From Theory To Practice

While social movements of Marxism seem to be in their lowest ebb in the world now, Marxist thoughts are more and more becoming the academic materials for theorists, especially as one of the various general philosophical theories. Based on this premise, Marxist philosophy, treated from the traditional perspectives, is taken to contrast with all kinds of philosophical theories, and hence is given- various advantages as well as disadvantages. It is not the point that Marxism, as one of the various general philosophical theories, seems to weaken its claim as truth; the point is whether it is an appropriate understanding to regard Marxism as one of the various general philosophical theories, and whether Marx regarded his works as a mere theoretic activity.Because the prospect of social transformation Marx planned was not realized on schedule, Marxist theory seems to have to fall back into an unrealized theoretic utopia, thereby, Marx seems to be only one of those theorists who have their social ideals. Indeed, Marx never considered himself as such a theorist, and never put the achievement of his theory as his aim in life. The difference between Marx and theorists is noteworthy, especially when Marx theory has been being increasingly philosophized, theorized and academized. Marx's attempts to sublate the theory and reconstruct the essence and mission of the theory on the base of actual practice seem to encounter an exile in the name of grandeur of theory, while his theory is reconstructed into a perfect theoretic system with effort. Marx probably has to appear just as a theorist, while those theorists, consciously or unconsciously, conceive Marx in their theoretic traditions and professional criterions. Similarly, Marx appears only as a philosopher in the view of a philosopher, and as an economist in the view of an economist, and as a sociologist in the view of a sociologist, and as a historian in the view of a historian. So, Marx is theoretically destructed, while his theory is emphasized and admired.Through examining and analyzing the history and method of dialectics, from an aspect we can see that Marx thoughts of philosophy, as an active part of the practice of changing the world, is essentially not theoretical, but practical. It is the theme of this dissertation.Although theory exists in a form of discourse, it does not mean that anyone who gives a speech about something extensive is a theorist. In the connection between theory and practice, there was once a time which is naturally formed when theory formed its own transcendental kingdom surpassing life. The relation between theory and practice is not only an encounter with no choice, but also a fetter of theory that it has to get rid of to accomplish itself. In this context, theory is not an organic factor in real life of practice; instead, theory per se is a higher life, a contemplative and reflective life surpassing humanity as imitating divinity. It is in such a period that philosophy, love of wisdom, was born, and become a concrete example as a theory of a higher form of life. Pre-Socratic philosophers, as outstanding practitioners of this theoretic philosophy, led their life high above the secular life. Since the beginning that Pythagoras consciously identified himself as a philosopher for the first time, philosophers had been spectators of life without concerns about utility. In this sense, philosophy originally has strain with real life.In this strain between philosophy and real life, the earliest philosophers mainly tried to withdraw philosophy out of real life to develop an independent and higher life. The simple denial of this endeavor, which means just to live the natural real life in the natural form, has been still chosen by many people who are impatient to the abstruseness and impracticality of philosophy. However, this simply means to give up the strain, without any active meanings to both philosophy and real life. It was Socrates who gave this strain meaning, and brought philosophy back to earth from heaven, and unfolded the strain within real life. The brilliant applications of Socratic dialectics demonstrated how philosophy spontaneously emerged from real life, how it made life unrest, and how it secularly promoted the secular life in itself. Socratic dialectics brought the philosophy as observation and theory out of itself, and hence formed the essential interaction between philosophy and real life. That is, philosophy as dialectics became an active and transformative force of real life. It was this change that constitutes the crucial contents that Socrates gave to the turning of Greek philosophy. Socrates voluntarily dedicated his life for the turning he made. This means that the strain between philosophy and life, between theory and practice was not actually solved; rather, it became unease inherent in philosophy, which was constantly reproduced during the development of philosophy, until it has not been expected to be theoretically solved in philosophy itself. It is Marx whose effort definitely expresses the unease and the possibility of its being resolved in the problematic of actual practice.Ascending Marxian thoughts of dialectics to Socratic dialectics, which facilitates elucidating our problematic, is clearly only an abstraction to be specified. In fact, Marxian thoughts of dialectics did not originate directly from the premise of Socratic dialectics. Just as life, philosophy leads its way paradoxically.In the introduction of this dissertation, we begin with the fact that Marx never wrote a book solely elaborating dialectics as a philosophical theory, and raise the questions that whether dialectics a theory in Marxism or not? And in what sense philosophy is not merely a theory? Because philosophy is at the same time the history of philosophy, these questions, pertaining to the very basic which makes philosophy philosophy, were produced and unfolded in the history of philosophy, in the strain between living and spectating, or between practice and theory. There are 4 chapters in the main part of this dissertation, which reflectively review the strain.The first chapter, titled with"Strains between philosophy and life", resorting to the history of philosophy, argues the priority of life to philosophy in the sense of existence, and reversely, the transcendence of theory to life.The second chapter, titled with"Opposite between technique and theory", discusses the first paradoxically development of philosophy as a theory, and argues that the Socratic dialectics is a philosophical technique which rearranges life. However, Plato and Aristotle, as successors of Socrates, retracted the Socratic dialectics back into theoretic philosophy again. Because of the unparalleled importance of Plato and Aristotle in the development of the western philosophy, theoretic philosophies, characterized by Plato and Aristotle, became the mainstream of philosophical paradigms. That is, the philosophies as theory became the greatest achievement, as well as the limitation most difficult to overcome.The third chapter, titled with"Tension between action and reflection", mainly discusses the quality of action of Fichte's dialectics, and reflective dialectics of Hegel which is mediated by Schelling, in the German classical philosophy. Fichte's dialectics, although with a background different from Socrates, which was based on the spiritual traditions of the unique German culture, advocated the essential activity of dialectics to life again on a new basic. Through Fichte, Dialectics tried to transcend the trait of being theorized of itself. This is what make Fichte's Dialectics differ from not only Kantian one, but Hegelian one as well. However, In the German classical philosophy, the quality of reflection of dialectics defeated the one of action, and Hegelian philosophy of dialectics in this victory served as the greatest achievement of theoretic philosophy. Hegelian philosophy of dialectics, which fully inherited the great wealth of the development of western philosophy of dialectics by virtue of its acute sense of history, provided philosophy the possibility of self-sublating.The fourth chapter, titled with"Dialectics is a science of transformation", discusses the Marian thoughts of dialectics, as a natural consequence. By examining the historical and spiritual conditions of Marx, we clarify the development of thoughts which Marx underwent during the process of collapse of Hegelian philosophy, and argue the conscious sublation of Marx to philosophies as theory. This sublation, which was not theoretical one, reversed Hegelian dialectics on the premise of inheriting the affluent spiritual bequest of philosophical dialectics, and turned it into a revolutionary consciousness of the actual social-historical movement itself. In this very sense, Marx, although mastering philosophy, was not a philosophical theorist any more. He sublated philosophies as theory, and implanted the spirit of philosophical theory into the revolutionary practice with the most active attitude. Capital, being written for the social revolution and the liberation of human, which have nothing in common with standard philosophica writings, embodied the most vivid dialectics of reality. It is in this sense that Marx led dialectics out of reflective philosophies as theory, and made it an active factor in the social practice and changes. For practical dialectics, the self-discipline of theory itself serves only as a partial justification, while the content of reality stipulates dialectics as the logic of content. In this meaning, although the practical dialectics could still be expressed in words, its expression, due to its essential dependence on concrete practical situations and contents, merely possesses stability according to concrete historical conditions, and changes according the changing of concrete historical conditions and contents. Just for this reason, the practical dialectics could not be completed theoretically, could not be completed as a theory, in the original sense of the word, an observation, and a meditation. Marx only gave us Capital, but did not give us a purely theoretic system of dialectics. We should not demand more on him, especially we should not ask him to reconstruct a theoretic dialectics which was sublated by him, or did this job instead of him.For Marx, theory is never the most important; only for theorists, it is. If Marxian thoughts of dialectics could only interest theorists with its theoretical form, if it could only be a radical opinion but could not serve as logic of social actions at the same time, it would lost its most essential contents. Indeed, Marxian dialectics is exemplary of the transforming from theory to practice; it not a philosophy in the sense of observation or reflection. This is the main point of this dissertation.