More languages
More actions
If dialectics is the underlying logic of the universe, then it follows that it existed historically and that at some points people observed it in action. Dialectical thinking appears in fragments across cultures. Humans observe phenomena in the universe, which leads to knowledge of dialectics, and dialectical knowledge empowers humans to exert influence over the universe.
In Western cultures, the term dialectics is derived from Greek philosophers.[1][2][3] Because of the origins of the term dialectics in Western philosophy, and the European roots of Marx and Engels, the argument may be heard that dialectics and therefore all Marxism is Western ideology, alien to any non-Western context. However, this is a case of shooting the messenger: dialectics and the observations of Marx and Engels which Marxist-Leninists uphold are in fact not exclusively Western, despite the language being used to describe that which is universal. This article is written in a Western language, shall we refuse to speak? It was Mao Zedong who correctly observed that dialectical and undialectical thinking exist as tendencies within every society.[4] So, regardless of what language we use, what we want to call it, whether it is dialectics, dynamic duality, contradictions, phenomena of opposites, or evolution, the same observations are being made. As Marxists, we use the term dialectics most commonly, and perhaps in non-Western languages a different term may be used for the same effect. This article will demonstrate the fragments of dialectics that most commonly apply.
Hegelianism is the Western philosophy, dialectics is a borrowed term. Contrary to what bourgeois academics may hold, Marxism is not Hegelianism, Marxism foiled Hegelianism by drawing out the universal and scientific laws from it while leaving out the stale, incorrect, and narrow aspects. What Marx did to Hegel's philosophy can be replicated with any philosophy, and not only did Marx and Engels do this to Hegel's philosophy but they also did so with Dühring's.[5][6]
East Asian philosophy also heavily involves itself with Marxist dialectics, arguably more than any other part of the world currently, and there is no Communist today who does not read Mao Zedong. Mao Zedong, who said: "I am a native philosopher"![7] Mao Zedong drew out the universal and scientific qualities of his own cultural heritage when he synthesized Daoist and Confucian thought with historical materialism, reflecting a uniquely Chinese take on Marxism-Leninism. Mao Zedong was not only a revolutionary who studied socialism, he was also a poet and avid reader. From his childhood into his adulthood he delved deeply in lifelong study of Chinese classical traditions, including Daoist and Confucian philosophers like Mencius and Zhuangzi. This nurtured his dialectical thinking, and he flexibly synthesized Daoist and Confucian concepts with dialectical materialism into his own brand of thought in a principled, practical, and poetic manner.[8] He was so fluent in these philosophies that it also characterized his mode of expression in various statements and phrases.[9][10] The current Secretary General Xi Xinping continues this living tradition: in his book The Governance of China, there are many explicit references to Confucian and Daoist philosophy.[11]
It follows that any person with the skill can, as Marx and Mao have done, evolve any philosophy such as the ones listed on this page, introducing further dialectical insights and interpretations into a particular cultural system without the imposition of "outside thought", Western or otherwise, and preserving the valuable wisdom of the ancestors. This list is not comprehensive, nor complete, but its aim is to provide a general impression of the logic of dialectics which is in constant development across all cultural systems. The list is a general overview for demonstration purposes, and is not meant to supplant the necessary work that members of each respective culture must take on to further develop their own native philosophies.
Some cultures may conceptualize opposites as at war with each other, while other cultures may consider opposites as part of a dynamic harmony. Neither interpretation is necessarily incorrect, if it can lead to knowledge acquisition by the correct apprehension of phenomena, then they are but synonymous with each other and any apparent difference is aesthetic.
Any culture can build up a dialectical version of itself, even if it expresses the most irreconcilable static dualism. In fact, there exist several irreconcilable static dualisms: the static gender binary, and the irreconcilable static dualism of colonialism.[12] In the face of a static gender binary, gender diverse people are contributing to the development of dialectical knowledge of gender[13] and the origins of transphobia.[14] In the face of colonialism, oppressed nationalities are rising up to liberate themselves. The same evolution, the same qualitative leaps, can happen with any aspect of human thought or culture.
Below is a list of cultural, philosophical, and religious analogues to dialectics, organized into stages of development, from static dualism to full dialectics.
Summary
Systems in the Stage of Frozen Opposites oppose dialectics by static opposites, while proto-dialectical systems grasp aspects like change or relationality. Notably, factors that keep a system in the Stage of Frozen Opposites include: static dualism (Samkhya, Jainism). which freezes contradictions; antagonistic dualism (Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism), which denies synthesis; anti-materialism (Gnosticism, Cartesianism), which negates dialectical engagement with historical conditions; fatalism (Zurvanism) and elitist idealism (Platonic Dualism), which reject collective agency.
Non-dual systems in the Near-Materialist Stage of Transcendence advance beyond mechanical dualities by synthesizing monism with dualism, offering a perspective that transcends the apparent contradiction between "all is one" and the existence of opposites. This synthesis recognizes that reality is ultimately a unified whole, while simultaneously acknowledging the expression of duality within that wholeness. However, these systems have not developed on par with dialectical materialism, generally because they lack materialism and/or a sense of historical evolution.
Another interesting pattern is that as mastery of dialectics increases, optimism increases. As mastery of dialectics decreases, fatalism increases. This is an indication of humanity becoming more optimistic because their grasp of dialectics grants them the ability to materially satisfy their own needs.
Highest Stage of Dialectics
Dialectical Materialism
Description: A materialist framework where contradictions (e.g., class struggle) drive historical progress through qualitative leaps (synthesis). This article assumes a basic knowledge of dialectical materialism. For more info, see the article on dialectical materialism. There have also been efforts to update dialectical materialism for the advancement of revolutionary socialism: Juche, developed by Kim Il-Sung, takes dialectical materialism as its first premise and emphasizes human agency as the "master of revolution," centering collective human agency in the transformation of material conditions to satisfy human needs and desires, beyond certain fatalistic residues of dialectical materialism; in other words, the idea that humanity acquires the ability to become the principal agent of historical material development. Gramsci’s cultural hegemony extends dialectics to ideological critique, arguing that ruling classes maintain power through cultural institutions, not just economic force. Ahmed Sékou Touré also stated that "the foundations of culture have been created and the conditions for its progress are created by the working masses which are the makers of history".[15]
Strengths/Weaknesses: Formalizes dialectical laws with materialist grounding, deepening knowledge of the world and humanity by answering the fundamental question of the material world versus consciousness. Its weakness is that it can be mishandled or misinterpreted, especially when only an immature or one-sided understanding of it is developed. Dialectical materialists continue to develop their mastery of dialectics in the present era. For example, Juche critiques Marxism, asserting that Marxism's treatment of dialectical materialism lends it to being misapplied to view human social movement in a mechanical, bioessentialist, deterministic way, seeing the socio-historical movement as a process of the history of nature and ignoring that human socio-history changes and develops according to its own dialectical logic. "Some of the laws of society governs every society in general irrespective of social systems, and some of them governs a particular society," elaborates Kim Jong Il.
Near-Materialist Stage of Transcendence
Hegelianism
Description: Hegel lived in a world of strict binaries, and sought to overcome them through his philosophy. His dialectics posits that reality evolves through contradictions (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), driven by the Absolute Spirit (Geist) striving for self-realization. The master-slave dialectic (Phenomenology of Spirit) illustrates how self-consciousness emerges through struggle, with the slave’s labor leading to historical progress.[16] Hegel's insights can be summed up as: The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa; The law of the interpenetration of opposites; The law of the negation of the negation.[5]
Strengths/Weaknesses: Hegel's system, unfortunately, is the only system in this list that interprets history as progressing through dialectical change. His work to dissolve the irreconcilable dualism of his society was comprehensive, and despite managing to advance Western philosophy into its highest stage yet, dialectical principles like the "negation of the negation" remained confined to the realm of logic and abstract reason, disconnected from empirical, material processes. For example, Hegel’s Philosophy of History frames historical progress as the Spirit’s self-actualization, not material phenomena like class conflict.[16][17] This led to Hegel famously being 'turned on his head' by Marx and Engels, transforming his idealism into materialism. Despite this, there are some philosophers that try to rescue him. Bourgeois ex-Russian philosopher Kojève’s Marxist-Hegelian synthesis regresses Marxism into reformism and social democracy.[18] Hegel’s idealism lacks Marx’s materialist grounding, earning it a near-perfect but incomplete score.
Chinese Yin-Yang
Description: The yin-yang symbol (Taijitu) includes a dot of the opposite color in each half, signifying that each force contains the seed of the other. It captures the essence of the philosophy, which emphasizes that opposites (e.g., light/dark, good/evil) are interconnected and interdependent, not irreconcilable. The interplay of yin (passive, dark) and yang (active, light) generates dynamic harmony through cyclical interaction. The Dao is the undifferentiated source (Wuji) from which yin and yang emerge. The Daodejing (Ch. 42) states, "The Dao engenders One; One engenders Two [...] Three engenders all things," framing reality as a unity of opposites.[19] Zhuangzi’s paradoxes (e.g., "Butterfly Dream") dissolve rigid distinctions, mirroring dialectical fluidity.[20] Transcendence in the yin-yang framework involves embracing and harmonizing opposites to achieve unity with the Dao (the Way), the ultimate principle underlying existence, and moving beyond rigid categorization without rejecting opposites.
Strengths/Weaknesses: Cycles of yin and yang embody contradiction-driven change but classical Chinese Yin-Yang philosophical traditions lack any thought on the processes of historical development, instead seeing all phenomena as cyclical.[21] Adherence to Daoist harmony leads to inaction, impeding its liberatory potential.[22]
Madhyamaka Buddhism (Śūnyatā)
An important school of Mahayana Buddhism[23], Madhyamaka Buddhism's śūnyatā (emptiness) asserts that all phenomena lack inherent, independent existence (svabhāva). Instead, everything arises interdependently (pratītyasamutpāda), meaning entities exist only in relation to causes, conditions, and other phenomena. This "emptiness" is not nihilistic but highlights the fluid, interconnected nature of reality. For example, the Heart Sutra states, "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form," dissolving rigid distinctions between existence and non-existence. Another example: Nāgārjuna’s critique of causality (MMK Ch. 1) dissolves fixed essences. Non-dual frameworks like Madhyamaka philosophy use śūnyatā to deconstruct fixed essences, emphasizing that apparent dualities (e.g., self/other, good/evil) are illusory. Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) deconstructs all dualities (e.g., existence/non-existence) via dialectical reasoning to reveal emptiness (śūnyatā). His "eight negations" reject inherent essence in phenomena, asserting dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). Buddhist Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination): The Twelve Nidānas (links) explain how ignorance (avidyā) perpetuates suffering (duḥkha) through cycles of rebirth. The Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN 12.1) states, "With ignorance as condition, volitional formations arise [...] With birth as condition, aging-and-death arise." Liberation (nirvāṇa) occurs via cessation of craving, not dialectical synthesis.
Strengths: Balances relational interdependence of opposites with a rejection of static dualism. Limitations: Focuses on spiritual insight over materialist praxis and risks being misinterpreted as nihilism. Madhyamaka negates all views, including emptiness itself, precluding synthesis. Its focus on individual spiritual liberation (nirvāṇa), AKA inner peace, sidelines collective historical agency and liberation in a true practical sense. Nāgārjuna’s goal is soteriological—cessation of suffering, not historical progress.
Sources:
Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (2nd c. CE), Ch. 24: "Emptiness is the relinquishing of all views."
Westerhoff, Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka (2009), p. 112: Compares Madhyamaka negation to Hegelian dialectics.
Garfield, Empty Words (2002), p. 89: Contrasts Buddhist emptiness with Marxist materialism.
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Nāgārjuna)
Heart Sutra and Prajñāpāramitā literature.
Saṃyutta Nikāya (5th c. BCE), SN 12.1: Outlines the Twelve Nidānas.
Avataṃsaka Sūtra (3rd c. CE), Ch. 39: "Indra’s Net" metaphor of interdependence.
https://www.shambhala.com/a-readers-guide-to-madhyamaka/
https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/what-is-mahayana-buddhism/
https://www.learnreligions.com/buddhism-and-nondualism-450010
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195393521/obo-9780195393521-0007.xml
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/2/167
Stage of Infinite Tension, Transformation and Renewal
Heraclitean Flux
Description:
Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 500 BCE) posited reality as perpetual change (panta rhei), symbolized by fire (pur)—a transformative element embodying both creation and destruction. His fragments emphasize strife (polemos) as the cosmic order’s engine: "War is the father of all" (B53). The river analogy ("No man steps into the same river twice") illustrates flux, where stability emerges from ceaseless transformation.
Heraclitus intuits contradiction as fundamental but lacks systematic dialectical development. While he recognizes tension (e.g., day/night, life/death) as generative, his aphoristic style resists Hegelian-style synthesis. Kirk notes Heraclitus’s "unity of opposites" is proto-dialectical but "pre-systematic" (Presocratic Philosophers). Unlike Marx, Heraclitus frames change as natural (fire’s cycles) rather than historical progression. Plato’s Cratylus critiques Heraclitus for overemphasizing flux, contrasting his dynamism with Parmenides’ stasis.
Sources:
Diels-Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (1952), B12, B53: Primary fragments on flux and strife.
Plato, Cratylus (360 BCE), 402a: Critique of Heraclitean flux.
Kirk, Presocratic Philosophers (1983), p. 143: "Heraclitus’s logos prefigures dialectics but lacks structure."
Hua-Yen Buddhism
Description:
The Avatamsaka Sutra’s "Indra’s Net" metaphor describes reality as an infinite web of jewels reflecting one another—each jewel distinct yet inseparable from the whole. Fazang’s Treatise on the Golden Lion uses this to illustrate non-dual interdependence: "One is all; all is one." Paradoxes (e.g., "form is emptiness") dissolve dualities but avoid materialist analysis.
Hua-Yen’s relational ontology mirrors dialectical interdependence but prioritizes mystical unity over contradiction-driven synthesis. Cook notes its "non-obstructed interpenetration" (Hua-Yen Buddhism) negates conflict rather than resolving it. For example, the Huayan Wujiao Zhang states, "The many are fused into one; the one is divided into many," bypassing Hegelian negation. Unlike Marxist materialism, Hua-Yen’s focus is soteriological—liberation through insight into emptiness.
Sources:
Avatamsaka Sutra (3rd c. CE), Ch. 39: "Indra’s Net" metaphor.
Cook, Hua-Yen Buddhism (1977), p. 45: Analyzes interpenetration vs. synthesis.
Fazang, Treatise on the Golden Lion (7th c. CE): "The lion’s gold is its emptiness."
Jain Syādvāda
Description:
The saptabhaṅgī (sevenfold predication) asserts provisional truths (e.g., "in some ways, it is; in some ways, it is not"), rejecting absolutism. Anekāntavāda (non-absolutism) acknowledges multifaceted reality but avoids contradiction-driven change. Liberation (moksha) requires ascetic disentanglement from karma, not synthesis.
Syādvāda’s relational epistemology mirrors dialectical flexibility but lacks transformative negation. The Tattvartha Sutra (5.21) states, "The soul is bound by karma," demanding withdrawal, not engagement. Dundas notes Jainism’s "many-sidedness" (The Jains) preserves harmony but evades struggle. For example, Mahavira’s teachings resolve doctrinal conflicts via syād ("maybe") without Hegelian synthesis.
Sources:
Tattvartha Sutra (2nd c. CE), 5.21: Doctrine of karma and liberation.
Dundas, The Jains (2002), p. 94: "Jain pluralism avoids conflict but stagnates."
Mahavira, Acharanga Sutra (5th c. BCE): "Non-violence (ahimsa) transcends contradiction."
Yoruba Ifá/Ashé Philosophy
Description:
Ashé (life force) and ibi (chaos) are balanced through divination (Ifá) and communal rituals. The Odu Ifá corpus frames existence as interplay between humans and Orishas (deities), emphasizing cyclical renewal (e.g., festivals for Èṣù, trickster god of crossroads).
Yoruba cosmology acknowledges tension (e.g., Èṣù’s disruptive role) but resolves it through ritual alignment, not dialectical struggle. Abimbola notes Ifá divination "restores ashé through sacrifice, not revolution" (Ifá Divination). Unlike Marx’s class struggle, Yoruba ethics prioritize communal harmony (e.g., Ubuntu-like "I am because we are"). Drewal argues rituals "absorb chaos without transforming it" (Yoruba Ritual).
Sources:
Abimbola, Ifá Divination (1977), p. 34: "Divination reconciles, does not negate."
Drewal, Yoruba Ritual (1992), p. 89: Ritual as static harmony.
Odu Ifá (oral tradition): "Èṣù’s mischief teaches balance through disorder."
Shiva-Shakti (Non-Dual Tantra)
Description:
Shiva (consciousness) and Shakti (energy) co-create reality through tension, transcending duality in forms like Ardhanarishvara (androgynous union). The Vijnana Bhairava Tantra (verse 55) dissolves duality through meditative absorption (samadhi), bypassing material struggle.
Shiva-Shakti’s dynamic interplay resembles dialectical tension but seeks mystical unity, not synthesis. Urban notes Tantra’s "transgressive rituals" (Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power) shock societal norms but ultimately negate conflict through transcendence. For example, kundalini awakening merges opposites internally, sidestepping external contradictions. Unlike Marxist praxis, Tantra’s goal is individual liberation (moksha), not collective revolution.
Sources:
Vijnana Bhairava Tantra (8th c. CE), verse 55: "Union within, beyond worldly strife."
Urban, Tantra (2003), p. 122: "Tantra’s non-dualism negates struggle."
Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom (1958): Tantric techniques as internal dialectics.
Mexica Religion
Description:
Quetzalcoatl (feathered serpent, creator) and Tezcatlipoca (smoking mirror, chaos) cycle cosmic eras (suns), balancing destruction and renewal. The xiuhpohualli (solar calendar) ritualizes this interplay through festivals (e.g., Toxcatl honoring Tezcatlipoca).
Mexica cosmology ritualizes contradiction but lacks dialectical agency. León-Portilla notes the Fifth Sun’s destruction is predetermined (Aztec Thought), not emergent from struggle. The Florentine Codex describes Tezcatlipoca’s tricks as "divine play," not antagonistic synthesis. Unlike Hegelian progress, Mexica renewal is cyclical repetition, not transcendence.
Sources:
León-Portilla, Aztec Thought (1963), p. 45: "Cyclicality resists historical dialectics."
Florentine Codex (1577), Bk. 3: "Tezcatlipoca’s chaos as cosmic necessity."
Carrasco, City of Sacrifice (1999): Ritual vs. revolution in Mexica society.
Indigenous Cyclical Cosmologies
Time as cyclical (e.g., Navajo hózhó, Māori Te Kore). The Navajo Blessingway ritual restores harmony (hózhó) after chaos (hóchxǫ́ǫ́), while Māori cosmology frames creation as emergence from void (Te Kore) through dynamic interplay.
Indigenous cosmologies acknowledge conflict but prioritize restorative balance over synthesis. Deloria argues "circular time heals; it does not progress" (God is Red). For example, the Navajo Enemyway ritual neutralizes harm without transforming societal structures. Beck contrasts this with Marx’s "linear struggle toward utopia" (Sacred).
Sources:
Deloria, God is Red (1973), p. 87: Critique of linear time.
Beck, Sacred (2010), p. 56: "Restoration, not revolution, in Navajo thought."
Marsden, The Woven Universe (2003): Māori Te Kore as dynamic void.
Ancient Greek Dialectics
Socrates’ elenchus (critical questioning) exposes contradictions in arguments (e.g., Euthyphro’s definition of piety). The Meno paradox ("Can virtue be taught?") highlights ignorance as a path to insight.
Socratic method critiques false beliefs but lacks constructive synthesis. Vlastos calls it "negative dialectic" (Socratic Studies), clearing mental obstacles without building new systems. For instance, Socrates dismantles Euthyphro’s definitions but offers no alternative. Unlike Hegel, Socratic dialectics is epistemological, not cosmic or historical.
Sources:
Plato, Euthyphro (399 BCE), 11a: Socrates’ deconstructive questioning.
Vlastos, Socratic Studies (1994), p. 23: "Elenchus as destructive tool."
Robinson, Plato’s Earlier Dialectic (1953): Contrast with Hegelian synthesis.
Norse Cosmology
Cyclical destruction/rebirth (Ragnarök) pits order (Odin) against chaos (Loki). The Völuspá (Poetic Edda) prophesies Odin’s death and the world’s rebirth (Gimlé), but gods and giants perish alike.
Ragnarök’s fatalistic cycles lack dialectical synthesis. Lindow notes "the new world is a pale copy of the old" (Norse Mythology), with no qualitative leap. Heroic agency (e.g., Odin’s wisdom quest) confronts fate (wyrd) but cannot transcend it. Norse cosmology resigns to cosmic repetition.
Sources:
Völuspá (Poetic Edda), stanza 57: "The sun turns black; the earth sinks into the sea."
Lindow, Norse Mythology (2001), p. 89: "Ragnarök as reset, not resolution."
Turville-Petre, Myth and Religion of the North (1964): Norse cyclicality vs. dialectics.
Stage of Cyclical Balance Without Resolution
Trimurti (Hinduism)
Description:
The Trimurti—Brahma (creation), Vishnu (preservation), and Shiva (destruction)—embodies cyclical cosmic phases. The Shiva Purana (2.3.15) states Shiva’s dance (tandava) destroys illusions to enable Brahma’s renewal, while Vishnu’s avatars (e.g., Krishna) restore cosmic order (dharma).
While Shiva’s destructive role is necessary for renewal, the Trimurti’s hierarchy (Brahma as lesser creator) reflects mythic fatalism, not dialectical equality. Doniger notes Hindu cyclicality "preserves order but resists revolution" (The Hindus). For example, Krishna’s Bhagavad Gita (3.24) urges Arjuna to fulfill his caste duty (svadharma), prioritizing stability over transformative struggle. Unlike Marxist dialectics, the Trimurti’s cycles lack historical agency or materialist conflict.
Sources:
Shiva Purana (8th c. CE), 2.3.15: Links destruction to cosmic renewal.
Bhagavad Gita (2nd c. BCE), 3.24: "Action is rooted in duty, not contradiction."
Doniger, The Hindus (2009), p. 234: "Trimurti’s balance is static, not dialectical."
Shinto (Amaterasu & Susanoo)
Description:
Amaterasu (sun goddess) and Susanoo (storm god) reconcile after conflict, as recounted in the Kojiki (712 CE). Susanoo’s rampage (e.g., defiling Amaterasu’s loom) leads to her withdrawal into a cave, plunging the world into darkness. Their eventual reconciliation restores light and order.
Shinto’s mythic resolution avoids material struggle. Grapard argues harmony (wa) "absorbs chaos without transforming it" (Shinto). For instance, rituals like Oharae (purification) cleanse impurity (kegare) but do not address structural contradictions. Unlike Hegelian synthesis, Shinto’s cyclicality (musubi) prioritizes restoration over progress.
Sources:
Kojiki (712 CE), Ch. 17: Susanoo’s expulsion and reconciliation.
Grapard, Shinto (2016), p. 67: "Ritual harmony negates dialectical motion."
Oharae Norito (purification prayer): "May impurities be washed away."
Stoic Logos
Description:
The Stoic logos—a rational principle governing the cosmos—frames reality as cyclical ekpyrosis (conflagration) and renewal. Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations (4.23) advises accepting fate: "The universe is change; life is opinion."
Stoicism’s passive acceptance of cosmic cycles lacks dialectical struggle. Long notes Stoic "cosmopolitanism" (Hellenistic Philosophy) avoids class conflict by urging alignment with logos. For example, Epictetus’ Discourses (1.1) teaches, "Some things are up to us, others are not," sidestepping material contradictions. Unlike Marxist praxis, Stoicism spiritualizes resignation.
Sources:
Aurelius, Meditations (167 CE), 4.23: "Accept fate; do not resist it."
Epictetus, Discourses (108 CE), 1.1: Dichotomy of control.
Long, Hellenistic Philosophy (1986), p. 145: "Stoicism’s logos rationalizes stasis."
Confucian Harmony
Description:
Confucian zhōngyōng (中庸, "Doctrine of the Mean") balances differences (hé) through ritual (li) and ethical cultivation (ren). The Analects (13.23) contrasts harmony with rigid conformity (tóng).
Confucian ethics prioritize stability over contradiction. Li argues hé "integrates without transforming" (Confucian Philosophy of Harmony). For example, Mencius’ rectification of names (7B37) reinforces hierarchical roles (ruler-subject, father-son), suppressing class struggle. Unlike dialectical materialism, Confucianism lacks historical motor or revolutionary praxis.
Sources:
Confucius, Analects (5th c. BCE), 13.23: "Harmony without uniformity."
Mencius, Mengzi (3rd c. BCE), 7B37: "Rectify names to preserve order."
Li, Confucian Philosophy of Harmony (2014), p. 89: "Confucian hé negates conflict."
Advaita Vedanta
Description:
Shankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya (1.1.2) asserts non-dual Brahman as the sole reality, dismissing the world as illusion (maya). Liberation (moksha) involves realizing "I am Brahman" (aham brahmāsmi), transcending duality.
Advaita’s dissolution of opposites negates dialectics. Deutsch notes it "collapses contradictions into static oneness" (Advaita Vedanta). For instance, Shankara critiques Buddhist śūnyatā as nihilistic, asserting Brahman’s permanence. Unlike Hegelian synthesis, Advaita’s non-dualism rejects process, ending dialectical motion.
Sources:
Shankara, Brahma Sutra Bhashya (8th c. CE), 1.1.2: "Brahman alone is real."
Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta (1969), p. 56: "Non-dualism annihilates contradiction."
Aitareya Upanishad (6th c. BCE), 3.3: "All this is Brahman."
Hermeticism
Description:
The Emerald Tablet’s axiom "As above, so below" unites macrocosm/microcosm through alchemical transformation. The Corpus Hermeticum describes spiritual ascent through planetary spheres to reunite with the One.
Hermeticism’s correspondence (e.g., mind-matter parallels) avoids contradiction-driven synthesis. Hanegraaff argues its "alchemy transcends, but does not transform" (Hermetic Spirituality). For example, Ficino’s Renaissance Hermeticism spiritualizes dialectics, prioritizing gnosis over class struggle. Unlike Marxist materialism, Hermeticism’s goals are mystical, not historical.
Sources:
Emerald Tablet (8th c. CE): "As above, so below."
Corpus Hermeticum (2nd c. CE), Book I: "The divine within ascends to the divine above."
Hanegraaff, Hermetic Spirituality (2021), p. 78: "Hermetic ascent bypasses struggle."
Ancient Egyptian Religion
Description:
Ma’at (order/truth) and Isfet (chaos/injustice) are balanced through pharaonic rituals (e.g., Sed festivals). The Book of the Dead (Ch. 125) moralizes adherence to Ma’at for cosmic stability.
Egyptian cosmology ritualizes stasis. Assmann notes pharaohs "reaffirm Ma’at eternally" (Ma’at), avoiding transformative struggle. For example, Hatshepsut’s temple inscriptions frame her reign as Ma’at’s restoration, not revolution. Unlike dialectical materialism, Egyptian order is cyclical maintenance, not progress.
Sources:
Book of the Dead (1550 BCE), Ch. 125: "I have upheld Ma’at."
Assmann, Ma’at (1990), p. 112: "Egyptian order resists historical change."
Hatshepsut’s Speos Artemidos inscription: "I restored what was ruined."
Pre-Socratic Oppositions
Description:
Anaximander’s apeiron (boundless) governs elemental conflicts (hot/cold, wet/dry). Heraclitus’ fragments (e.g., B53: "War is father of all") intuit strife as cosmic principle.
Pre-Socratic thought hints at dialectics but lacks systematicity. Kirk argues Heraclitus’ logos "prefigures contradiction but lacks synthesis" (Presocratic Philosophers). For example, Anaximander’s cyclical destruction (DK12B1) lacks Marx’s historical agency. These thinkers’ aphoristic style resists Hegelian rigor.
Sources:
Diels-Kranz, Fragmente (1952), DK12B1: Anaximander’s cyclical strife.
Heraclitus, B53: "Strife is justice."
Kirk, Presocratic Philosophers (1983), p. 143: "Proto-dialectical intuition."
Greek Mythology (The Moirai)
Description:
The Moirai (Fates)—Clotho (spinner), Lachesis (measurer), Atropos (cutter)—weave predetermined destiny. Hesiod’s Theogony (line 218) calls them "apportioners" (moirai), fixing each mortal’s lot.
The Moirai enforce fixed cosmic order, negating dialectical agency. Clay argues their threads "preclude struggle" (Hesiod’s Cosmos). For example, Oedipus’ tragic fate (Oedipus Rex) illustrates helplessness against predestination, unlike Hegelian self-conscious becoming.
Sources:
Hesiod, Theogony (700 BCE), line 218: "The Moirai give mortals their share."
Sophocles, Oedipus Rex (429 BCE): "Fate binds even kings."
Clay, Hesiod’s Cosmos (2003), p. 101: "Moirai’s determinism vs. dialectics."
Stage of Frozen Opposites
Samkhya Philosophy
Description: Samkhya, one of Hinduism’s six orthodox schools, posits a rigid dualism between Purusha (pure consciousness) and Prakriti (material nature). The Samkhyakarika (verse 3) asserts these principles are eternally separate, with liberation (kaivalya) achieved through ascetic disentanglement from Prakriti’s illusions. Ayurveda’s mind-body balance draws from this duality, but Samkhya rejects synthesis, advocating isolation of Purusha.
Samkhya’s static dualism precludes dialectical motion. Larson notes its "liberation is escape, not synthesis" (Classical Samkhya). For example, viveka (discriminative knowledge) separates spirit from matter but negates interaction. Unlike Hegelian negation, Samkhya’s kaivalya ends engagement with the world. Its influence on Ayurveda (e.g., dosha theory) prioritizes balance over contradiction-driven change.
Sources:
Samkhyakarika (4th c. CE), verse 3: "Purusha is conscious; Prakriti is unconscious."
Larson, Classical Samkhya (1979), p. 89: Critique of Samkhya’s irreconcilable dualism.
Charaka Samhita (2nd c. BCE): Ayurvedic application of Samkhya.
Jainism
Description: Jainism’s dualism of Jīva (soul) and Ajīva (non-soul) frames reality through anekāntavāda (non-absolutism), which acknowledges seven conditional perspectives (saptabhaṅgī). Liberation (moksha) requires ascetic withdrawal from karmic bondage, not synthesis of opposites.
Jainism’s pluralism avoids absolutism but lacks dialectical motion. Dundas notes anekāntavāda "preserves harmony by refusing conflict" (The Jains). For example, Mahavira’s teachings resolve doctrinal disputes via syād ("maybe") without Hegelian synthesis. Ascetic practices (e.g., sallekhana, fasting to death) seek individual purity, sidelining collective struggle.
Sources:
Tattvartha Sutra (2nd c. CE), 5.21: "The soul is bound by karma."
Dundas, The Jains (2002), p. 94: "Jainism’s static pluralism."
Mahavira, Acharanga Sutra (5th c. BCE): "Non-violence (ahimsa) transcends contradiction."
Platonic Dualism
Description: Plato’s Republic divides reality into the eternal World of Forms (e.g., Justice, Beauty) and the material "shadows" of the cave. The Phaedo (75c) frames dialectic as recollection (anamnesis) of innate Forms, escaping the cave’s illusions.
Platonic dualism negates material struggle. Nails argues "the Forms are static ideals, not processes" (People of Plato). For instance, the philosopher-king’s role is to mirror the Form of the Good, not engage in class struggle. Unlike Marxist praxis, Plato’s dialectic is elitist and ahistorical, prioritizing transcendence over transformation.
Sources:
Plato, Republic (380 BCE), Bk. VII: Allegory of the Cave.
Phaedo (380 BCE), 75c: "Learning is recollection."
Nails, The People of Plato (2002), p. 167: "Plato’s idealism halts dialectics."
Zoroastrian Dualism
Description: Zoroastrianism’s cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda (wise lord, good) and Angra Mainyu (destructive spirit, evil) culminates in Frashokereti—a final battle where good triumphs eternally. The Gathas (Yasna 30.3–5) frame ethics as aligning with Asha (truth) against Druj (chaos).
Zoroastrianism’s antagonistic dualism lacks synthesis. Boyce notes Frashokereti "annihilates evil but does not integrate it" (Zoroastrians). For example, the Vendidad prescribes ritual purity (e.g., burning corpses) to combat chaos, not socioeconomic reform. Unlike dialectical materialism, Zoroastrian eschatology resolves conflict through destruction, not qualitative leaps.
Sources:
Gathas (1200 BCE), Yasna 30.3: "The two spirits chose life and non-life."
Boyce, Zoroastrians (1979), p. 27: "Eschatology as annihilation, not synthesis."
Vendidad (4th c. BCE), Fargard 5: Ritual purity laws.
Zurvanism
Description: A Zoroastrian offshoot, Zurvanism elevates Zurvan (infinite time) as a neutral deity overseeing Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. The lost Zurvan Yasht (cited in Middle Persian texts) posits time’s indifference to moral struggle, blending fatalism with ethical choice.
Zurvanism’s temporal determinism voids agency. Zaehner argues "time’s neutrality negates dialectical struggle" (Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma). For example, the Bundahishn (3.24) states Zurvan’s "yearning for a son" created the twins good/evil, framing conflict as preordained. Unlike Marxist historicity, Zurvanism reduces ethics to alignment with cosmic indifference.
Sources:
Bundahishn (9th c. CE), 3.24: Zurvan’s creation myth.
Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma (1955), p. 45: "Time’s fatalism vs. agency."
Gnosticism
Description: Gnosticism divides reality into the divine Pleroma (spiritual realm) and the Demiurge’s flawed material world. The Gospel of Thomas (saying 3) urges seekers to find the "Kingdom within," rejecting physicality. Liberation (gnosis) involves awakening the divine spark (pneuma) trapped in matter.
Gnosticism’s anti-material dualism negates dialectics. Jonas argues it "flees the world rather than transforming it" (The Gnostic Religion). For example, the Apocryphon of John condemns the Demiurge as ignorant, dismissing material struggle. Unlike Marxist praxis, Gnostic salvation is individual escape, not collective revolution.
Sources:
Gospel of Thomas (1st c. CE), saying 3: "The Kingdom is inside you."
Apocryphon of John (2nd c. CE): Demiurge as false creator.
Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (1958), p. 67: "Gnostic world-rejection."
Cartesian Mind-Body Dualism
Description: Descartes’ Meditations (1641) splits reality into res cogitans (thinking substance) and res extensa (extended substance). The mind-body problem arises from their irreconcilable interaction, with the pineal gland posited as a dubious mediator.
Cartesian dualism halts dialectics at the threshold. Cottingham notes it "freezes interaction into mystery" (Descartes). For example, Descartes’ Passions of the Soul (Article 31) reduces emotion to bodily mechanics, negating mind-body synthesis. Unlike Marxist materialism, Cartesianism siloes consciousness from historical struggle.
Sources:
Descartes, Meditations (1641), II.1: "I think, therefore I am."
Passions of the Soul (1649), Article 31: Mechanistic view of emotion.
Cottingham, Descartes (1986), p. 112: "Cartesian dualism as dead end."
Manichaeism
Description: Founded by Mani (3rd c. CE), Manichaeism posits an eternal struggle between light (spirit) and darkness (matter). The Kephalaia (Ch. 1) states these forces are irreconcilable, with liberation requiring light’s extraction from the material world.
Manichaeism is known throughout the world for the strictest and most antagonistic of all dualisms. Manichaeism’s irreducible dualism precludes synthesis. Lieu notes its "cosmic apartheid" (Manichaeism) denies any resolution beyond light’s escape. For example, the Psalm of the Bema (236) celebrates light’s victory through ascetic withdrawal, not struggle. Unlike dialectical materialism, Manichaeism offers no historical motor or transformative praxis.
Sources:
Kephalaia (3rd c. CE), Ch. 1: "Two principles, light and darkness."
Psalm of the Bema (3rd c. CE), line 236: "Praise to the Light’s escape."
Lieu, Manichaeism (1992), p. 45: "Manichaean cosmic apartheid."
- ↑ “The credit for having sketched out the dialectic is due to the Greek philosophers. They saw nature as a whole. Heraclitus taught that this whole is transformed: we never enter the same river, he said. The struggle of opposites holds a great place among them, notably in Plato, who emphasizes the fruitfulness of this struggle; opposites engender each other. [A very good example of Platonic dialectic is provided by one of his most famous dialogues, relatively easy to access: The Phaedo.] The word dialectic comes directly from the Greek: dialegein, to discuss. It expresses the struggle of opposing ideas.”
Georges Politzer (1954). Fundamental Principles of Philosophy. Editions Sociales. - ↑ “Our knowledge of the rival claims to this honor goes back to Aristotle, who in his dialogue On Poets mentions Zeno of Elea (c. 495–c. 430 b.c.e.) as the founder of what he calls dialectic and an unknown Alexamenós as the "inventor" of the mimetic dialogue.”
Encyclopedia.com. New Dictionary of the History of Ideas: 'Dialogue and Dialectics: Socratic'. - ↑ “Annotation 9:
Dialectics is a philosophical methodology which searches for truth by examining contradictions and relationships between things, objects, and ideas. Ancient dialecticians such as Aristotle and Socrates explored dialectics primarily through rhetorical discourse between two or more different points of view about a subject with the intention of finding truth.
In this classical form of dialectics, a thesis is presented. This thesis is an opening argument about the subject at hand. An antithesis, or counter-argument, is then presented. Finally, the thesis and antithesis are combined into a synthesis, which is an improvement on both the thesis and antithesis which brings us closer to truth.
Hegel resurrected dialectics to the forefront of philosophical inquiry for the German Idealists. As Engels wrote in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
Hegel’s work’s greatest merit was the taking up again of dialectics as the highest form of reasoning. The old Greek philosophers were all born natural dialecticians, and Aristotle, the most encyclopaedic of them, had already analyzed the most essential forms of dialectic thought.”
Minister of Education and Training, in collaboration with Sự Thật with Associate Professor and Doctor of Philosophy Nguyen Viet Thong as chief editor (2008). Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism Part 1: 'Summary of the Birth and Development of Marxism-Leninism'. Minister of Education and Training. - ↑ “Throughout the history of human knowledge, there have been two conceptions concerning the law of development of the universe, the metaphysical conception and the dialectical conception, which form two opposing world outlooks. Lenin said:
The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation). [3]
Here Lenin was referring to these two different world outlooks.
In China another name for metaphysics is xuánxué. For a long period in history whether in China or in Europe, this way of thinking, which is part and parcel of the idealist world outlook, occupied a dominant position in human thought. In Europe, the materialism of the bourgeoisie in its early days was also metaphysical. As the social economy of many European countries advanced to the stage of highly developed capitalism, as the forces of production, the class struggle and the sciences developed to a level unprecedented in history, and as the industrial proletariat became the greatest motive force in historical development, there arose the Marxist world outlook of materialist dialectics. Then, in addition to open and barefaced reactionary idealism, vulgar evolutionism emerged among the bourgeoisie to oppose materialist dialectics.”
Mao Zedong (1937). On Contradiction. - ↑ Jump up to: 5.0 5.1 “It is, therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are abstracted. For they are nothing but the most general laws of these two aspects of historical development, as well as of thought itself. And indeed they can be reduced in the main to three:
The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
The law of the negation of the negation.
All three are developed by Hegel in his idealist fashion as mere laws of thought: the first, in the first part of his Logic, in the Doctrine of Being; the second fills the whole of the second and by far the most important part of his Logic, the Doctrine of Essence; finally the third figures as the fundamental law for the construction of the whole system. The mistake lies in the fact that these laws are foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not deduced from them. This is the source of the whole forced and often outrageous treatment; the universe, willy-nilly, is made out to be arranged in accordance with a system of thought which itself is only the product of a definite stage of evolution of human thought. If we turn the thing round, then everything becomes simple, and the dialectical laws that look so extremely mysterious in idealist philosophy at once become simple and clear as noonday.”
Friedrich Engels (1883). Dialectics of Nature: 'Dialectics'. [MIA] - ↑ “So far Herr Dühring, and almost entirely word for word. What he is dealing with are therefore principles, formal tenets derived from thought and not from the external world, which are to be applied to nature and the realm of man, and to which therefore nature and man have to conform. But whence does thought obtain these principles? From itself? No, for Herr Dühring himself says: the realm of pure thought is limited to logical schemata and mathematical forms {42} (the latter, moreover, as we shall see, is wrong). Logical schemata can only relate to forms of thought; but what we are dealing with here is solely forms of being, of the external world, and these forms can never be created and derived by thought out of itself, but only from the external world. But with this the whole relationship is inverted: the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history. That is the only materialist conception of the matter, and Herr Dühring's contrary conception is idealistic, makes things stand completely on their heads, and fashions the real world out of ideas, out of schemata, schemes or categories existing somewhere before the world, from eternity — just like a Hegel. In fact, let us compare Hegel’s Encyclopaedia [30] and all its delirious fantasies with Herr Dühring’s final and ultimate truths. With Herr Dühring we have in the first place general world schematism, which Hegel calls Logic. Then with both of them we have the application of these schemata or logical categories to nature: the philosophy of nature; and finally their application to the realm of man, which Hegel calls the philosophy of mind. The “inner logical sequence” of the Dühring succession therefore leads us “quite naturally” {D. Ph. 15} back to Hegel’s Encyclopaedia, from which it has been taken with a loyalty which would move that wandering Jew of the Hegelian school, Professor Michelet of Berlin, to tears. [31] That is what comes of accepting “consciousness”, “thought”, quite naturalistically, as something given, something opposed from the outset to being, to nature. If that were so, it must seem extremely strange that consciousness and nature, thinking and being, the laws of thought and the laws of nature, should correspond so closely.”
Friedrich Engels (1876 — 1878). Anti-Dühring: 'Philosophy; Classification, apriorism'. - ↑ “Our strong points are that we have the support of the people whereas the Kuomintang is divorced from the people. You have more territory, more troops, and more arms, but your soldiers have been obtained by impressment, and there is opposition between officers and soldiers. Naturally there is also a fairly large portion of their armies which has considerable fighting capacity, it is not at all the case that they will all just collapse at one blow. Their weak point lies here, the key is their divorce from the people. We unite with the popular masses; they are divorced from the popular masses.
... All the newspapers and radio stations attacked us. There were a lot of newspapers, several dozen in each city, every faction ran one, and all of them without exception were anti-communist. Did the common people all listen to them? Nothing of the kind! We have some experience of Chinese affairs, China is a ‘sparrow’. In foreign countries, too, it’s nothing else but the rich and the poor, counter revolution and revolution, Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. You mustn’t believe at all that everybody will take in anticommunist propaganda, and join in opposing communism. Didn’t we read newspapers at the time? Yet we were not influenced by them.
I have read the Dream of the Red Chamber five times, and have not been influenced by it. I read it as history. First I read it as a story, and then as history. ...
In studying history, unless you take a class-struggle view as the starting-point, you will get confused. Things can only be analysed clearly by the use of class analysis. ...
What is synthesis? You have all witnessed how the two opposites, the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, were synthesized on the mainland. The synthesis took place like this: their armies came, and we devoured them, we ate them bite by bite. It was not a case of two combining into one as expounded by Yang Hsien-chen, it was not the synthesis of two peacefully coexisting opposites. They didn’t want to coexist peacefully, they wanted to devour you. Otherwise, why would they have attacked Yenan? ... One thing eating another, big fish eating little fish, this is synthesis. It has never been put like this in books. I have never put it this way in my books either. For his part, Yang Hsien-chen believes that two combine into one, and that synthesis is the indissoluble tie between two opposites. What indissoluble ties are there in this world? Things may be tied, but in the end they must be severed. There is nothing which cannot be severed. ...
We must take life as our starting-point in discussing the unity of opposites. (Comrade K’ang Sheng: ‘It won’t do merely to talk about concepts.’)
While analysis is going on, there is also synthesis, and while synthesis is going on, there is also analysis. ...
I am a native philosopher, you are foreign philosophers.”
Mao Zedong (1964). Talk On Questions of Philosophy. - ↑ “Under the heading “The Scriptures of Mencius” (with no indication of the time), Mao mainly recorded his reading of Mencius - Liang Huiwangxia (梁惠王下). 在“《孟子》经”的标题下（没有标明时间），毛泽东主要是对《孟子·梁惠王下》阅读的记录。
Later, under the heading categorized as “Jing” (with no time indicated), Mao Zedong recorded his reading of “Poetry”, “Mencius”, and “Zhuangzi”. 后面，在分类为“经”的名目下（没有标明时间），毛泽东有对《诗经》《孟子》《庄子》阅读的记录。
These excerpts not only enriched Mao's poetic imagination, but also benefited him in deepening his philosophical reflection on the dialectical relationship between the large and the small. His comments on the deeds of Li Hongzhang and on the remarks of Mencius, which he appended to Zhuangzi's remarks, concretely demonstrate this dialectical thinking. Zhuangzi's ideas had a significant impact on Mao's social and political activities and poetic life, and he later used the term “big bird” and “kunpeng” in his poems on many occasions. 这些摘录不仅丰富了毛泽东的诗意想象力，而且有益于他加深对大与小辩证关系的哲学思考。他在庄子言论之后附加的对李鸿章事迹的评论、对孟子言论的评论，具体表明了这种辩证思考。庄子的思想对毛泽东一生的社会政治活动、诗词生活有着重大影响，他后来多次以“大鸟”“鲲鹏”入诗。
After the founding of the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong sent someone to look for Yuan Jiliu, but he was deeply sorry to learn that his teacher had died in 1932. In order to express his respect for his teacher, Mao invited Dai Changzhen, Yuan's wife and mother, to Beijing on May 1, 1951, the International Labor Day. When Mao learned that Dai Changzhen was having difficulties, he wrote to Wang Shoudao, the head of the Hunan provincial government, asking the provincial government to help her. In October 1952, when Mao learned that the local government had decided to rebuild the grave of Yuan Jiliu, he was invited by Luo Yuankun to inscribe “Mr. Yuan Jiliu's Tomb” for the erection of a monument. He inscribed “Mr. Yuan Jiliu's Tomb” in his own handwriting at Luo Yuankun's request. Mao Zedong's inscription on Mr. Yuan Jiliu's tombstone is the only one of its kind among all the deceased teachers who taught at the First Normal School. This shows that Mao Zedong sincerely admired Mr. Yuan Jiliu's morality and knowledge. 中华人民共和国成立后，毛泽东曾特地派人寻找袁吉六的下落，后知悉恩师已于1932年去世，深为惋惜。为表达对老师的敬意，1951年“五一”国际劳动节，毛泽东特意邀请袁吉六的夫人、师母戴常贞到北京观礼。毛泽东得知戴常贞生活困难，便给湖南省政府负责人王首道写信，请省政府酌予接济。戴常贞患结石症做完手术，毛泽东得知消息后立即从自己的稿费中拿出400元钱，托周世钊带给她作营养费用。1952年10月，毛泽东得知地方政府决定为袁吉六这位名师重修墓地的消息，他应罗元鲲之请，亲笔题写了“袁吉六先生之墓”以作立碑用。毛泽东为袁吉六先生题写墓碑，这是所有在第一师范学校任教过的逝世老师中是仅有的。由此可见，毛泽东对袁吉六的道德、学识是由衷佩服的。
Influenced by his teacher Yuan Jiliu's words and deeds, Mao Zedong studied hard, studied ancient Chinese literature and poetry, and history during his student days, and mastered his literary skills; he also studied calligraphy diligently, and later became a great poet and calligrapher. Mao Zedong can be said to be a student who surpassed his teacher. His student grew up to be a great man and a poet, and Yuan Jiliu can rest in peace. "Mastering ancient and modern literature and history, and teaching talents all over the world", the couplet on the stone pillar beside the tombstone fully fits Mr. Yuan's identity and deeds. 受业师袁吉六言传身教的影响，毛泽东在学生时代勤奋读书、研习古文古诗及历史，练就了一身文功；他同时勤习字帖，后来终成大诗人、大书法家。毛泽东可谓青出于蓝而胜于蓝，自己的学生成长为一代伟人、一代诗圣，袁吉六可笑慰九泉了。“通古今文史，教天下英才”，墓碑之侧石柱上的这副对联完全符合袁先生的身份与事迹。”
Hu Weixiong, Professor of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (National School of Administration), doctoral tutor) (2022). Studies on Mao Zedong Deng Xiaoping Theory, No. 8: 'Hu Weixiong: Mao Zedong's diligence in learning poetry during his school years, as seen from Lecture Notes' (Mandarin: 《毛泽东邓小平理论研究》2022年第8期). - ↑ “"...the "principle of three nots": not seizing on others' faults, not putting labels on people and not using the big stick."”
Communist Party of China (1978). Communique of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. - ↑ “Just get moving on your two legs, go the rounds of every section placed under your charge and "inquire into everything as Confucius did, and then you will be able to solve the problems, however little is your ability; for although your head may be empty before you go out of doors, it will be empty no longer when you return but will contain all sorts of material necessary for the solution of the problems, and that is how problems are solved.”
Mao Zedong (1930). Oppose Book Worship: 'To Investigate a Problem is to Solve It'. - ↑ “Lao Zi or Dao De Jing. This is an important philosophical work from ancient China, which proposed the thought of the "Tao" and advocated the ideas of "governing by doing nothing" and "going along with Nature."”
Xi Jinping (2014). The Governance of China: 'Chapter 6: Culturally Advanced China'. - ↑ “The natives' challenge to the colonial world is not a rational confrontation of points of view. It is not a treatise on the universal, but the untidy affirmation of an original idea propounded as an absolute. The colonial world is a Manichean world. It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say with the help of the army and the police force, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil. ... Thus we see that the primary Manicheism which governed colonial society is preserved intact during the period of decolonization; that is to say that the settler never ceases to be the enemy, the opponent, the foe that must be overthrown.”
Frantz Fanon (1961). The Wretched of the Earth: 'Concerning Violence'. - ↑ “It is not the words in and of themselves that are important to me—it's our lives. The struggle of trans people over the centuries is not his-story or her-story. It is ourstory.
I've been called a he-she, butch, bulldagger, cross-dresser, passing woman, female-to-male transvestite, and drag king. The word I prefer to use to describe myself is transgender.
Today the word transgender has at least two colloquial meanings. It has been used as an umbrella term to include everyone who challenges the boundaries of sex and gender. It is also used to draw a distinction between those who reassign the sex they were labeled at birth, and those of us whose gender expression is considered inappropriate for our sex. Presently, many organizations—from Transgender Nation in San Francisco to Monmouth Ocean Transgender on the Jersey shore—use this term inclusively.
I asked many self-identified transgender activists who are named or pictured in this book who they believed were included under the umbrella term. Those polled named: transsexuals, transgenders, transvestites, transgenderists, bigenders, drag queens, drag kings, cross-dressers, masculine women, feminine men, intersexuals (people referred to in the past as "hermaphrodites"), androgynes, cross-genders, shape-shifters, passing women, passing men, gender-benders, gender-blenders, bearded women, and women bodybuilders who have crossed the line of what is considered socially acceptable for a female body.
But the word transgender is increasingly being used in a more specific way as well. The term transgenderist was first introduced into the English language by trans warrior Virginia Prince. Virginia told me, "I coined the noun transgenderist in 1987 or '88. There had to be some name for people like myself who trans the gender barrier—meaning somebody who lives full time in the gender opposite to their anatomy. I have not transed the sex barrier."
... All together, our many communities challenge all sex and gender borders and restrictions. The glue that cements these diverse communities together is the defense of the right of each individual to define themselves.
As I write this book, the word trans is being used increasingly by the gender community as a term uniting the entire coalition.”
Leslie Feinberg (1996). Transgender Warriors: 'Preface'. Boston: Beacon Press. - ↑ “The more I researched the early Hebrews, the more I understood that blaming Judaism for the rise of biases against women, transsexuals, cross-dressers, intersexuals, lesbians, and gay men is not only anti-Semitic, it's a diversion from the realunderstanding of why oppression arose. ...
The accumulation of wealth in the form of herds, agriculture, and trade led to deepening class divisions among the Hebrews, so no wonder the religious beliefs and laws began to reflect the interests of the small group who owned the wealth and their struggle to strengthen their control over the majority.
The communal religious beliefs of the Hebrews had not been fundamentally different from that of other polytheistic tribal-based religions of that region. They worshipped numerous deities, including Yahweh.
So where did transphobic and gender-phobic laws in Deuteronomy spring from? Deuteronomy flatly condemns cross-dressing: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." And male-to-female surgery was denounced: "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter the congregation of the Lord."
The patriarchal fathers wouldn't have felt the need to spell out these edicts if they weren't common practice. But why did they consider cross-dressing and sex-change such a threat? What was going on among the Hebrews at the time Deuteronomy was written?
Scholars hotly debate the date, as well as the authorship, of these laws. Estimates range from the eleventh to the seventh centuries B.C.E. But what is clear is that Deuteronomy reflects the deepening of patriarchal class divisions among the Hebrews, who lived in and around communal societies that still worshipped goddesses such as Astaroth, Ishtar, Isis, and Cybele. And remember, ritual sex-change was a sacred path for many priestesses of these matrilineal religious traditions.
The condemnation against "cross-dressing," historians Bonnie and Vernon Bullough wrote, "formed part of a campaign against the Syrian goddess Atargatis. who was probably a Syrian version of the Assyrian goddess Ishtar. In some of the worship ceremonies, the followers of Atargatis dressed in the clothes and assumed the role of the opposite sex, just as their Greek counterparts did."
In addition, the laws warned against Jews cross-dressing. These rules forbade Jewish men from using makeup, wearing brightly colored clothes, jewelry, or ornaments associated with women, or shaving their pubic hair. Women were told to keep their hair long, while men were to keep theirs clipped short.' On the one hand, these rules could be seen from the point of view that cross-dressing and cross-gendered expression as a whole retained an integral connection to the worship of the Mother Goddess.
But it's also important to remember that wealthy Hebrew males were trying to consolidate their patriarchal rule. That means they were very much concerned about making distinctions between women and men, and eliminating any blurring or bridging of those categories. That would also explain why the rules of ownership of property and the rights of intersexual people were extensively detailed in Jewish law.
The Hebrews and Judaism were not to blame for the rise of patriarchy or oppression. Class divisions were responsible for the growth of laws that placed new boundaries and restrictions across bodies, self-expression, and desire—as well as fencing off property and wealth. And the Hebrews weren't even the first society to split into classes, or to develop increasingly patriarchal laws. That transformation took place in societies all over the world.
More than a century ago, Frederick Engels explained the importance of these dramatic changes in human society. Engels compared the significance of research into early forms of kinship by Lewis H. Morgan to Darwin's theory of evolution. Morgan, who studied the North American Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) and numerous tribes in Asia, Africa, and Australia, documented that matrilineal kinship historically preceded patriarchal families. Engels and Karl Marx saw Morgan's studies as proof that the oppression of women began with the cleavage of society into male-dominated classes based on private ownership of property and the accumulation of wealth.
I believe the same historic overthrow of communalism was also responsible for trans oppression.
Shackling a vast laboring class meant creating armies, police, courts, and prisons to enforce the ownership of private property. However, whips and chains alone couldn’t ensure the rule of the new wealthy elite. A tiny, parasitic class can't live in luxury off the wealth of a vast, laboring class without keeping the majority divided and pitted against each other. That is where the necessity for bigotry began.
I found the origin of trans oppression at this intersection between the overthrow of mother-right and the rise of patriarchal class-divided societies. It is at this very nexus that edicts like Deuteronomy arose. Law, including religious law, codified class relations.
The earliest overthrow of mother-right took place in the fertile river valleys of Eurasia and northeast Africa during the period of about 4500 to 1200 B.C.E. In this new social structure, riven by inequality, male ruling class attitudes toward women and trans people grew more and more hostile, even toward transgendered queens and kings.
For example, Hatshepsut, a woman who ruled Egypt in the fifteenth century B.C.E. , "assumed masculine attire, was represented as god and king, and wore the symbolic false beard. In murals she was pictured with short hair, bare shoulders, and was usually devoid of breasts. S/he described herself by male names." Ruling with the support of the temple community, Hatshepsut built grand monuments in honor of the god Amun. Yet after her death, she and the god she honored faced a campaign of hostility, with her second husband attempting to erase all memory of her.
Some eight hundred years later, in the seventh century B.C.E., King Ashurbanipal (Sardanapalus), the last of the Assyrian kings, was described by a physician in his court as spending a great deal of his time dressed in women's clothing. Key nobles used reports of Ashurbanipal 's cross-dressing to justify overthrowing him. Ashurbanipal waged a defensive military campaign against these rivals but was twice defeated in battle. As a result, his rule was limited to his capital city. Finally facing defeat, Ashurbanipal set fire to his palace, killing everyone in it—including himself.9
Hostility to transgender, sex-change, intersexuality, women, and same-sex love became a pattern wherever class antagonisms deepened. As a Jewish, transgender, working-class revolutionary, I can't stress enough that Judaism was not the root of the oppression of women and the outlawing of trans expression and same-sex love. The rise of patriarchal class divisions were to blame.
And I found that wherever the ruling classes became stronger, the laws grew increasingly more fierce and more relentlessly enforced.
...
I found that, as with virtually every ancient people, the early tribes of Greece were communal and matrilineal. But the rise of the Greek city-states during the eighth to sixth centuries B.C.E. was based on slave labor, plunder, and trade. The longer the ruling patricians held power, the more women's status became degraded and expressions of human love became subject to legal dictate.
It's true I did find many, many trans references in Greek culture, religion, art, and mythology. But whatever homage trans expression still enjoyed was a holdover from the communal past. It was hard for the Greek patriarchs to diminish the honor that transgender and intersexuality still held among the laboring class. The patriarchal priests in Greece were hemmed in by the popularity of ancient religions—some dating from matriarchal times—and by schools of secular philosophers who played a vital role in politics and education. Wherever ancient rituals still persisted in Greece, so did trans expression. There were numerous festivals, rituals, and customs in which men dressed in women's clothing, and women wore men's clothes and beards.
Greek mythology was also filled with references to sex-change, intersexuality, and cross-dressing. Many mythological heroes and gods cross-dressed at one time or another, including Achilles, Heracles, Dionysus, and Athena. "Literal and metaphoric sex change," notes classical scholar P. M. C. Forbes Irving, "seems to have been a subject of considerable imaginative interest in the ancient world and had some importance in ancient religion."
But changing attitudes toward trans people and the sharpening patriarchal class divisions are reflected in the Greek legends, in the same way that the mythological defeat of goddesses by male gods mirrored the overthrow of matrilineal societies. For example, Kaineus (Caeneus), a female-to-male figure in mythology, is viewed as a "scorner and rival of the gods." He is driven into the earth by the Centaurs who considered Kaineus an outrage to their masculinity.
Dionysus, also known as Bacchus, was one of the gods who replaced the pre-class goddesses. But Dionysus was represented as a transgendered, cross-dressing god—a hybridization of the old beliefs and the new. During the rites of Dionysus, females-known as ithyphalloi—dressed in men's clothes and carried large phalluses, and men dressed in women's apparel.
Dionysus held great popularity with the most downtrodden, notes Forbes Irving:
Perhaps the most striking feature of Dionysus, and one which seems particularly relevant to his role as a shape-shifter, is that although he becomes one of the greatest of all the gods he retains in his myths and many of his cults a marginal character. He is above all the god of the weak and oppressed, especially women, and an opponent of the established order.
The slave-owners were not easily able to impose their brutal system, or their beliefs, on peoples who had once lived freely and worked cooperatively. The patricians couldn't rule without fighting wars and crushing rebellions.
To my surprise, I discovered that one particular group of warriors who fought against this enslavement was considered transgendered, at least by the Greeks—the Amazons. I knew a little about the Amazons because they were such a symbol of freedom and resistance for modern feminists.”
Leslie Feinberg (1996). Transgender Warriors: 'Why Bigotry Began'. [PDF] Boston: Beacon Press. - ↑ “"The foundations of culture have been created and the conditions for its progress are created by the working masses which are the makers of history."”
Ahmed Sékou Touré (1969). A Dialectical Approach to Culture. [PDF] doi: 10.1080/00064246.1969.11414448 [HUB] - ↑ Jump up to: 16.0 16.1 Hegel (1807). Phenomenology of Spirit: 'Lordship and Bondage'. [PDF]
- ↑ “A dialectician, Hegel sometimes makes remarkable analyzes. But his idealism led him to attribute to great men an exaggerated role; they become the sole agents of historical progress. This aspect of Hegelian philosophy was to be shamelessly exploited by fascist ideology for which the mass is nothing; only the infallible "superman" counts. "Fascism is what Mussolini is thinking right now," said an admirer of Le Duce. Hitler shouted to his shock troops: "I will think for you".”
Georges Politzer (1954). Fundamental Principles of Philosophy. - ↑ Kojève (1969). Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (p. 50).
- ↑ “"道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物。
The Dao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things."”
Laozi (Between 8th and 3rd century BCE). Dao De Jing, aka Laozi: '42' (Chinese: 道德經). - ↑ “昔者莊周夢為胡蝶，栩栩然胡蝶也，自喻適志與！不知周也。俄然覺，則蘧蘧然周也。不知周之夢為胡蝶與，胡蝶之夢為周與？周與胡蝶，則必有分矣。此之謂物化。
Formerly, I, Zhuang Zhou, dreamt that I was a butterfly, a butterfly flying about, feeling that it was enjoying itself. I did not know that it was Zhou. Suddenly I awoke, and was myself again, the veritable Zhou. I did not know whether it had formerly been Zhou dreaming that he was a butterfly, or it was now a butterfly dreaming that it was Zhou. But between Zhou and a butterfly there must be a difference. This is a case of what is called the Transformation of Things.'”
"The Writings of Chuang Tzu", James Legge, 1891: '齊物論 - The Adjustment of Controversies' (350 BC-250 BC) (Chinese: 莊子 - Zhuangzi - also known as 《南華真經》). - ↑ “2 万物恃之以生而不辞，功成不名有，衣养万物而不为主。常无欲，可名于小；All things return (to their root and disappear), and do not know that it is it which presides over their doing so;--it may be named in the greatest things.”
Laozi (Between 8th and 3rd century BCE). Dao De Jing, aka Laozi: '34' (Chinese: 道德經). - ↑ “"為學日益，為道日損。損之又損，以至於無為。無為而無不為。取天下常以無事，及其有事，不足以取天下。In the pursuit of learning, one does more each day; In the pursuit of the Way, one does less each day; One does less and less until one does nothing; One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Gaining the world always is accomplished by following no activity. As soon as one actively tries, one will fall short of gaining the world."”
Laozi (Between 8th and 3rd century BCE). Dao De Jing, aka Laozi: '48' (Chinese: 道德經). - ↑ “Madhyamaka: Middle Way school
मध्यमकདབུ་མ་中觀見
Basic Meaning
Along with Yogācāra, it is one of the two major philosophical schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Founded by Nāgārjuna around the second century CE, it is rooted in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, though its initial exposition was presented in Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.”
Tsadra Foundation. "Glossary: Madhyamaka" Buddha-Nature. Retrieved Feb 18 2025.