a look at how to talk about Hegel and how to talk about Lenin based on " Philosophical Notes ".
Lenin has many names for the content of dialectics. Lenin called it the element of dialectics, also called features or characteristics (called features were not invented by Stalin, and Lenin also called them), also called regulations, also called rules, of course, also called concepts, also called categories, and also called principles. Now it is unified in two terms: category and law. I think it is unreasonable to distinguish the content of dialectics into laws and categories according to "Philosophical Notes" and Hegel's "Logic".
The third view mentioned just now is correct. The rules and categories are only in form, but not in content. The three laws are of course laws, and the relationship between categories is also laws. If we only talk about the sameness and struggle, and not the relationship between them, this is certainly not a law, but what is the meaning of this? Lenin does not distinguish between categories and laws. He said: "The category of thinking is not a human instrument, but a natural expression of the regularity of human beings." Hegel called all the concepts of Logic as categories (also known as concepts of course), or regulations.
Hegel did not distinguish between what are rules and what are categories. So, what is a law? We should have a common understanding of the concept of law. We cannot modify this definition just because we have a certain point of view to make this definition suitable for my point of view. When I want to say that the law of unity of opposites is the only law, I say that laws reveal the driving force for the development of things.
When we have to adhere to three laws, we will define the laws: to reveal the integrity.Doing so will only create confusion. So, do you have a common understanding of the rules? I think there is. Natural science says what laws are, social science says what laws are, and then materialism should also say what laws are. The conclusion is still clear. Laws are the connection between universality and necessity. Discussions without common definitions are meaningless because there is no common language.
Rules and categories are actually the same thing. When we talk about the connection between categories, they are laws; when we cited the basic concept of a certain law, they are categories. The three laws are of course laws, but they are also categories, namely quality and quantity, affirmation and negation, identity and struggle. Causes and results are categories, but there must be results when there are causes, and there must be causes when there are results, which is also a law.
Law of Cause and Effect is often used in the history of philosophy. Lenin also talked about the "law of cause and effect" in his "Philosophical Notes". Of course, it does not mean that any cause and result are laws, but that there must be a law with a cause and a result is a law. Personality and commonality are categories. "Commonity is contained in personality" is a law. Contingency is a manifestation of inevitability and a law.
rules and categories are no different in content. Among these laws and categories of dialectics, it is certainly OK to distinguish which are more fundamental, but we cannot distinguish these contents of dialectics into two parts: part is called law, and part is called category. The current division of laws and categories is a lasting temporary approach before establishing the rigorous scientific system of dialectical materialism . It is based on the three laws and several categories mentioned by Engels in " Dialectical Naturalness " and should be improved.
Dialectics If it is a science about the general laws of the world, how could it be that there is only one law? How could it be that there are only three laws? Engels only talked about three main laws, but not only three laws. Since there is a major, of course there is a secondary one. Therefore, this division does not conform to the views of the founder of dialectical materialism, does not conform to Hegel's, nor does it conform to objective reality.
calls some contents of dialectics categories or rules, of course they can be. But it is more appropriate to call the elements of dialectics laws; it is more convenient to call them categories. Any science is about revealing laws. If it does not reveal laws, it is not science. However, it is certainly necessary to use many categories to reveal laws. For example, " Capital " also has many political economy categories, which reveals various laws of capital development.
Doing so will only create confusion. So, do you have a common understanding of the rules? I think there is. Natural science says what laws are, social science says what laws are, and then materialism should also say what laws are. The conclusion is still clear. Laws are the connection between universality and necessity. Discussions without common definitions are meaningless because there is no common language.
Rules and categories are actually the same thing. When we talk about the connection between categories, they are laws; when we cited the basic concept of a certain law, they are categories. The three laws are of course laws, but they are also categories, namely quality and quantity, affirmation and negation, identity and struggle. Causes and results are categories, but there must be results when there are causes, and there must be causes when there are results, which is also a law.
Law of Cause and Effect is often used in the history of philosophy. Lenin also talked about the "law of cause and effect" in his "Philosophical Notes". Of course, it does not mean that any cause and result are laws, but that there must be a law with a cause and a result is a law. Personality and commonality are categories. "Commonity is contained in personality" is a law. Contingency is a manifestation of inevitability and a law.
rules and categories are no different in content. Among these laws and categories of dialectics, it is certainly OK to distinguish which are more fundamental, but we cannot distinguish these contents of dialectics into two parts: part is called law, and part is called category. The current division of laws and categories is a lasting temporary approach before establishing the rigorous scientific system of dialectical materialism . It is based on the three laws and several categories mentioned by Engels in " Dialectical Naturalness " and should be improved.
Dialectics If it is a science about the general laws of the world, how could it be that there is only one law? How could it be that there are only three laws? Engels only talked about three main laws, but not only three laws. Since there is a major, of course there is a secondary one. Therefore, this division does not conform to the views of the founder of dialectical materialism, does not conform to Hegel's, nor does it conform to objective reality.
calls some contents of dialectics categories or rules, of course they can be. But it is more appropriate to call the elements of dialectics laws; it is more convenient to call them categories. Any science is about revealing laws. If it does not reveal laws, it is not science. However, it is certainly necessary to use many categories to reveal laws. For example, " Capital " also has many political economy categories, which reveals various laws of capital development.
