Dialectical and Formal Logic
| Mao | Ai Siqi |
| (a13) Sublation is: on the one hand, the rejection and negation of the negative element, and, on the other hand, the subjection of the positive element to criticism and transformation, as well as its preservation; but, it is not simple rejection. Ye Qing says: “In the past formal logic governed all spheres of research, at present, however, it is limited to states of relative rest”. This way, our negation of formal logic can only be of its scope of application and not its character. If this is not simple preservation – what is it? If this is not the essential acknowledgement that formal logic and dialectics are of equal significance – what is it? (Zhang Youren) | (b13) First, Ye Qing says again and again that he himself has not put formal logic and dialectical logic on an equal footing. He acknowledges that, “the latter assimilates the former, replaces the former”. He also says the latter sublates the former, negates it. However, what is his understanding of sublation and negation? He says sublation is not simple rejection and that negation is not simple negation. It would seem this point is correct because sublation, on the one hand, rejects the negative element and negates it, on the other hand, it must subject the positive element to criticism and transformation and preserves it. This obviously is not simple rejection. However, what we should take note of is that Ye Qing, in speaking this sentence does not indicate he has this proper understanding. He wants to lead us to the other extreme. He regards preservation in sublation as simple and uncritical preservation. He considers that the dialectical sublation of formal logic is merely the preservation of formal logic within narrowly drawn limits and not the critical assimilation of dialectics into its content. He says, “In the past formal logic governed all spheres of research, at present, however, it is confined to states of relative rest”. This way, our negation of formal logic can only be the negation of its scope of application and not the negation of its character. If this is not simple preservation – what is it? Is not this the essential acknowledgement that formal logic and dialectics are of equal significance? |
| (a14) At any point in space, things in motion, at the same time, are at rest and not at rest. This is the unity of contradiction. Ye Qing says: “Motion is the accumulation of rest, rest is the cessation of motion, they engender each other and are mutually supportive as well as mutually determining”. Rest is only a specific form of motion; it is certainly not the cessation of motion, and motion is certainly not the accumulation of rest; if it is only the accumulation of rest it would mean that motion is eliminated in rest. (Zhang Youren) | (b14) Secondly, although Ye Qing acknowledges in words that motion is absolute and that rest is relative, and it seems he has not so far put motion and rest on an equal footing, nevertheless, these are only words, in reality he has already put these two on an equal footing. He says, “Motion is the accumulation of rest, rest is the cessation of motion; they engender each other and are mutually supportive as well as mutually determining”. This, then, is Ye Qing’s understanding of the relation between motion and rest. Motion is merely the accumulation of rest! Motion in the world is able to cease. The two are mutually determining! According to what I know, rest is only a specific form of motion. It is certainly not the cessation of motion; and motion is certainly not the accumulation of rest. If it is simply a case of the accumulation of rest then it is basically “not able to become motion”, and it basically eliminates motion in rest. He says, “In its progress through time, motion must come to rest in space”. This makes it clear that he does not basically know how to use dialectics to comprehend motion. At any point in space, things in motion, at the same time, are at rest and not at rest. This is the unity of contradiction of motion. If there is not this unity of contradiction and there is simply only rest, no matter how it accumulates it cannot become motion. Here, Ye Qing clearly forgets to use the law of the unity of contradiction to understand motion. Here, can one make out what his true colours are? |
| (a15) Formal and dialectical logic are most fundamental questions. | (b15) A great many readers have sent in letters asking about the criticism of Zhexue jianghua (Talks on philosophy). This criticism came from various quarters and there were sundry opinions. Some were sympathetic and some were not; some were well-meaning and some were malicious. I thought that in addition I would write an article giving a general reply and at the same time take the opportunity to make a self-criticism, and regard this as the preface of the fourth edition of this book. Here, I only want to discuss Mr Zhang’s and Mr Qu’s request to explain the question of formal and dialectical logic. This, on the one hand, is because, just like Mr Zhang says, this question is a most fundamental one, on the other hand, it is because Ye Qing has used a special essay to dispute with me. Therefore, I am also using a special essay to reply to him. |