I thought of this topic today because there was an activity at a book club I attended today. To tell the truth, I am always cautious about the activities of book clubs, because I don't read widely: if the topic is beyond the scope of jurisprudence, I can only joke. Of course, this reading is about Marx, so I was a little confident when I went. I won't say much about the discussion process of the book club here. What I want to say is a topic I reflect on after this discussion, that is, how to learn?
How to learn? In fact, many people have never thought about this problem. What they can answer is what an authority or master in the related field has said, and most of them will add a little criticism of the authority or master based on reality, even their own opinions. In fact, many academic papers are based on this basic model. I first put forward a point of view, and then find some masters to support me-extract a lot of famous sayings, then criticize reality with this point of view, and finally come up with one, two or three methods. This is actually the way many people learn. Here, the significance of the existence of those classics and authorities is that some "famous sayings" in these classics can serve their own views, that's all.
In fact, such knowledge can easily fall into the end of "amateurs watching the fun". Marx in your eyes is just "your Marx", not "Marx's Marx". You see Marx put forward viewpoint A, you agree with viewpoint A, and then you think Marx supports your viewpoint, or you understand Marx. But I don't see what's more crucial. Why did Marx put forward point A: It is very likely that Marx's argument has nothing to do with your reasons for supporting point A, or even the opposite. This is a more important layer, the so-called "know why, know why." If you only see point A, it is easy to fall into "improper analogy": it is taken out of context, as if Hegel, Marx, Arendt and Heidegger all discussed point A, and then a spoonful of stew came. But in fact, if we carefully review the statements of these masters, we will find that many times they all speak their own words under their respective theoretical goals. For example, when it comes to "labor", Hegel talks about "labor" and Marx talks about "labor", but the two are basically discussed under two different logics. Shouldn't we pay attention to this?
At today's reading meeting, everyone talked about Marx's inheritance from Rousseau except me. It seems that Marx is also an extension of rationalist philosophy. Many academic works also say so. Marx was a rationalist. In fact, Marx's works only demystify and criticize rationality-this criticism is not based on rationality, but on reality, and criticizes the logic of "should" with realistic logic. Therefore, when I talk about the inevitability of the dialectical movement of capital revealed by capital, everyone thinks this proposition is incredible. Of course, whether Marx's viewpoint is completely consistent with reality is another matter. The first thing to do is to understand Marx's viewpoint accurately, instead of distorting Marx's viewpoint to fit the reality. It is very likely that Marx's viewpoint is in line with reality, but you didn't see it, and your distortion actually helped.
Therefore, when we establish a viewpoint, comment on a viewpoint or refute a viewpoint, the first thing we should do is to accurately understand the logic behind this viewpoint. What kind of foundation is it based on, and why do you put forward such a view? Marx completed a complete "gestalt" transformation in the Outline of Feuerbach. Instead of confronting economic principles with the value of moral criticism and demonstrating the moral legitimacy of the so-called "quasi-life", we have found the inherent possibility of surpassing capitalist society in reality. This may not be from the angle of abstract subject, but from the angle of realistic subject, and the self-confirmation of realistic subject is from the object, so the ultimate goal is how to complete the mutual final confirmation of subject and objectified self, which is, in layman's terms, how to realize the ultimate unity of consciousness and reality. This ultimate unified force comes from the fact that the objectified object has been repeatedly proved to be the product of the subject's free practice in practice. This stems from the inherent contradiction of capital, that is, the ever-expanding capital will inevitably put more people into the army of the proletariat, and at the same time it will inevitably lead to the continuous acceleration of production, so that the proletariat can frequently realize its class status.
We shouldn't "consume" classics, we will identify with them according to the views of the master or school and my appetite. The purpose of learning is to seek the truth, and then talk about the choice on the basis of the truth. For classics, its significance is of course to broaden our horizons and let us know that others have put forward such views, but further, the more important significance of classics is to train our thinking and let us look at the world and analyze problems in a new way. This is what many people lack, especially those who regard academic works as consumer goods. Therefore, when we only memorize the specific ideas in the classics, we actually get nothing, because time is flowing and the world is developing, and no one can predict what the future will be like. What we have to do is to learn why the classics put forward this view instead of that one, and how to demonstrate it. Learning this thing is the greatest significance. It is very likely that there is profound logic hidden under the seemingly absurd specific point of view. If you are complacent just because you think you can deny this absurd view, it is really picking up sesame seeds and losing watermelon.