Abstract:

 The practical existence, as a branch of ontology, appears in recent years in the field of aesthetics and literary theories, which combines the practice of Marxism with the existence of Heidegger' s existentialism, accompanied by the argument between practical aesthetics and postpractical aesthetics. Its precursor is practical ontology on a basis of practical materialism. A review of classic texts can discover that, while the term of practical materialism doesn't exist actually, the practical ontology in the field of aesthetics and literary theories seems to be, based on the above practical materialism, walking on the route of materialism. But, in fact, its theoretical explanation completely falls on the socalled "practice", to be precise, on the socalled "practical activity". When practical activity is brought into play artificially and unlimitedly, or when the material foundation in reality is never paid attention to, this practice will dangerously become the spirit practice of subjectivity. Therefore, the argument of practical ontology does not hold water. In the same way, the term of practical existence is also questionable. Judging from the theoretical structure, the relation between practice and existence as well as their symbiotic, interacted possibility, is the inner requirement of this theoretical explanation, which, as the ontology of aesthetics and literary theories, needs adopting to the logic principle in theory. Marx' s practice refers to the human' s material labor and revolutionary action, both including the original material activity and intercourse, and including the social activity and revolutionary action on a basis of reality. The practice here can not be considered as a comprehensive activity and behavior, or a moral practice in a sense of Aristotle and Kant. It is social, historical activity instead of mystery, abstract debate or the activity of animallike existence. For Heidegger, his existence doesn' t concern about Marx' s practice. It is the "clarification" or the socalled "clarification for existence" instead of the human' s practice in reality. And either the "clarification" or the "clarification", in fact, belongs to the subject' s supreme enlightenment in spirit, which can not be acquired by human. Compared with the "realm of freedom" by Marx and Engels, Heidegger' s "clarification for existence" is of the "other riverside" character, that is, this riverside' s yearning towards that riverside. Therefore, either in theoretical connotation or in detailed reference, there is the difference between Marx' s practice and Heidegger' s existence, which gives a great problem to the explanation of practical existence. Ontology as a science can only be the monism and historicalview of dialectical materialism. But, for the aesthetics and literary theories of practical existence, the specific way of explanation is: first, to distort and narrow the conception of Marx' s practice; and then, to generalize the view of practice; and then, to contrast and combine Heidegger' s existentialism; and finally, to create the socalled system of practical existence. Up to this step, there is not Marxist practice at all. The aesthetics and literary theories of practical existence have a grave theoretical misplay.

Key words: practice, existence, practical ontology, practical existence, practical materialism