Abstract:

This essay is one of the discussions with Mr. Dong Xuewen and Mr. Chen Cheng, who, in their essay "An Analysis of the Ontology of Practical Existential Aesthetics and Literary Theories: Centering on the Relation between Practice and Existentialism", criticize the author' s view of Marx' s practical existence. The author first points out that their essay is so devoid of Marxist attitude and style about academic issues that they consider themselves as the Marxist "authorities", and regard their own abstract understanding as the only correct one, thus confusing the boundaries of academic and practical issues, labeling political hats to the object of criticism, and giving an outofcontext, arbitrary interpretation of Marxist classics. In view of this, the author emphasizes the necessity to expand academic contend by way of Marxist attitude and style. And then, to retort their rude laceration of the tradition from Aristotle through Kant to Marx about the concept of practice, the author gives a detailed interpretation of the concepts of practice in the history of the Western academics, especially of the viewpoints of Aristotle, Kant and Hegel. The author argues that Marx' s concept of practice does not fall from the sky, nor is separated from the traditional Western thinking, especially from the traditional German classic philosophy. If one thinks that Marx' s concept of practice comes out of nowhere, it must be in dreamland. On the contrary, Marx' s concept of practice is formed just because there is such a background of ideological tradition, and just because it absorbs and transforms the basic viewpoints of Aristotle and others so as to establish his practical materialism or the theory of historical materialism. And then, aiming at their criticism of author' s selfcontradiction of turning Marx' s concept of practice into both narrowness and broadness, the author cites the related arguments from Marx' s early works such as Introduction to Critique of Hegel' s Law Philosophy, Manuscripts in Paris, On Feuerbach and German Ideology, and, combining with Marx' s midand late works, gives a deep analysis of two points related to Marx' s concept of practice as one of the key categories in historical materialism. Firstly, Marx inherits the tradition of from Aristotle to German classic philosophy about practice and theory that work as two corresponding, antagonistic concepts. In this framework, practice is regarded as the actions of human beings who are opposed to theory (cognition) such as behaviors, conducts, activities, lives and movements, that is, the application and achievement of recognition (theory) as well as the transformation of the real world. Secondly, from the beginning, Marx broadly understands and uses the concept of practice. No doubt, Marx regards material production labor as the most fundamental meaning of the concept of practice, but he never limits it to the simple material production labor. According to him, practice also includes human' s real activities such as politics, ethics and religion, as well as the spiritual production labor such as arts, aesthetics and scientific researches. Actually, it is Mr. Dong and Mr. Chen who turn Marx's concept of practice into narrowness and broadness.

Key words: Key words： method and attitude of criticism; Western history of thoughts; Marxism; concept of practice