-On the dialectical method of Marxist philosophical materialism.

Philosophy is the essence of the spirit of the times and the highest product and crystallization of human thinking and wisdom. Philosophy guides people to think deeply about nature, society and life in its unique way. Marxist philosophy is a scientific world outlook and methodology, the product of modern civilization, the essence of the spirit of the times, and the crystallization of outstanding human philosophical thoughts. Through the study of Ma Zhe for one semester, I know that Marxist philosophy is a scientific world outlook and methodology, and I have a certain understanding of the philosophical thoughts and ideological essence expounded in it. But philosophy is profound and profound, and because of my limited life experience, my understanding of it may be only superficial, and I don't know enough about deep-seated problems. I only talk about Marxist philosophy here.

In college, with the growth of age, the deepening of knowledge level and the expansion of knowledge, I have my own ideas about some contents and opinions in the book, and I can also make some judgments and evaluations on them. When accepting some viewpoints in Ma Zhe's textbooks, such as materialism and dialectics, I think I should also raise some questions about some contents. As the saying goes, "Thought is the vanguard of action." With the correct thinking as the banner, our work, study and life will be rational and have rules to follow. At the same time, Marxism is also the ideological guide for our party to lead the people, and practice has proved that it can stand the test. Times are developing. Due to the limitations of the times, some contents of Marxist philosophy should also be viewed from a developmental perspective, thinking about some viewpoints and giving them distinctive characteristics of the times, instead of asking us to stick to the rules and accept their ideas. Everyone has different views, and textbooks are written by scholars in real life. After all, it's not perfect. This is called "no matter how clever a person is, he will worry that he will lose." This requires us to think hard in the process of learning, use our brains to find out the imperfect details, communicate some of our views with teachers and classmates, learn from criticism and grow up in thinking.

Nowadays, almost all human beings are immersed in the ocean of economy, the flowers of ideas begin to wither, and philosophy has become an anachronistic "cultural relic". Therefore, the word "criticism" with a strong rational color is almost forgotten by people, and people are experiencing the fun of "competition" in real life. However, in the history of modern thought, the word "criticism" was once very popular. Recalling this word today may give us some academic pleasure. Because an era that has not been criticized or criticized may be derived from an era of fierce criticism. I think the teacher's critical topic also wants us to calm down and think dialectically and rationally about textbooks and things around us!

Let's first look at the development and changes of "criticism" in the eyes of philosophers. In the eyes of German philosophers, the word "criticism" is very popular. Since Kant built a philosophical building with "Three Criticism", criticism has become a magic weapon in the hands of philosophers. In the process of the disintegration of Hegel's philosophy, "young hegelians" made criticism flood. In the 20th century, Frankfurt School abused criticism again, and developed philosophical criticism to a climax, so that there was no way out. Frankfurt School's social criticism theory is the end of criticism, because this kind of criticism absolutely denies everything in reality, making philosophy no longer the rationality of human beings, but the cynical complaints of philosophers.

Secondly, I have some views on "criticism". Why do some people hold positive opinions and some people hold negative opinions on one thing? In addition, even the same thing, the same person will have two completely different views. Why? This is the dialectical thought in philosophy. The concept of dialectics already contains the meaning of negation, that is, affirmation is realized through negation. We can put forward our own critical opinions on things or phenomena around us, which shows that we are still thinking rationally. Even if this criticism is individualistic, it is our own idea after all. The essence that distinguishes man from other animals lies in rational thinking. At the same time, I think dialectical thinking is a way of thinking that respects objective facts, and it is a universal interpretation principle about social and natural's opposition. Of course, dialectics, as a universal principle of interpretation, never stays on the superficial explanation, but requires a critical reflection on the internal relationship of reality.

Take the example around us as an example. In view of the widespread anti-Japanese sentiment and boycott of Japanese goods among students, some conscious people stand up and tell us what to do, saying that as contemporary college students, we should keep calm, not be emotional, and treat this matter with the quality that we college students should have. The latter is a critical reflection on the former behavior. However, let's think about it. Since we are hot-blooded young intellectuals, Japan's aggression and persecution against us in the past can't be ignored, but today he can't make a clear statement on historical issues, let alone reflect on the historical crimes he committed. At the same time, he also tampered with Japanese history textbooks many times. Can we tolerate such behavior? In addition, Japan did not comply with the relevant provisions of international law, and to some extent, it occupied the East China Sea continental shelf and Diaoyu Islands belonging to China. Can we swallow such humiliation again and again? Recently, Japan has been clamoring to become a permanent member of the United Nations without acknowledging historical issues. I don't think any rational China people will agree!

Generally speaking, we should think about everything in a dialectical way, look at problems with a critical eye (that is, a skeptical eye), and question one side of things, so that we can see the other side of things and look at things more comprehensively, objectively and accurately.

This is my own homework before. I still have it in my computer. Please have a look and give it to me if appropriate. After all, we are copying and pasting our own things.