Philosophy, Culture and Society

Author: Yi Jie-xiong
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-11-01
Features: The author elaborates on the relationship between culture, philosophy, and society from a new perspective. Cultural progress is the root of social progress, and the core and foundation of culture are philosophy. Therefore, different cultural traditions arise because their core philosophies differ. Since philosophy fundamentally addresses worldview and life perspectives, it directly relates to people's value orientation and the level of their thinking ability.
Excerpt: The existing definition of Marxist philosophy is widely questioned. Marx and Engels never used the term "dialectical materialism," nor did they claim that the philosophy they founded was "dialectical materialism and historical materialism." Although Lenin repeatedly used the terms "dialectical materialism" and "historical materialism" individually and used one of them to represent the entire Marxist philosophy, he never said that what the classical Marxist thinkers did not say could not be discussed, nor did he claim that what they did not say would necessarily be wrong if we discussed it. The issue lies in the fact that their reluctance to use such expressions was due to their unscientific nature, as they could not accurately reflect the essential characteristics of Marxist philosophy. As a science, Marxist philosophy is an organic whole. As Lenin put it, it is "a solid block of steel." However, the current expression treats Marxist philosophy as merely dialectical materialism and historical materialism, dividing its structure into two independent parts, thereby severing Marxist philosophy and destroying its integrity. It must be admitted that although Lenin never claimed that Marxist philosophy is dialectical materialism and historical materialism, in his article "Karl Marx," when briefly outlining "the entire worldview of Marx," he indeed presented such a framework: first introducing "philosophical materialism," then discussing "dialectics," and finally explaining "the historical materialist view." Especially in the outline for his article "Karl Marx," this structure is even more evident. However, I believe it is difficult to say that Lenin had a good grasp of the scientific system of Marxist philosophy at that time. In fact, it is evident that Lenin had the motivation to write a book systematically explaining Marxist philosophy, but he did not pursue it on this basis. Instead, after completing this entry, he focused his efforts on studying philosophy. Even until his death, he did not forget this task and believed that he had not yet studied it well, and the conditions for starting were not yet ripe. Moreover, from the content of Marxist philosophy written in his article "Karl Marx," there is no narrow sense of epistemology, but it specifically introduces Marx's historical materialist view, especially presenting "class struggle" alongside materialism and dialectics. Clearly, what he emphasized introducing were Marx's most original contributions in philosophy and what was most prominent in the social history of the time. Therefore, it is incorrect to regard his introduction of the new worldview here as a strict and accurate expression of his understanding of the scientific system and complete content of Marxist philosophy. To claim that Marxist philosophy is merely dialectical materialism and historical materialism inevitably treats dialectical materialism as a natural philosophy and historical materialism as a social philosophy, a part of sociology. In fact, Stalin explained what dialectical materialism and historical materialism are in Section 4, Chapter 2 of the "Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik)," in this manner. As a result, the unified and complete Marxist philosophy is presented as two subjects, two sciences, becoming two theories and two materialisms. Such an understanding of Marxist philosophy clearly does not align with its essential characteristics.