| (a20) Ye Qing’s formulation appears to be dialectical research, and proceeds from the particular to the general and from the general to the particular; it is the inductive and deductive method; in fact, this is wrong. |
(b20) Perhaps Ye Qing may say he is using dialectics in studying things and that he proceeds from a great many concrete, individual things to the discovery of general laws, and that he again applies these general laws to individual concrete things. The former stage of the process being the appropriate place for induction and the latter stage of the process belonging to the deductive method. In fact, this is wrong. |
| (a21) Although, in dialectics, at the stage of from the particular to the general, ordinary inductive methods such as observation, comparison, and analysis are used, they are only used as key elements. Because the inductive method only uses the method of analysis here, it only grasps determinations that are simple and one-sided. Dialectics is not like this, not only is it analysis, at the same time it is synthesis. It not only grasps determinations that are simple and one-sided, but it needs to seek out determinations that are allsided and unities of contradiction. |
(b21) Although, in dialectics, at the stage of the process from the individual to the general are used ordinary inductive methods such as observation, comparison, and analysis, they are only used as key elements. Not only must dialectics be employed at this stage of the ascent of the particular to the general, the dialectical method must be implemented and not here replaced with a totally unchanged inductive method. Here, the inductive method only uses the method of analysis. From complex, diverse things it only grasps determinations that are simple and one-sided. Here, however, dialectics not only analyzes, but at the same time, it uses synthesis. It not only grasps determinations that are simple and one-sided, but it seeks out determinations that are all-sided and unities of contradiction. According to Ye Qing, the research process of the general to the particular should be characterized as the appropriate place for the deductive method; if it only uses the method of synthesis, only applies general laws to individual things and synthesizes individual things, then this will do. In fact, one must implement dialectics here; dialectics not only uses laws here, and not only needs to synthesize, but at the same time, it still needs to analyze the specific conditions of these individual things and discover the tendencies of new particular contradictions. |
| In the process of the general to the particular, will it do to only use the deductive method, adopt the method of synthesis, apply general laws to, and synthesize, individual things? No! If dialectics is to be implemented, then, one does not only use laws and adopt synthesis, but in doing this, one still needs to analyze the concrete conditions of these individual things and discover the tendencies of new particular contradictions. |
|
| (a22) No matter whether it is from the general to the particular or from the particular to the general, our methods are both basically dialectical. The inductive and deductive methods have only an application as respective elements of the process of research. They cannot be separated from each other and stand alone. They are not simply rejected, nor are they simply preserved, but are assimilated, digested, and transformed. Dialectics is the whole of dialectics and is not the piecing together of the inductive and deductive methods. |
(b22) In this way, no matter whether it is from the particular to the general or from the general to the particular, our methods are both basically dialectical. The inductive and deductive methods have only an application as respective elements of the process of research. They cannot be separated from each other and stand alone. Although they are not simply rejected, neither are they simply preserved. They are assimilated, digested, and transformed. Because dialectics is itself the whole of dialectics, it is not the piecing together of the inductive and deductive methods. |
| (a23) The quality of things does not change in the process of quantitative change; at this time, in terms of quality, it is at relative rest, however, in terms of quantity, it is in motion throughout. Because relative rest is still a particular form of absolute motion one still needs to use dialectics in studying relative rest; only then will one be able to see things in a profound way. Formal logic can only see the aspect of rest, moreover, it can overstate this aspect and forget basic states of motion. Since dialectics can grasp the all-sidedness of things, and even the aspect of formal logic is contained in it, why does one still want to use formal logic in studying relative rest? |
(b23) This distortion of dialectics by Ye Qing can also be seen in his interpretation of the relation between states of motion and states of rest. Although, verbally, he acknowledges the absolute nature of motion and the relative nature of rest, in reality, he has already put motion and rest on an equal footing: “they engender each other and are mutually supportive as well as mutually determining”. He completely misunderstands what the significance of absolute as well as relative is. As Mr Zhang says, rest is only a particular form of motion; things at rest are essentially still in motion. For example, the quality of things does not change in the process of quantitative change. At this time we can say, with regard to the aspect of quality, that it is at relative rest. However, with regard to the aspect of quantity, it is in motion throughout. On the surface, a stone does not move or change; internally, however, it continuously undergoes a process of quantitative change (although, this is very slow). The change of feudal society is often very sluggish, but you cannot say it has not changed. Because relative rest is basically a manifestation of the state of motion, we still need to use dialectics in our study of relative rest. Only then will one be able to see things in a very profound way. We are not saying that research using formal logic is completely without merit, but that formal logic can only see the aspect of rest, moreover, it can overstate this aspect and forget basic states of motion. Since, for us, dialectics can grasp the all-sided (the formal logic aspect is embodied in this) we do not still need to use formal logic to grasp it. Is not the way of Ye Qing, which considers that by relying only on formal logic relative rest can be completely grasped and which considers that the domain of formal logic will be permanently preserved, an extremely vulgar distortion? |