On Practical Materialism from the Perspective of the Reconciliation of Body and Spirit

Since reform and opening up, one important theoretical achievement in the study of Marxist philosophy has been that the foundational status of practice has received attention, and people have understood Marxist philosophy as “practical materialism.” However, on the question of how to understand practical materialism, scholars have considerable theoretical differences. The core of this divergence is how exactly to view the fundamental principle of the primacy of matter. The debate centers mainly on whether practice is primary or matter is primary. The reason the two sides in the debate cannot reach any agreement on this issue is that both sides discuss it on the basis of acknowledging the separation of body and spirit, and this premise itself is precisely what needs to be reflected upon.

改革开放以来，马克思主义哲学研究取得的一个重要理论成果是，实践的基础地位受到重视，人们把马克思主义哲学理解为“实践的唯物主义”。然而，在如何理解实践唯物主义的问题上，学者们却存在着较大的理论分歧。这个分歧的核心是，究竟如何看待物质第一性的基本原理。人们的争论主要集中在究竟实践第一，还是物质第一。争论的双方之所以无法就这个问题达成某种一致意见，是因为双方都是在承认肉体与精神分离的基础上讨论这个问题的，而这个前提本身恰恰是需要加以反思的。

The opposition of body and spirit is a basic phenomenon of human existence

肉体与精神的对立是人类生存的基本现象

When discussing the fundamental question of philosophy, Engels pointed out that the relation between thinking and being is the major fundamental question of modern philosophy. He then immediately indicated the anthropological background from which this fundamental question arises, namely, that people in ancient times, influenced by dreams, came to believe that their thinking and sensations were not activities of their bodies but rather activities of their souls. That is to say, primitive people opposed thinking to the body and regarded sensation and thinking as activities independent of the body. On the basis of this opposition, people further raised the question of the relation between spirit and nature, between thinking and being. This is the highest question of all philosophy. Engels particularly emphasized that the “root” of this question lies in “the ignorant notions of savages.” The opposition between materialism and idealism begins from this “ignorant notion,” and it was only in modern philosophy that this question acquired “its full meaning.” This full meaning includes two aspects: first, which is primary, thinking or being; second, whether thinking can grasp being.

恩格斯在讨论哲学基本问题的时候指出，思维和存在的关系问题是近代哲学的重大基本问题。接着他立刻又指出了这个基本问题产生的人类学背景，即远古时代的人们受到梦的影响，于是他们就认为，他们的思维和感觉不是他们身体的活动，而是将其看作他们灵魂的活动。这就是说，原始的人们把思维和肉体对立起来了，把感觉和思维看作独立于肉体的活动。在这种对立的基础上，人们进一步提出精神与自然、思维与存在的关系问题。这是全部哲学的最高问题。恩格斯特别强调，这个问题的“根源在于蒙昧时代的愚昧无知的观念”。唯物主义和唯心主义的对立就是从这个“愚昧无知的观念”开始的，而只有到了近代哲学，这个问题才获得“它的完全的意义”。这个完全的意义包含两个方面：其一，思维和存在何者是第一性的；其二，思维能不能把握存在。

This thought of Engels is very familiar to us, but how exactly are we to grasp it comprehensively and accurately? We see that Engels emphasizes that the root of the question of which is primary, thinking or being, is “the ignorant notions of savages.” That is to say, the discussion of this question is, in its ideological root, mistaken, and modern philosophy inherited this basic mistaken notion. Of course, this mistaken notion is not entirely without foundation, namely, that thinking and sensation can indeed, to a certain extent, be free from the constraints of the body. From this perspective, this mistaken notion should be acknowledged within certain limits. Since this mistaken notion is acknowledged within certain limits, we can then analyze the history of philosophy on this basis. Thus, various ideas in the history of philosophy can be divided into two schools, one being materialism and the other idealism. Engels particularly emphasized that “idealism and materialism are two terms which originally had no other meaning and can be used here in no other sense.” That is to say, if we accept the opposition between thinking and being, then there must necessarily be an opposition between materialism and idealism. And within this opposition, the thought of Marx and Engels belongs to materialism—of this there is no doubt.

恩格斯的这个思想是我们耳熟能详的，但是我们究竟如何全面准确地把握这个思想呢？我们看到，恩格斯强调思维和存在何者第一性问题的根源是“蒙昧时代的愚昧无知的观念”。这就是说，关于这个问题的讨论在思想根源上就是错误的，而近代哲学继承了这个基本的错误观念。当然，这个错误的观念也不是毫无根据的，即思维和感觉确实能够在一定程度上不受肉体制约。从这个角度说，这个错误观念在一定意义上是应该被承认的。既然这个错误观念在一定的限度内得到承认，那么我们就可以据此来分析哲学史。于是，哲学史上各种思想可以被区分为两个派别，一个是唯物主义，一个是唯心主义。恩格斯特别强调，“唯心主义和唯物主义这两个用语本来没有任何别的意思，它们在这里也不能在别的意义上被使用”。这就是说，如果我们接受了思维和存在的对立，那么这里就一定存在着唯物主义和唯心主义的对立。而在这种对立中，马克思和恩格斯的思想属于唯物主义，这一点是毫无疑问的。

From Engels’s analysis, we see that the opposition between thinking and being is founded on the separation of body and spirit. Engels began with the analysis of the phenomenon of dreams, beginning from the mistaken notions of primitive people. In fact, this separation is not merely a phenomenon of thought but a basic phenomenon of human existence. From Adorno and Horkheimer’s analysis of the “prehistory” of the subject in *Dialectic of Enlightenment*, we know that in order to survive, human beings must, to a certain extent, separate their body from their spirit, even oppose them. They borrowed the myth of Odysseus’s homecoming to express this thought in a metaphorical sense. On his journey home, Odysseus encountered the Sirens. The Sirens’ song was exceptionally beautiful; anyone who heard it would be seduced and perish at sea. Odysseus’s solution was to have the sailors tie him to the mast while the sailors themselves plugged their ears. The moral of this story is that for human beings to survive, they must avoid being seduced by nature and must bind their own bodies. In other words, in their effort at self-preservation, human beings must spiritually bind their own bodies. Without such binding, humans would become animals, and human civilization would be lost. In fact, in the practice of life, we can also see that for survival, human beings must bind their bodily nature and use technical methods to control nature—this is a necessary requirement of civilization. It can be said that the opposition of body and spirit establishes the foundation of all human civilization, and in modern times, people established this opposition as a basic principle, namely, the opposition of subject and object. The opposition between materialism and idealism arises on this basis. To negate this opposition, to negate the opposition between materialism and idealism in this sense, is of course mistaken.

从恩格斯的分析中，我们看到，思维和存在的对立建立在肉体与精神分离的基础上。恩格斯是从分析梦的现象开始的，是从原始人的错误观念开始的。其实，这个分离不仅仅是一种思维现象，而且是人类生存的基本现象。从阿多诺和霍克海默在《启蒙辩证法》中对于主体的“史前史”的分析中，我们知道人类为了生存必须在一定程度上把自己的肉体与精神分离开来，甚至对立起来。他们借用奥德修斯回乡的神话故事在隐喻的意义上表达了这个思想。奥德修斯在回乡的过程中碰到海妖塞壬。塞壬的歌声特别优美，凡是听见它的歌声的人，都会受到诱惑而葬身大海。奥德修斯的办法是让水手把他捆在桅杆上，而水手们则堵上自己的耳朵。这个故事的寓意是，人要想生存下去，就要避免受到自然的诱惑，就必须把自己的肉体束缚起来。换句话说，人在自我持存的努力中必须从精神上束缚自己的肉体。如果没有这样的束缚，人就会变成动物，人类文明就会丧失。其实，在生活实践中，我们也可以看到，人类为了生存必须束缚自己的肉体自然，并用技术的方法来控制自然，这是文明的必然要求。可以说，肉体与精神的对立确立了整个人类文明的基础，到了近代，人们把这种对立作为一种基本原则确立起来，此即主客体对立。而唯物主义和唯心主义的对立就是在这样的基础上发生的。否定这种对立，否定这个意义上的唯物主义和唯心主义的对立当然是错误的。

Marxism pursues the reconciliation of body and spirit

马克思主义追求肉体与精神的和解

However, to rigidify this opposition and make it the sole mode of human existence is also mistaken. The opposition of body and spirit is only one aspect of human existence. Any person, no matter how callous, must also achieve a reconciliation between their body and spirit. The “reconciliation” spoken of here is not the same thing as the natural unity of body and spirit. Human consciousness is always combined with the body; there is no consciousness detached from the body. If someone were to believe that consciousness can exist detached from the body, then this would be idealism, an “ignorant notion.” But it would be equally ignorant not to recognize the conflict between body and consciousness. If human consciousness and body were completely identical, then humans would be no different from animals. Therefore, understanding humans as a natural unity of body and spirit is mistaken. From this perspective, although idealism, which maintains that spirit can be detached from the body, is an “ignorant notion,” it also contains a profound understanding of human civilization.

但是，把这种对立固化并把它作为人类唯一的生存方式也是错误的。肉体与精神的对立只是人类生存中的一个方面。任何一个人，即使他再冷酷，也都必须使自己的肉体与精神实现和解。这里所说的“和解”，同肉体与精神二者之间的天然结合不是一回事。人的意识总是与肉体结合在一起，没有脱离肉体的意识。如果有人竟然认为，意识可以脱离肉体而存在，那么这就是唯心主义了，是一种“愚昧无知的观念”。但是，倘若没有认识到肉体和意识之间的冲突，同样是愚昧无知的。如果人的意识和肉体完全是一致的，那么人就与动物没有差别了。因而，把人理解为肉体与精神的天然统一是错误的。从这个角度看，主张精神可以脱离肉体的唯心主义虽然是一种“愚昧无知的观念”，但是其中也包含了对于人类文明的深刻理解。

The human body and spirit are not naturally unified; they contain separation and opposition. The most obvious sign of this opposition is that humans commit suicide, and only humans do so. Clearly, when a person radically opposes their body and spirit, their actions tend toward self-harm. According to the analysis of the dialectic of enlightenment, it is precisely because of the opposition between body and spirit that the human spirit becomes one centered on instrumental reason. This spirit drives the body to act without regard for the body’s needs. Such bodily activity can even harm the person themselves. For example, a person might skimp on a comfortable meal to save money to buy a certain brand-name handbag. This is how human self-preservation turns into self-harm. When the opposition between body and spirit becomes the core of civilization, entire nations or even all of humanity overlook this basic truth. Clearly, humanity can neither oppose body and spirit nor simply unify them; what is needed is the reconciliation of body and spirit. This reconciliation is an inevitable requirement of the development of human civilization. Marx keenly discerned this tendency in human civilization. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, he left many ideas on the reconciliation of body and spirit. Speaking of communism, Marx says: “This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism, equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 296. Man’s own nature is also nature. The resolution of the conflict between man and nature that Marx speaks of certainly includes the resolution of the conflict between man and his own nature. Marx understands the resolution of the conflict between man and his own nature as “humanity” [*renxing*]. When the conflict between man and his own nature is resolved, man’s natural behavior becomes “human”; his natural needs become human needs; his natural existence becomes a human existence. Clearly, for Marx, the human body and spirit are both mutually conflicting and mutually unified. There is a dialectic here: the unity of opposites of the human body and spirit. This unity of opposites is the reconciliation of body and spirit.

人的肉体与精神不是天然统一的，其中包含了肉体与精神的分离和对立。这种对立最明显的标志是人会自杀，并且只有人才会自杀。显然，当人把自己的肉体与精神极端对立起来的时候，人的行动是会走向自我伤害的。按照启蒙辩证法的分析，正是由于肉体与精神的对立，人的精神变成了以工具理性为核心的精神。这种精神会不顾肉体的需要而驱使人的肉体活动。这种肉体活动甚至会伤害人自身。比如，一个人为了购买某种名牌皮包而舍不得花点钱舒适地吃一顿饭。这就是人的自我持存走向了自我伤害。当肉体与精神的对立成为文明核心的时候，整个国家甚至整个人类都会忽视这个基本道理。显然，人类既不能把肉体与精神对立起来，又不能把两者简单统一起来，这就需要实现肉体与精神的和解。这种和解是人类文明发展的必然要求。马克思敏锐地发现了人类文明中存在的这种趋势。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，他留下了许多关于肉体与精神和解的思想。马克思在谈到共产主义的时候说：“这种共产主义，作为完成了的自然主义，等于人道主义，而作为完成了的人道主义，等于自然主义，它是人和自然界之间，人和人之间的矛盾的真正解决。”人自身的自然也是自然。马克思所说的人和自然之间矛盾的解决当然也包含人和他自身的自然的矛盾的解决。马克思把人和他自身的自然的矛盾的解决理解为“人性”。当人和他自身的自然的矛盾得到解决的时候，人的自然行为就会是合乎“人性的”；人的自然的需要就成为人的需要；人的自然的存在就成为合乎人性的存在。显然，对于马克思来说，人的肉体与精神既是相互冲突的，也是相互统一的。这里存在着一种辩证法，即人的肉体与精神的对立统一。这种对立统一就是人的肉体与精神的和解。

Since the human body and spirit can neither be completely opposed nor completely unified, but are a unity of opposites, then while acknowledging the opposition between body and spirit, we must also acknowledge the primacy of matter; this is materialism. However, this materialism cannot be entirely bound within the opposition between body and spirit. Otherwise, we fall into an “ignorant and foolish conception.” [2]2 This phrase echoes Marx’s critique of “crude” or “abstract” materialism in the *Theses on Feuerbach* and related texts, where a one-sided materialism that ignores the active, subjective side is dismissed as a form of “ignorant” or “mechanical” thinking. Conversely, if we simply unify body and spirit, we move toward barbarism. Marxist philosophy is dialectical materialism, whose core is to see the unity of opposites between body and spirit. When dialectical materialism understands the relationship between body and spirit from this dialectical perspective, dialectical materialism and practical materialism are essentially consistent. This is because, when body and spirit are reconciled, what the spirit has reflected upon is also implemented in the body. The spirit is not satisfied with detached metaphysical speculation but is always committed to putting what has been carefully considered into practice.

既然人的肉体与精神不能完全对立也不能完全统一，而是对立统一，那么我们在承认肉体与精神对立的情况下，就必须承认物质第一性，这才是唯物主义。但是，这种唯物主义也不能被完全束缚在肉体与精神的对立之中。否则，我们就陷入了一种“愚昧无知的观念”。反过来，如果我们把肉体与精神简单地统一起来，那么我们就走向了野蛮。马克思主义哲学是辩证唯物主义，其核心就是要看到肉体与精神之间的对立统一。当辩证唯物主义从这种辩证法的角度理解肉体与精神之间关系的时候，辩证唯物主义和实践唯物主义在本质上就是一致的。这是因为，当肉体与精神和解的时候，精神所反思过的东西也会在肉体上得到落实。精神不会满足于脱离肉体的玄思，而总是致力于把经过深思熟虑的东西付诸实践。

In *The German Ideology*, Marx points out that communists are “practical materialists.” [3]3 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 49. And communism is the materialism that achieves the reconciliation of body and spirit. Although this materialism, while acknowledging the opposition between body and spirit, emphasizes that “the priority of external nature remains unassailed,” [4]4 Ibid., p. 40. it does not confine itself within the framework of this priority of nature, nor does it make human action entirely subordinate to natural laws (or natural commands). Rather, it seeks the reconciliation of body with nature: in practice, transforming both one’s own nature and external nature. Humans become human precisely because they achieve the reconciliation of body and spirit, and this reconciliation is possible only in practice. Or, to put it another way, only in practice does a person weigh how to act: whether according to the demands of the spirit, the demands of the body, or some compromise between the two. In this sense, the person who engages in practical activity is neither a person in the natural sense nor a subject in the purely spiritual sense, but a person whose body and spirit are reconciled. The “living person” [*huosheng sheng de ren*] that Marx understands is precisely such a person, one in whom body and spirit are both mutually conflicting and mutually unified. Such a person is a living person, a person who conforms to humanity. This is what Marx emphasizes as the “practical subject.”

马克思在《德意志意识形态》中指出，共产主义者是“实践的唯物主义者”。而共产主义就是实现肉体与精神和解的唯物主义。虽然这种唯物主义在承认肉体与精神之间对立的情况下强调，“外部自然界优先地位仍然会保持着”，但是它不会把自己束缚在这种自然优先性的框架中，也不会让人的行动完全服从自然规律（或者自然的命令），而是要使得肉体与自然实现和解，即在实践中既改造自身的自然也改造外部的自然。人之所以成为人，就是因为他实现了肉体与精神的和解，并且这种和解只有在实践中才是可能的。或者说，只有在实践中人才会衡量究竟如何行动，是按照精神的要求还是按照肉体的要求，抑或这两者之间妥协了的要求。从这个意义上说，进行实践活动的人既不是自然意义上的人，也不是纯粹精神意义上的主体，而是肉体与精神和解了的人。马克思所理解的“活生生的人”就是这样一种在肉体与精神上既相互冲突而又相互统一的人。这样的人才是活生生的人，才是合乎人性的人。这就是马克思所强调的“实践主体”。

Deepening the Understanding of Materialist Thought from the Perspective of the Reconciliation of Body and Spirit

从肉体与精神和解角度深化对唯物主义思想的理解

Practical materialism and dialectical materialism are essentially identical, in that both understand materialism from the perspective of the reconciliation of body and spirit. Approaching Marx’s materialist thought from this angle yields many new insights. For instance, in *The German Ideology*, Marx criticises the Young Hegelians. He says: “The Young Hegelian ideologists, despite their constant talk of ‘world-shattering’ phrases, are the greatest conservatives. If the youngest among them declares that they are fighting only against ‘phrases,’ this most precisely expresses their activity.” [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–46), Part I, “Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlooks.” The quotation is from the section criticising the Young Hegelians. That is to say, the Young Hegelians are idealists; they confine human activity to the realm of thought, and their critique of contemporary society is nothing but a struggle against words. Here one must inevitably ask: is Marx himself not also using “words” when he criticises the Young Hegelians’ practice? When Marx criticises German society of his time, is he not expressing his own thoughts? When people oppose their body to their spirit, then their discourse, their spiritual activity, becomes unrelated to the body. The error of the Young Hegelians lies not merely in their use of discourse for social critique. All social critique necessarily has a discursive character; Marx, in criticising the Young Hegelians, sets up a premise: that they, as “ideologists,” are people who separate and oppose body and spirit. And Marx himself called the philosophy he founded “practical materialism”; he himself was naturally a practical materialist. That is to say, although Marx also, to a certain extent, opposes body to spirit and uses words to criticise capitalism, he simultaneously never forgets to unite body with spirit and to participate in practical action. The premise of Marx’s practical materialism is the reconciliation of body and spirit. If we cannot understand Marx’s thought from the perspective of the reconciliation of body and spirit, our understanding of Marx’s thought will always remain superficial. For example, Marx often speaks of “the real” in his works, and Hegel also speaks of “the real” in his works. So what is the difference between the “real” that Marx speaks of and the “real” that Hegel speaks of? Marx’s “real” is a reality based on the reconciliation of body and spirit. This reality is not merely something spiritual; it is united with the body and must be implemented in life. If we analyse this difference from the perspective of the opposition between nominalism and realism, it becomes even clearer. Nominalists believe that words are purely symbols, while realists emphasise that the concepts expressed by words are themselves real things. Both of these extreme views are, of course, wrong. From the dialectical perspective, words as concepts must necessarily transcend concepts and move towards the material things to which the words refer. Marx also uses words to express his thoughts, but the words Marx uses are by no means pure ideas or pure symbols; rather, they are meant to unite thought with reality. And to unite these two, it is only possible on the basis of the reconciliation of body and spirit. In school classrooms, we always emphasise the unity of theory and practice, and emphasise linking theory with reality. But we merely give many examples verbally, as if through these examples theory and reality become linked. This is like the few people at work who constantly talk about “seeking truth from facts” [6]6 “Seeking truth from facts” (实事求是, *shishi qiushi*) is a core principle of the Chinese Communist Party’s ideological method, originally derived from Mao Zedong’s interpretation of a classical Chinese phrase. It demands that theory and policy be based on objective reality rather than dogma. but only pay lip service, never truly putting it into practice. From this perspective, the practical materialism Marx speaks of is genuine materialism, that is, a materialism that implements thought into reality.

实践唯物主义和辩证唯物主义在本质上是一致的，即都是从肉体与精神和解的角度来理解唯物主义。从这个角度来理解马克思的唯物主义思想，我们可以得到许多新的观念。比如，在《德意志意识形态》中，马克思批判了青年黑格尔派。他说：“青年黑格尔派玄想家们尽管满口都是所谓‘震撼世界的’词语，却是最大的保守派。如果说，他们之中最年轻的人宣称只为反对‘词语’而斗争，那就确切地表达了他们的活动。”这就是说，青年黑格尔派是唯心主义者，他们把人的活动局限在思想领域，对于当时社会的批判不过是反对词语的斗争。在这里，人们必然要问，难道马克思在批判青年黑格尔派的做法时不也是在使用“词语”吗？马克思在批判当时德国社会的时候，不是在表达自己的思想吗？当人们把自己的肉体与精神对立起来的时候，那么人们的话语，人的精神活动就与肉体无关。青年黑格尔派的错误不仅仅在于他们只是用话语来进行社会批判。一切社会批判固然都必然具有话语的性质，马克思在批判青年黑格尔派的时候设立了一个前提，即他们作为“玄想家”，是把肉体与精神分离、对立起来的人。而马克思曾把自己所创立的哲学称为“实践的唯物主义”，那么他本人自然就是实践的唯物主义者。这就是说，马克思虽然也在一定程度上把肉体与精神对立起来，也用词语批判资本主义，但是同时不忘把肉体与精神结合起来，并参与实际行动当中。马克思的实践唯物主义思想的前提是肉体与精神的和解。如果不能从肉体与精神和解的角度去理解马克思的思想，那么我们对于马克思的思想的理解总是会停留在表面。比如，马克思在他的论著中经常讲“现实”，黑格尔在他的论著中也讲“现实”。那么，马克思所讲的“现实”和黑格尔所讲的“现实”，差别在什么地方呢？马克思的“现实”是肉体与精神和解的基础上的现实。这个现实不仅仅是精神的东西，而且是与肉体结合在一起的，是要落实到生活当中的。如果我们从唯名论和实在论的对立中去分析这里的差别，就更加清楚了。唯名论者认为，字词纯粹是符号，而实在论强调，字词所表达的概念就是实在的东西。这两种极端的观念当然都是错的。从辩证法的角度说，字词作为概念肯定要超出概念，要走向字词所涉及的物质东西。马克思也用字词来表达自己的思想，但是马克思使用的字词绝不是纯粹的观念，或者纯粹的符号，而是要把思想和现实结合起来的。而要把这两者结合起来，必须是在肉体与精神和解的基础上才是可能的。我们在学校的课堂上总是强调理论和实践的统一，强调理论联系实际。但我们只是在口头上举了许多例子，好像通过这些例子，理论就和实际联系起来了。这就好像少数人在工作中经常讲“实事求是”，但只是停留在口头上，而从不真正付诸实践。从这个角度讲，马克思所说的实践的唯物主义是真正的唯物主义，即把思想落实到现实的唯物主义。

As mentioned above, in a certain sense, the history of human civilisation is a history of opposing body to spirit. Only when body and spirit are opposed can people exalt the power of spirit. Without spiritual pursuit, human civilisation would regress. From this perspective, “let the world be filled with love” is undoubtedly something commonly pursued by civilised humanity. However, idealism is built on the basis of the opposition between body and spirit. For idealism, this “love” has already become unrelated to the body, transformed into purely spiritual love. If love becomes purely spiritual love, then this love can become very cruel. A terrible phenomenon that has appeared in the history of human civilisation is that some people commit slaughter in the name of “love.” In such circumstances, we can all the more feel the great significance of Marx’s thought on the reconciliation of body and spirit, and feel the great significance of practical materialism. Practical materialism overturns the philosophical framework of the dichotomy between body and spirit, subject and object. It not only achieves a great revolution in the history of philosophy, but also serves as a guide for our contemporary social practice.

如前所述，从某种意义上说，人类的文明史就是把肉体与精神对立起来的历史。只有当肉体与精神对立起来的时候，人才可能高扬精神的力量。如果没有精神上的追求，人类文明就会倒退。从这个角度说，“让世界充满爱”无疑是文明的人类共同追求的东西。然而，唯心主义是建立在肉体与精神对立基础上的。对于唯心主义来说，这种“爱”已经与肉体无关，变成纯粹精神上的爱。如果爱变成了纯粹精神上的爱，那么这种爱就会变得非常冷酷。人类文明史上出现的一种可怕现象就是一些人以“爱”的名义进行屠杀。在这种情况下，我们更能够感受到马克思关于肉体与精神和解的思想的伟大意义，感受到实践唯物主义的伟大意义。实践唯物主义颠覆了肉体与精神、主体与客体二分的哲学框架，它不仅仅实现了哲学史上的伟大变革，而且是我们当代社会实践的指南。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗