Teaching You Zazen 25: The Absurdity of Lenin's Definition of Matter

2008/2/23 11:30:21

Lenin is essentially unrelated to Marx, and Leninist socialism has even less to do with Marx. It was nothing more than an anti-capitalist, nationalist capitalist process, inevitably leading to power capitalism. Lenin's socialism was merely a farce of human nature carried out in Marx's name, deified and Christianized, ultimately proving only the incomparable correctness of Marx's conclusion: socialism cannot be achieved in a single country. Socialism can only be a global event following the globalization of capitalism; before that, all so-called socialist farces are nothing but farces.

Of course, Lenin is without doubt the greatest figure of the twentieth century. Precisely because of his supremely brilliant misreading, the twentieth century became so thoroughly the twentieth century. Without Lenin, the entire history of the twentieth century would have been completely rewritten. Therefore, Lenin's greatness needs no explanation—Lenin is the very fountainhead of the entire world history of the twentieth century.

But historical greatness cannot change the lowliness of one's thought and philosophical level. Here we will only discuss the issue of his definition of matter, because those so-called materialists are still mouth-masturbating over this infantile definition, then deriving from it countless farces of language and reality.

Lenin's definition of matter is as follows: "Matter is a philosophical category denoting objective reality, which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them."

This definition is a classic tautology, because, according to the materialist viewpoint, human perception and sensation are functions of matter. Thus, the definition of matter already implicitly contains a latent premise of matter—that is, the problem of using matter to define matter. Such a definition is a failure no matter how you look at it.

Since Euclid, even the most dim-witted philosopher has known that the conceptual system of definitions in a theoretical framework must have some primitive concepts that are not themselves defined; otherwise, one inevitably falls into the trap of circular definition. Therefore, if materialism insists on the so-called primacy of matter, then matter cannot be defined—otherwise circular definition is inevitable. Using human perception and sensation to define matter—so who has primacy? Doesn't this plainly acknowledge that human perception and sensation are conceptually prior to matter, more fundamental? Isn't this slapping your own face?

Fine, setting aside the problem of circular definition, even the definition itself is full of contradictions. First, what does "our sensations" mean? Where in this world does such a thing as "our sensations" exist? Sensations are individual—your sensations differ from mine. For example, when two people engage in SM, obviously different sensations are what make it work; if the sadist and the masochist felt the same, how could they play?

Standing from the perspective of individual sensation, let me ask: are your sensations material relative to my sensations? Obviously, your sensations are an objective reality that I can perceive through my senses; they exist independently of my sensations and are copied, photographed, and reflected by my sensations. In other words, your sensations, from my perspective, completely satisfy Lenin's so-called definition of matter. And moreover, all non-self sensations can similarly satisfy it. Therefore, we can create such a philosophical category—namely, non-self sensations—and this philosophical category fully satisfies the so-called definition of matter. So tell me, what exactly has this definition defined?

Therefore, for Lenin's so-called definition to hold, one must presuppose a supra-individual, God-like, unified "our sensations" shared by all people. This is the true subtext of Lenin's definition of matter. And so, all Leninist socialist farces have their true philosophical foundation: the existence of a supra-individual, God-like, unified "our sensations" shared by all people. If such existence is presupposed, then all people should have a unified ideal, a unified social blueprint, a unified revolution, and for this so-called ideal, goal, and blueprint, all people should uniformly sacrifice and lay down their lives. For such an ideal, the individual does not exist, because what truly exists is the supra-individual, God-like, unified "our sensations" of all people.

This is the true intellectual root of all Leninist socialist farces. With this understanding, it is not difficult to comprehend how during the Cultural Revolution, one billion people entered into the same rhythm, the same frenzy of farce. All the roots lie in Lenin's so-called definition of matter.

Alright, enough about Lenin's philosophical farce, but this question is very important. "You," the names, appearances, and delusions of "yours"—how all this unfolds—unless the absurdity of such farces is pierced through, you will forever spin in the trap of language, with no way out.

So, where is the real thing? I'll tell you next week.