Читать онлайн "Mao Zedong On Dialectical Materialism" - Knight Nick - RuLit

The second point is that knowledge needs to be deepened,[3-333] needs to be developed to the rational stage – this is the dialectics of the theory of knowledge. To think that knowledge can stop at the lower perceptual stage and that perceptual knowledge alone is reliable while rational knowledge is not would be to repeat the historical theory[3-334] of “empiricism”. This theory errs in failing to understand that, although the data of perception reflect certain realities in the objective world (I am not speaking here of idealist empiricism which confines experience to[3-335] introspection), they are merely one-sided and superficial, reflecting things incompletely and not reflecting their essence. Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherent laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories – it is necessary to make a change[3-336] from perceptual to rational knowledge. Such reconstructed knowledge is not more empty or more unreliable; on the contrary, whatever has been scientifically reconstructed in the process of cognition, on the basis of practice, reflects objective reality, as Lenin said, more deeply, more truly, more fully. As against this, vulgar “practical men” respect experience but despise theory, and therefore cannot have a comprehensive view of an entire objective process, lack clear direction and long-range perspective, and are complacent over occasional successes and glimpses of the truth. If such persons [p. 229] direct a revolution, they will lead it up a blind alley.

Rational knowledge depends upon perceptual knowledge and perceptual knowledge remains to be developed into rational knowledge – this is the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge. In philosophy, neither rationalism nor empiricism[3-337] understands the historical or the dialectical nature of knowledge, and although each of these schools contains one aspect of the truth (here I am referring to materialist, not to idealist, rationalism and empiricism), both are wrong on the theory of knowledge as a whole. The dialectical-materialist movement of knowledge from the perceptual to the rational holds true for a minor process of cognition (for instance,[3-338] a single thing or task) as well as for a major process of cognition (for instance,[3-339] a whole society or a revolution).

But the movement of knowledge does not end here. If the dialectical-materialist movement of knowledge were to stop at rational knowledge, only half the problem would be dealt with. And as far as Marxist philosophy is concerned, only the less important half at that. Marxist philosophy holds that the most important problem does not lie in understanding the laws of the objective world and thus being able to explain it,[3-340] but in applying the knowledge of these laws actively to change the world.[3-341] From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin’s statement, “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement”.[3-342] Each of man’s actions (practice) is guided by his thought (sixiang), so naturally without thought there can be no action whatsoever. But Marxism emphasizes the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action. If we have a correct theory but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it, and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, is of no use.[3-343]Knowledge begins with practice and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and must then return to practice. The active function of knowledge manifests itself not only in the active leap from perceptual to rational knowledge, but – and this is more important – it must manifest itself in the leap from rational knowledge to revolutionary practice. The knowledge which grasps the laws of the reality of the world, must be directed to the practice of changing the world, must be applied anew in the practice of production, in the practice of revolutionary class struggle and revolutionary national struggle and in the [p. 230] practice of scientific experiment. This is the process of testing and developing theory, the continuation of the whole process of cognition. The problem of whether theory or rational knowledge corresponds to objective reality is not, and cannot be, completely solved in the movement of knowledge from the perceptual to the rational, mentioned above. The only way to solve this problem completely is to redirect rational knowledge to social practice, apply theory to practice and see whether it can achieve the objectives one has in mind. Many theories of natural science are held to be true not only because they were so considered when they were discovered,[3-344]but because they have been verified in subsequent scientific practice. Similarly, Marxism[3-345] is held to be true not only because it was so considered when it was scientifically formulated by Marx and others[3-346] but because it has been verified in the subsequent practice of revolutionary class struggle.[3-347] Whether dialectical materialism is the truth or not depends on whether[3-348] it is impossible for anyone to escape from its domain in his practice. The practice of the history of[3-349] knowledge tells us that the truth of many theories is incomplete and that this incompleteness is remedied through the test of practice. Many theories are erroneous and it is through the test of practice that their errors are corrected. That is why “practice is the criterion of truth”[3-350] and why “the standpoint of practice is first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge”.[3-351]Stalin has well said, “Theory which departs from practice is empty theory, practice which departs from theory gropes in the dark”.[3-352]

When we get to this point, is the movement of knowledge completed? Our answer is: it is and yet it is not. When men in society throw themselves into the practice of changing a certain definite objective process (whether natural or social) at a certain definite stage of its development, they can, as a result of the reflection of the objective process in their brains and the exercise of their subjective activity, advance ideas, theories, plans, or programmes which correspond in general to the laws of that objective process. They then apply these ideas, theories, plans, or programmes in practice in the same objective process. And if they can realize the aims they have in mind, that is, if in that same process of practice they can translate, or on the whole translate, those previously formulated ideas, theories, plans, or programmes into fact, then the movement of knowledge may be considered completed with regard to that particular process. In the [p. 231] process of changing nature, take for example the fulfillment of an engineering plan, the verification of a scientific hypothesis, the manufacture of an implement, or the reaping of a crop; or in the process of changing society, take for example the victory of a strike, victory in a war, the fulfillment of an educational plan, the establishment of an organization to save the nation. All these may be considered the realization of aims one has in mind. But generally, whether in the practice of changing nature or of changing society, men’s original ideas, theories, plans, or programmes are seldom realized without any alteration. This is because people engaged in changing reality are usually subject to numerous limitations; they are limited not only by existing scientific and technological conditions but also by[3-353] the degree to which the objective process has become manifest (the aspect and the essence of the objective process have not yet been fully revealed). In such a situation, ideas, theories, plans, or programmes are usually altered partially and sometimes even wholly, because of the discovery of unforeseen circumstances in the course of practice. That is to say, it does happen that the original ideas, theories,[3-354] plans, or programmes fail to correspond with reality either in whole or in part and are wholly or partially incorrect. In many instances, failures have to be repeated many times before errors in knowledge can be corrected and correspondence with the laws of the objective process achieved, and consequently before the subjective can be transformed into correct knowledge of the objective (or in other words, before the anticipated results can be achieved in practice).[3-355] But when that point is reached, no matter how, the movement of human knowledge regarding a certain definite objective process at a certain definite stage of its development may be considered completed.