[p. 224] The dialectical-materialist theory of the process of development of knowledge, basing itself on practice and proceeding from the shallower to the deeper, was never worked out by anybody before the rise of Marxism. Marxist dialectical materialism solved this problem correctly for the first time, pointing out both materialistically and dialectically the deepening movement of cognition, the movement in which man in society progresses from perceptual knowledge to logical knowledge in his complex, constantly recurring practice of production and class struggle. Lenin said, “The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature, the abstraction of value etc., in short all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely”.[3-309] Lenin has also pointed out[3-310]: each of the two stages in the process of cognition has its own characteristics, with the knowledge manifesting itself as perceptual at the lower stage and logical at the higher stage, but that both are stages in an integrated process of cognition. The perceptual and the rational are qualitatively different, but are not divorced from each other; they are unified on the basis of practice. Our practice proves that what is perceived cannot at once be comprehended and that only what is comprehended can be more deeply perceived. Perception only solves the problem of phenomena; comprehension[3-311] alone can solve the problem of essence. The solving of both these problems is not separable in the slightest degree from practice. Whoever wants to know a thing has no way of doing so except by coming into contact with it, that is, by living (practising) in its environment. In feudal society it was impossible to know the laws of capitalist society in advance because capitalism had not yet emerged, the relevant practice was lacking. Marxism could be the product only of capitalist society. In the era of laissez-faire capitalism, it[3-312] could not know[3-313] certain laws peculiar to the era of imperialism beforehand, because imperialism[3-314] had not yet emerged and the relevant practice was lacking; only Leninism[3-315] could undertake this task. Marxism-Leninism also could not have been produced in the economically backward colonies, because although they were contemporaneous with them, there was a difference in location. Leaving aside their genius, the reason why Marx, Engels, and Lenin[3-316] could work out their theories was mainly that they personally took part in the practice of the class struggle and the scientific experimentation of their time; lacking this condition, no genius could have succeeded. The saying, “without stepping outside his gate the scholar knows all the wide world’s affairs”, was mere empty talk in past times when technology was undeveloped [p. 225]. Even though this saying can be valid in the present age of developed technology, the people with real personal knowledge are those engaged in practice the wide world over. And it is only when these people have come to “know” through their practice and when their knowledge has reached him through writing and technical media that the “scholar” can indirectly “know all the world’s affairs”. If you want to know a certain thing or a certain class of things directly, you must personally participate in practice[3-317] to change reality, to change that thing or class of things, for only thus can you come into contact with them as phenomena; only through personal participation in practice[3-318] to change reality can you uncover the essence of that thing or class of things and comprehend them. This is the path to knowledge which every man actually travels, though some people, deliberately distorting matters, argue to the contrary. The most ridiculous person in the world is the “knowall” who picks up a smattering of hearsay knowledge and proclaims himself “the world’s Number One authority”; this merely shows that he has not taken a proper measure of himself. Knowledge is a matter of science, and no dishonesty or conceit whatsoever is permissable. What is required is definitely the reverse – honesty and modesty. If you want knowledge, you must take part in the practice of changing reality. If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself. If you want to know the structure and properties of the atom, you must make the experiments of the chemist[3-319] to change the state of the atom. If you want to know the concrete theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience. But one cannot have direct experience of everything; as a matter of fact, most of our knowledge comes from indirect experience, for example, all knowledge from past times and foreign lands. To our ancestors and to foreigners, such knowledge was – or is – a matter of direct experience, and this knowledge is reliable if in the course of their direct experience the requirement of “scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstraction”, spoken of by Lenin, was – or is – fulfilled,[3-320] otherwise it is not reliable. Hence a man’s knowledge consists only of two parts, that which comes from direct experience and that which comes from indirect experience. Moreover, what is indirect experience for me is direct experience for other people. Consequently, considered as a whole, knowledge of any kind is inseparable from direct experience. All knowledge originates in perception of the objective external world through man’s physical sense organs. Anyone who denies such perception denies direct experience, or denies personal participation in the practice that changes reality, is not a materialist. That is why the “know all” is ridiculous. Chinese merchants have a saying: “If one wants to profit [p. 226] from the household animals, one must live with them”. This holds true for the profit making of the merchant,[3-321] and also holds true for the theory of knowledge. There can be no knowledge apart from practice.
