| (a16) Dialectical logic: A is A and at the same time it is not A; a thing is at the same time identical and not identical with itself. Formal logic only sees the aspect of identity. Dialectics, however, not only sees this aspect, it also sees the other aspect (not identical), therefore, it is able to embody, assimilate, and sublate formal logic. What formal logic cannot see, dialectics can see, what formal logic has seen, dialectics not only sees but transforms and deepens. |
(b16) According to Ye Qing the dialectical formula is “besides A is A, at the same time it maintains A is not A”. We may make a simple point, and that is: A is A, and at the same time it is not A. This is contrary to the law of identity of formal logic. Its meaning is: “a thing is at the same time identical and not identical with itself”. |
|
In these two formulae we can already see the relation between formal logic and dialectics. That is, at any one time, dialectics needs to see the identity and non-identity within a thing itself. Formal logic, however, only sees the aspect of “identity”. Dialectics does not just see this aspect, and consequently can embody, assimilate, and sublate formal logic. What formal logic cannot see, dialectics can see. What formal logic has seen, dialectics can not only see, but transforms and deepens. |
| (a17) One cannot say: “on the one hand, acknowledge A is A, and, on the other hand, acknowledge A is not A” and then consider this to be dialectics. The relation between these two propositions is not a case of on the one hand and on the other hand; but is one where at the same time they permeate each other and are bound together. They are a unified whole and are not mechanically combined; neither can they be mechanically broken up. If they are broken up and understood in this way, then the result is eclecticism. The dialectics of Ye Qing, then, is this eclectic distortion. |
(b17) All that has been said above is apparently not any different to Ye Qing. It seems to be what he has said. But, let us look into this in a more concrete fashion and then we may find out how much, in fact, Ye Qing, who proclaims that other people “basically do not understand dialectics”, himself understands? |
|
First, we need to pay attention to how dialectics “assimilates” formal logic. Dialectics, in order to assimilate formal logic needs to digest, transform, and dissolve it so it becomes its own flesh and blood. It does not simply invite it to enter its house and assign to it its own domain, then think that in doing this it has elevated it. People who distort dialectics mechanically break up “A is A, at the same time A is not A” into two propositions of formal logic. They hold that as long as, on the one hand, one acknowledges A is A, and, on the other hand, acknowledges A is not A, then it is considered dialectics. They do not know that the relation between these two propositions is not “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” but “at the same time”; it is their mutual permeation. The two propositions are a unified whole and not a mechanical combination. Therefore, one cannot mechanically break these up in this way. Thus, when they do break them up in this way the result is an eclectic understanding of dialectics. Superficially, they can confuse what is said of dialectics. They acknowledge that one needs to “take dialectics as a guide” in order to engage in theoretical thinking, but, in reality, their dialectics is only the eclectic combination of several propositions of formal logic. Superficially, it seems as though they are using dialectics to sublate formal logic, yet, in fact, they are eliminating dialectics in formal logic. |
|
Dialectics’ sublation of formal logic, obviously, is not only rejection, for at the same time it assimilates the positive elements of formal logic. But, this assimilation is just like Mr Zhang says: it is not only preservation. Yet eclecticism draws us entirely to this extreme. It says formal logic still has a domain within dialectics; its scope is merely reduced somewhat. Looking at this as a whole, formal logic is still led and “controlled” by dialectics, but looking at it from a partial perspective, eclecticism still governs formal logic. The dialectics of Ye Qing, then, is an example of this eclectic distortion. |
| (a18) Ye Qing admits that the inductive and deductive methods are founded on formal logic, and need to be sublated by dialectics. However, he also says: “In their application we can treat the inductive method and the deductive method categorically, using them at the appropriate occasion in the dialectical process of research”. In this way it is acknowledged that the complete process of research is dialectical, but in this process there are times when one needs to use the inductive method and the deductive method. The combination of these methods, then, becomes the complete dialectical process of research. |
(b18) For example, the inductive and deductive methods. Ye Qing admits that these two methods are founded on formal logic and need to be sublated by dialectics. He says, “dialectics controls the inductive and deductive methods”. However, how does this so-called control do this controlling? “In their application we can treat the inductive method and the deductive methods categorically, at the appropriate occasion in the dialectical process of research”. The meaning of this is that although the complete process of research is dialectical, at various occasions in this process, there are times when one needs to use the inductive method, and there are times when one needs to use the deductive method. The combination of these methods becomes the complete dialectical process of research. |
| (a19) The inductive method seeks out from amongst a great many complex, particular things their general, pure common points; the method it adopts is analysis. The deductive method uses general principles to explain particular things; the method it adopts is synthesis. The former proceeds from the particular to the general and from the concrete to the abstract; the latter proceeds from the general to the particular and from the abstract to the concrete. According to Ye Qing’s method, the whole of dialectics is merely the mechanical and eclectic combining of the inductive and deductive methods. |
(b19) We know that the inductive method needs to seek out from amongst a great many complex, individual things, their general, pure common points; the method it adopts is analysis. The deductive method uses general principles to explain particular things; its method, contrary to the inductive method, is synthesis. The inductive method proceeds from the particular to the general and from the concrete to the abstract; the deductive method, on the contrary, proceeds from the general to the particular and from the abstract to the concrete. According to Ye Qing: our “use of dialectics in research then includes the inductive and deductive methods” and, in the complete dialectical process of research the inductive and deductive methods each has its appropriate place; in that case, the whole of dialectics is merely a question of here the inductive method, there the deductive method – this mechanical, eclectic combination.
|