My knowledge and understanding of aesthetics is that it is a very profound and pure knowledge. It is human nature to love beauty. Everyone has the ability to love beauty, but not everyone has the ability and talent to study beauty. Aesthetics and aesthetics are basically two different things. Aesthetics is essentially a phenomenon of human social life, and aesthetics is a philosophical discussion of this phenomenon. Aesthetics originally belonged to philosophy, but later it was separated from philosophy and became an independent discipline. Academically, aesthetics is interdisciplinary, involving philosophy, anthropology, art and other academic categories. As a research, it needs profound academic accomplishment, especially philosophical foundation. But the present situation is that aesthetics is everywhere, and the huge team of aesthetic research and the number of aesthetic works and articles make people look abroad. There are costume aesthetics, architectural aesthetics, music aesthetics, teaching aesthetics, cultural aesthetics, decorative aesthetics, sports aesthetics and so on. And all kinds of large aesthetic categories can be divided into more specific small aesthetic categories, such as football aesthetics, basketball aesthetics, dance aesthetics, Go aesthetics and so on. Now it seems that there are only "aesthetics of eating" and "aesthetics of understanding". But reading these aesthetic works, except some aesthetic terms and concepts, can't see philosophy at all. We can see that some scholars who have even written many aesthetic monographs know nothing about philosophy. Some aesthetic works simply talk about some simple phenomena and their experiences, only borrow the aesthetic appearance, and have no depth at all. Here I want to talk about my understanding of practical aesthetics. In my opinion, practical aesthetics has developed the aesthetic thoughts in Marx's Paris Manuscripts to the maximum extent. Compared with other aesthetic schools in China, it has the most theoretical explanation function, but it also has serious shortcomings. The key to make up for the defects of practical aesthetics is not to declare to "transcend" or "deny" it-any aesthetic scholar who wants to transcend and deny it can establish his own aesthetic system as much as possible, without relying on the public opinion of "surpassing" or "denying" to force practical aesthetics to "retire"-but the disciplinary orientation of practical aesthetics itself: whether it is a social science aesthetics guiding aesthetic practice or a humanities science based on practical philosophy. At present, practical aesthetics is scientific. For example, the scientific nature of practical aesthetics is irreplaceable in revealing the law of aesthetic occurrence; When explaining the generation of cultural aesthetic value, it is also explanatory. Of course, it is necessary to appropriately limit the "pan-americanism" caused by the "objectification of essential forces" (see below for details). But as far as the overall disciplinary characteristics of practical aesthetics are concerned, I personally think it is closer to speculative aesthetics. In practical aesthetics, there are not only speculative concepts such as accumulation and meaningful form, but also the objectification of essential power and the humanization of nature have become the logical starting point or theoretical cornerstone for revealing the essence and law of beauty based on practice. This makes the essence and law of beauty revealed by practical aesthetics have a great blind spot in aesthetic interpretation. Of course, for speculative practical aesthetics, this is not a defect, perhaps it is the embodiment of its pure academic character. For example, the beauty of visual symmetry only comes from the structure of people's eyes, which obviously has no depth of learning, but if it is interpreted as "meaningful form", "natural generation to people" or "actual labor creation" in speculative language, it is obviously much deeper. However, it is a serious defect for practical aesthetics to go to science, but it can not be solved by mending the existing system, but by building a new system to fully reveal the "law of beauty." This is very difficult. The author is engaged in the study of social science aesthetics, but he knows little about it. It took almost 15 years to master the "law of beauty" exhaustively. Therefore, seeing that some gentlemen can reveal the laws of beauty in a paper and have all the laws of truth, goodness and beauty, I can only envy myself as Flaubert told Qiao Zhisang [7]. Talking about aesthetic value from the perspective of value attribute and discussing the essence and law of beauty from the perspective of value science, as Mr. Zhu Liyuan pointed out, is really not a new theory of aesthetics; However, since the introduction of the concept of value, there has been no breakthrough in the study of the essence and law of beauty, which is also a fact. The reason, I think, lies not in aesthetics itself, but in value science. For decades, after in-depth study of value science, the philosophical circle has reached the same conclusion as Plato's "beauty is rare" two thousand years ago: value is "one of the most profound and troublesome fields" in philosophical theory [8]. By saying this, I am by no means denying the significance of value aesthetics, but saying that aesthetic scholars should be more cautious when applying the concept of value. The view that Mr. Lu Meilin thinks that value is "the material attribute of things" has been denied by most scholars in today's value research. The reason for denying it is not because it does not conform to Marx's "statement", but because his theory itself is difficult to justify. It is the same as the commodity value, "there is not even a natural material atom" [9]. How can it be said to be "the material property of things"? Mr. Zhu Liyuan believes that value is a "relational category", which is a common view in philosophy at present. I think the existence essence of value is a kind of system attribute, a structural and acquired system quality, such as commodity value, which only exists in the commodity exchange system. Of course, different value theories can exist, and the argument between them does not belong to the aesthetic category; No matter what kind of value theory we introduce, the key is to solve the theoretical dilemma of aesthetics. However, it should be pointed out that there should be no Marxist value theory. Although Marx used the concept of "value" in general semantics before his death, he never studied "value" from the perspective of philosophy; The "value" in Marx's works is mainly the value of economics. This is basically consistent with the trajectory that philosophy "value science" came into being later than economics "value science" in western academic history. Therefore, what Mr. Lu said "in the view of Marxist axiology" is not rigorous. And the "classic quotations" of Marx on "value" quoted by Mr. Zhu Liyuan are also wrong. "The universal concept of' value' comes from the relationship between people and external things that meet their needs, so it is also a concept of' value' [10], which is not Marx's original words, but only Marx's retelling of Wagner's point of view that he wants to refute. This "misunderstanding" of Marx in China academic circles was first discovered and corrected by Mr. Hao more than ten years ago. Later, Mr. Li Deshun made a detailed textual research in The Theory of Value. The reason why Marx disagreed with the concept of commodity value is clear, because the value as a concept is actually an equivalent concept derived from use value. Wagner tried to use this deduction to turn commodity value into a derivative of commodity use value, so as to obliterate its special social essence. Therefore, no matter how consistent this expression is with our understanding of value, it cannot be used as Marx's definition of the concept of "value" [1 1]. However, for more than ten years, due to the division of disciplines, it has often been habitually quoted as Marx's definition of "value" in the field of aesthetics. By the way, I would like to correct it here to avoid further misunderstanding. In fact, whether this passage is Marx's original words does not affect its authenticity. Mr. Li Deshun himself thinks that the philosophical value is closer to Marx's "use value", and his definition of "value" is also the satisfaction of the object to the subject's "demand", which belongs to the value "utility" theory. Therefore, the above misreading does not affect Mr. Zhu Liyuan's exposition of value and aesthetic value and his criticism of Mr. Ruemelin. As Mr. Zhu pointed out, Mr. Lu also agrees with the theory of value "utility", and Mr. Lu even directly takes the concept of "use value" as the definition of "value". However, the crux of the problem is that the value "utility" theory itself has great limitations. It can neither cover "commodity value" as a "special" value, nor fully explain aesthetic value, especially cultural aesthetic value. Some scholars even fall into the strange circle of explanation when discussing aesthetic value with utilitarian value: the object has aesthetic value, so it can meet the aesthetic needs of the subject; The object has aesthetic value because it can meet the aesthetic needs of the subject. Such "aesthetic research" is "useless" as Mr. Zhao said. At the same time, aesthetics should be super-utilitarian to some extent, which is also the understanding of various schools of aesthetics. Utility value refers to the utility value of things. Although utilitarian value can be transformed into aesthetic value under certain conditions, it should not be the main body of aesthetic value, especially cultural aesthetic value. Because of this, the theory of value "utility" makes my research on aesthetic value system encounter insurmountable obstacles. Therefore, inspired by Marx's viewpoint of duality of labor, I put forward the viewpoint of "duality of value" in which cultural value and cultural utility value coexist. As we all know, the cultural practice activities that distinguish human beings from animal instinct are all conscious will behaviors with established practical purposes; In practice, human beings have created the cultural object and the cultural utility value of the object, and also created the cultural value of themselves and the object. All human practical activities, on the one hand, are human creative and purposeful contributions, reflecting the cultural effect value of the subject; As a concrete practical activity, it creates different cultural utility values of the object. On the other hand, all human practical activities are the confirmation of human creativity itself, which embodies the cultural value of the subject; As a human creative activity with the same nature, it objectifies and forms the cultural value of the object. The utility value of the object is not completely equal to the utility value of the subject, let alone the cultural value contained in the subject or object. The cultural value of the subject is objectified into the cultural value of the object, and objectively confirmed by the cultural value of the object. Therefore, the two are completely equivalent. It is easy for discerning people to see that the so-called "cultural value" here is the "essential power of human beings" whose objects are objectified and materialized. It also comes from the Paris Manuscript, which should be a proper concept in the aesthetics of scientific practice, because it not only describes the value of "objectifying essential power", but also explains the objectivity of cultural aesthetic value. Indeed, when people appreciate the cultural relics created through practice, they mainly appreciate not its practical value, but its subjective creativity-human strength, technology, knowledge and wisdom. Although many cultural relics will lose their aesthetic value without practical value, their aesthetic value is not directly related to their practical value. Those imitations of famous artists do not affect the aesthetic effect of foreign audiences, but in the eyes of experts, they are worthless because they lack the most precious cultural originality of human beings. Of course, introducing the concept of "cultural value" can't completely overcome the blind spot and misunderstanding of theoretical explanation inherent in practical aesthetics, not only because the pre-cultural aesthetic value and social aesthetic value [12] can't be explained by it, but also because all cultural objects have cultural value, but obviously not all of them have cultural aesthetic value. This is indeed a major theoretical defect of practical aesthetics. Even Mr. Yang Enhuan, who insists on practical aesthetics, admits that the objectification of human essential strength does have the disadvantage of confusing material production practice with aesthetic practice, but he also thinks that "this proposition is not completely suitable for expressing practice and aesthetic practice" [13]. In fact, just as there is no gap between material practice and aesthetic practice in reality, there is no qualitative absolute difference between cultural value and cultural aesthetic value. Differences only exist in the quantity or degree of cultural values. This difference in quantity or degree is also a value gap or value measure that restricts the transformation of cultural value into cultural aesthetic value. We know that human cultural practice is very different at the level of creation. Even in the practice activities in the same discipline and professional field, the level of cultural value creation or realization of the subject is absolutely different every time. Just like the furniture made by the same carpenter, there are always differences in technological difficulty and technical level; Just like the novels created by the same writer, their image-building and language expression levels are different. Obviously, the essence of subject creation or the level of cultural value objectively realized by these objects is different. As an affirmation of the essence of human creation, the cultural aesthetic value can obviously only take the object with the highest degree of value realization as the aesthetic object. As creators themselves, both carpenters and writers usually know this difference. They always regard those works with the highest level as "masterpieces" and regard them as beauty. And those commodities and the works of the sixth grade, the objects of ordinary value realization, the creators themselves will not show off or think about beauty. "pan-americanism" produced by "objectification of essential power" can be eliminated by this concept.