We are re-issuing Ren Jiyu's article, "Fight Hard to Advance the Marxist Study of Religion," in order to commemorate his major achievements in establishing the Chinese Society of Atheism and starting up the publication Science and Atheism. Ren was accused of using the term "religion," during the criticism of Gang of Four, not in the sense of a figure of speech, but as "truly perceiving" the cult of the individual "as a new sort of religion." He also faced the accusation (...) that "the slogans, which urged people to ‘criticize religious theism’* and ‘vigorously propagate atheism,’ put forward as a means of ‘sweeping out religion,’ were equally absurd." The accusations leveled at the article landed atheist propaganda in a very difficult position. Thirty years have elapsed since then. The experience or lessons of the last thirty years with regard to both theism and atheism can and should be summarized. And if these are to be summarized, this article is a starting point. As regards this article, we only have two statements to make here: First, the article clearly pointed out that Lin Biao and the Gang of Four "were neither religious believers nor theists, nor did they openly propagate religious theism." And second, it is true that the article advocated criticism of religious theism and vigorous propaganda of atheism, but it did not stand for "sweeping out religion." [2009, Editors of Science and Atheism]. (shrink)

The history of philosophy is the history of entire knowledge, a definition made by Lenin.1 At the same time Lenin also pointed out that throughout the two thousand years of development of philosophy the struggle between idealism and materialism, between the lines or tendencies, has never come to a stalemate.2 Based on what Lenin had pointed out, Redanov [translation of the name in Chinese—Tr.] of the Soviet Union repudiated Alexandrov's definition of the history of philosophy. As a matter of fact, (...) in defining it as the history of knowledge, Alexandrov also drew his idea from Lenin's definition. The history of philosophy is the history of knowledge and also the history of the struggle between materialism and idealism. The two definitions should complement rather than exclude each other. However, in applying them a deviation will emerge as if the use of the one would invariably violate the other. In writing The History of Philosophy of West Europe, Alexandrov applied the idea that the history of philosophy is the history of knowledge; however, he did ignore the struggle between materialism and idealism and described the progress of knowledge as a peaceful, quantitatively gradual advance. Therefore Redanov's criticism of him was not without reason. After liberation, we accepted Redanov's definition and applied it to the study of the history of Chinese philosophy. Thus we developed another deviation: We only saw philosophers of the two camps fight with each other in the history of philosophy and devoted all our energy to assigning the previous philosophers into different camps instead of focusing our attention on the complicated course of an upward spiral of the progress of man's knowledge so as to sum up the experience and lessons of such a spiral development and its regular pattern. Some people now suggest that we repudiate Redanov's idea and revive Lenin's definition. There are also people who fear the repudiation of Redanov's definition would mean a repetition of Alexandrov's mistake. We believe Lenin's definition is correct and complete. Either Redanov or Alexandrov saw only one aspect of the matter to the neglect of the other. To overcome the one-sided emphasis in our research work, we must acquire a comprehensive understanding of what Lenin had defined. (shrink)

The history of philosophy is the history of cognition in its entirety; this was Lenin's definition. At the same time, Lenin also pointed out that, throughout 2,000 years of philosophical development, the struggle between idealism and materialism, between the trends or lines of Plato and Democritus, has never become outdated.

I have been engaged in teaching and research on the history of Chinese philosophy for a total of not less than thirty years. During the War of Resistance against Japan, it was at the Southwest Associated University in Kunming that I first began lecturing and became engaged in specialized studies on the history of Chinese philosophy. However, I should note that I only began using the truly scientific method to study the history of Chinese philosophy in 1949. Actually, the history (...) of Chinese philosophy as a scientific discipline was only established gradually under the care and concern of the Communist Party after Liberation. During its development, this scientific discipline, while achieving important successes, also traveled a winding circuitous path. How to correctly evaluate the history and present condition of this scientific discipline, and how to promote its further development, is a problem that deeply concerns every comrade engaged in this field of scientific study. This article proposes to discuss a few of my own personal feelings on this subject. (shrink)

In the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods apart from Confucius and Laozi, many other schools of thought—such as Guanzi, Mencius, Xunzi, Lord Shang Yang, Hanfei, Song Xing, Yin Wen, and Mozi—each had their systems of thought. From the Qin-Han period onward, owing to the selective process of history, only Confucianism and Daoism retained a long-lasting influence.