Abstract

This debate took place over ten years ago. To say that it was a debate is, in fact, not really accurate, because not long after the discussions had begun, it turned into a criticism and massacre of the expression "two combine into one" and of those who used it. Later, it became the platform on which those so-called "authorities on theory," and those like Chen Boda who did the bidding of Lin Biao and the "gang of four" became the "heroes" of this massacre. The expression "two combine into one" by that time was being used as a political indictment against those guilty of the enemy-versus-us contradiction. And in the Great Cultural Revolution it became an even more fearful crime. It was of course very difficult to carry out a scholarly discussion in that kind of atmosphere. The expression "two combine into one" and some of the arguments raised by those comrades who advocated the use of this expression were originally worthy of study, even though some of their positions were really untenable, such as the statement that all objective things are "two combined into one," and that we should use "one divides into two" in the process of understanding them. What really is the inherent meaning of the expression "one divides into two"? In what sense and in what contexts should it be used? This also needs to be examined carefully. But because philosophical research was turned into political criticism, these theoretical evaluations and their mutual discussion never progressed, and thus, aside from remembering that these philosophical propositions "one divides into two" and "two combine into one" were at the time laden with political meaning, there is little understanding of their philosophical content. And few even of those who work in philosophy have had the courage to study them philosophically. Thus this "debate" which confused scholarly differences for political struggle, and for even the enemy-versus-us struggle, may be said to have added nothing positive to our understanding and research on the law of the unity of opposites in Chinese philosophical circles. It provided us with only a profound lesson