On the question of using the philosophy of Lao Ma to avoid reality and fiction, and blindly use mate

This is an incoherent and illogical statement. Since Marxism seeks truth from facts, it is impossible to look at problems and understand things from the perspective of things as they are, otherwise it will put the cart before the horse. Of course, since it knows what it means to seek truth from facts, it can't put the cart before the horse and mess around.

So the only possibility is for people who believe that they are discussing issues through Marxism and foolish things that are not Marxism and give the name of Marxism to things that are not Marxism. Therefore, this is a problem of unclear knowledge and poor learning of those who claim to use Marxists, and it is not a problem of Marxism. Since materialism is a viewpoint of seeking truth from facts, there is no problem of blind application.

It doesn't use itself blindly. Therefore, it must also be a problem of blind use by users. If it is used blindly by the user, then it is obvious that Marxism will not be really used.

So it's inexplicable to say that it's still used by people. And those who don't know how to use it don't know what Marxism is, which in turn means that the people who originally commented on it themselves don't know what Marxism is. Since he doesn't know this and doesn't know that, he bluntly shouted that he used the old horse philosophy to avoid the real and the false.

This is gibberish. Moreover, we don't know what Marx is, but on the other hand, we say that we are blindly using materialism, which is very much like knowing it. This argument is already confusing.

It is natural to talk gibberish and have a slurred mind, to be incoherent and logical.

Why did people's minds awaken in such a short period of time after the reform and opening up?

I think you're a little too optimistic.

Blind materialism'？What do you mean. Does it mean the blind application of materialism?

Philosophy is all useless science.

Well, that's why it's called dialectical materialism, not absolute materialism.

The well-held opinions and persistence are different for everyone.

Just like many people talk about women's rights, they think that it means that women want to become kings or be like men, so as to reflect women's rights and status. In fact, women's rights are only one branch of human rights.

I remember that the teacher who talked about Lao Ma complained to us when he talked to us about dialectical materialism: The group of women in the office (he is the only man in the entire moral education department, and his generation is almost the youngest) shouts about feminism and feminism every day, that is, they lack dialectical thinking, can men and women be the same? （pass：

Tell you that at that time, his eyes were dark, his voice was almost gone, he was in his thirties, and the hair on the top of his head began to thin, look at it, this is not the word dialectic to be tortured, so don't be emotional when doing academics, even if you are emotional, don't let this affect too much, let your mind be blinded, otherwise the world doesn't know how much more baldness, and it is important to talk to your students about dialectical materialism. ）

It is easy to move towards objective idealism. Ignore subjective initiative and look at problems dialectically.

Because Marxist philosophy is dialectical materialism. Absolute materialism is in fact looking at problems in isolation.

Hehe, of course, it's easy to understand. If you only recognize the material in the world time, then the existence of matter should be objective, not transferred by human will, since the will of man is transferred, then how can you be sure that the world is material? For what is already known, we can affirm its existence, and for the unknown, if we also affirm its existence, then isn't it idealism?

Since there are so many unknowns in the world, why do you absolutely say that the world is material?

First of all, it should be: consistency with objective "things" is the characteristic of artistic creation, not "material".

This sentence is correct, but it should not be used here, the above poems are all allegorical scenes, the last sentence borrows the scene, and the next sentence expresses the poet's state of mind at this time.

Can the state of mind be consistent with the form of existence of things? Obviously, the answers to the above poems are similar, not consistent!

a。Artistic creation must use rational imagination.

One is everything, and everything is one.

Look at the protons, neutrons, and electrons of atoms, like the sun, moon, and stars in the sky. Macro ** goes, its big is nothing else; Micro ** go, its small no inside. Emptiness gives birth to all things, and all laws return to emptiness.

Eternity is instantaneous, and eternity is instantaneous.

The Vimala Sutra says: "If there are sentient beings who are happy to live in the world for a long time, and those who can survive it, the bodhisattva will act for seven days as a calamity, so that the other sentient beings will be called a calamity; Or if there are sentient beings who are not happy to live for a long time, but they can be saved, the bodhisattva will make one eons become seven days, and the other sentient beings will be called seven days. ”

The roots and dust are of the same origin, and the bindings are the same.

Human perception of sight, hearing and perception and the natural environment of the outside world are produced in time, and it is meaningless to have only eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body without the external world and only the external world without eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body. Bondage and liberation are all in the human mind; There is no bondage without a mind, and there is no liberation without a mind.

From the dust, there is a phase because of the root.

Because of the external realm, people have the awareness of seeing and hearing; Because of people's eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body, there are all kinds of complicated worlds.

The Buddha only talked about how you practice, because it is only through practice that you attain enlightenment that you can find the exact answer. is the so-called "now" that his old man pays attention to.

These are all things that people think, and if there is no one, there will naturally be no gods and Buddhas.

Too lazy to look at you so much, God does not exist, we live in the objective world, ancient science is not developed, ancient people did not understand some phenomena, explained as gods, but the development of modern science, many things that were considered gods in ancient times have been explained, and if there are more explanations, God is gone.

Postmodern scientific epistemology from a Marxist point of view.

Take a look at this article, maybe it will inspire you.

The reflection theory of dialectical materialism introduces the scientific concept of practice into epistemology, and holds that knowledge is the reflection of the subject's agency on the object on the basis of practice. The reflection theory of the old materialism denies the role of practice in cognition, and regards cognition as a passive and passive reflection of the subject on the object.

The reflection theory of dialectical materialism introduces dialectics into epistemology and scientifically explains the dialectical process of cognitive development. The old materialist reflection theory does not understand the dialectic of cognition, denies the dialectical process of cognition, and believes that cognition is completed at one time.

The reflection theory of dialectical materialism is the reflection theory of the active revolution. The reflection theory of the old materialism is a passive, passive, and intuitive reflection theory.

Ma Zhe has never said that he is the most scientific philosophy.