Abstract

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