Abstract: Objective idealism believes that abstract things are truly priori existence. They have created many abstract things and theories. Materialism, subjective idealism, and objective idealism all have problems, but the nature of the problem is completely different. Some are problems in development that can be tolerated, some are intolerable. Philosophy can not develop without this problem thoroughly solved. The objective world has only concrete things and no abstract things. The experience produced by observation and the consciousness of pure subjective fabrication are both consciousness. The experience has objective counter- parts, therefore, people regard the purely subjective consciousness also corresponding to the objective thing. The idea of Plato is thus produced. The concept of abstraction is the result of consciousness. Objective idealists believe that in the objective world there are abstract things corresponding to these consciousnesses. Many subjective idealists and materialists often slide toward objective idealism unconsciously. Both Heidegger and Nietzsche insisted on Platonism, arguing that eternality belongs to abstract existence, and that all temporary things in evolution did not exist. Thorough nominalism is completely opposed to this kind of realism. The nominalism holds that only things that are in evolution are objective. Objective idealists such as Heidegger are weaving new clothes for emperor. Dialectical Dualism is the dialectical unity of materialism and subjective idealism, it is the only right ontology.

Keywords: ontology; objective idealism; nominalism; idea

CLC number: B081.2

Submission: World Philosophy Conference Group 38. Metaphysics

Objective idealism (rationalism, realism) is a major school of philosophy. Many philosophers such as Pythagoras, Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle, Leibniz, Nietzsche, and Heidegger are all objective idealists. Objective idealism believes that abstract things are real transcendental existences. They have created many abstract things and theories, from Plato's idea to Leibniz's monad, from the existence of Parmenides to Hegel's dialectic, and Lao Zi's “tao”, Zhu Xi's “li”. They are so varied and strange and they are all said to be transcendental, that is, they must be true, they do not need to be tested. However, these strange and abstract things cannot be true at the same time. How to distinguish them? What are the methods and standards to distinguish? These problems have always been unsolvable by objective idealism.

The development of modern philosophy epistemology is to solve these problems. However, in the development of epistemology, people seem to have forgotten this original intention. Few people seriously criticize objective idea- lism. The most important thing is that they do not recognize the essence of objective idealism. Materialism, subjective idealism, and objective idealism all have problems, but the nature of the problem is completely different. Some are problems in development that can be tolerated, some are intolerable, and completely violate the scientific spirit. Philosophy can not develop without these problems thoroughly solved, just as religious philosophy and scholastic philosophy must be completely abandoned, their values are only historical values. Although some of them have important inspirations for the development of modern philosophy, they must not be allowed to resume. Many concrete theoretical achievements of objective idealism have a certain theoretical value, but their basic viewpoints are totally wrong and they cannot be tolerated. Understanding the essence of objective idealism is a necessary condition for the development of philosophy ontology. But now objective idealism is still powerful, not only do many great philosophers insist on objective idealism, but many subjective idealists (including many schools of positivism, pragmatism, and analytical philo- sophy) and materialists often slip towards objective idea- lism unconsciously.

Realism is opposite to nominalism. Nominalism holds that abstract things are not objective, they are the consciousness in people's minds. This notion of nominalism is correct. The objective world has only concrete things and no abstract things.

On the other hand, objective idealism also has many positive contributions to the development of philosophy. All scientific theories need to be constructed, and philosophical theories also need to be constructed. Construction is subjective fabrication and requires imagination. Objective idealism constructs many concepts and theories. Although most of them failed, this imagina- tion is very valuable. Objective idealism provides the conditions for the development of materialism and subjective idealism. The various concrete theories of objective idealism are often instructive. For example, Hegel's dialectics has positive significance for the development of dialectical logic. Leibniz's monad has positive significance for the development of system theory. It's like some children's drawings, lines, colors, and proportions are very naive and absurd, but there are places that give people inspiration and can't be seen in adult paintings. Therefore, the objective idealism can not be completely negated, and after pointing out the nature of its consciousness, we should carefully analyze the valuable elements of its theory. At the same time, it should be noted that the theory of objective idealists is not all of objective idealism, and they are often incomplete. Each philosopher's writings contain many fields and topics, many of which are not ontology.

When we observe the objective things, we will have a corresponding experience. Then we process and transform our experience and generate some ideas. These ideas have been different from the initial experience, and their counterparts may not be found in the objective world. And people have a strong imagination, can imagine and make up a lot of things out. These transformed experiences and fabrications made out of nothing are completely content of conscious world. They are subjective and non-objective. The experience produced by observing the objective world is also awareness, and it has some same characteristics as those fabricated by the imagination. Therefore, people often cannot distinguish. Experience is corresponding to the objective things, so people regard the purely subjective consciousness also corresponding to the objective things. The ancients people believed the soul is independent. At the same time, the personification of natural phenomena produced God's will. Later Plato created ideas. These are the results of the processing or fabrication of human consciousness, but people often think that they are experience comes from the objective world. Objective idealism was processed just like this.

When people see many tables, they will have a lot of experience. People's memory is limited and their thinking ability is also limited. When people mention tables, they often consider only one of the tables. If this does not harm people's interests, then people use this table to represent all other tables. This is abstraction. This table as a representative may be same as a table seen in the past, or it may have undergone conscious processing, unlike any table. Picasso's cow is different from any cow. This typical thing is a pure consciousness, there is no objective counterpart, but people will mistakenly think that there is such a counterpart, this concept of objectification is called the Plato's idea.

Aristotle criticized the concept of form and said, “The various arguments about form strengthen the form and obliterate the existence of things, but in fact we should care more about the existence of things.”^[1] Aristotle's attitude faltered and did not completely abandon the objective idealism. The empiricism of the British was the most thorough. They believed that all ideas were awareness, but empiricism was not accepted by most philosophers on the European continent.

Hegel has developed objective idealism to the extreme. He absurdly closed his eyes to the extent of not looking at reality. Hegel said, “In common life people may happen to call every brain wave, error, evil, and suchlike ‘actual,' as well as every existence, however wilted and transient it may be. But even for our ordinary feeling, a contingent existence does not deserve to be called something-actual in the emphatic sense of the word; what contingently exists has no greater value than that which something-possible has; it is an existence which (although it is) can just as well not be.”^[2]

In the book Nietzsche, Heidegger said,“The only thing we must see is what is co-posited already in such a determination, namely, that there are many bedframes, many tables, yet just one Idea ‘bedframe' and one Idea ‘table.' In each case, the one of outward appearance is not only one according to number but above all is one and the same; it is the one that continues to exist in spite of all changes in the apparatus, the one that maintains its consistency. In the outward appearance, whatever it is that something which encounters us ‘is,' shows itself. To Being, therefore, seen Platonically, permanence belongs. All that becomes and suffers alteration, as impermanent, has no Being.” “Whenever Nietzsche says ‘Being' he always means it Platonically--even after the reversal of Platoism.”^[3] In Plato's view, eternality belongs to ‘existence'.  Thorough nominalism is completely against Plato's, Heidegger's, and Nietzsche's idea. Nominalism holds that only things that are in evolution are objective. Lichtenberg said, “Mother Nature does not create genera and species, she creates individuals.”^[4]

When people make a table, there is a goal in the mind. This goal exists only in the mind of the person. The wood does not know how people want to toss it. Aristotle believed that the wood knew what he was looking for in the future. The purpose was hidden in the wood. Heidegger also said that the wood knew what he was going to look like. Heidegger called the process of turning wood into a table as “unconceal”. That means before the table is formed, the shape of the table has been hidden in the wood. The carpenter's job is to open the package. It is inferred that the future world has also been hidden in today's world, and all our work today is only to open the package. Our fate has long been doomed, our innovation and revolution are the embodiment of fate.

Heidegger said, “Does the tablemaker produce the outward appearance as well? No,‘for in no case does the craftsman produce the Idea itself'. How should he with axe, saw, and plane be able to manufacture an Idea.”^[5] Nominalism holds that craftsmen do cannot use axe to make a form, but craftsmen can use their brains to create a form. Otherwise where can the form come from? It can only come from the God. How can craftsmen innovate? Does he consult the God every time? Only the realist needs to consult the God. The nominalist believes that human beings have tremendous creativity and can create various new ideas in their minds. Then choose one, draw a blueprint, and then make the product.

How to explain people's understanding process of the nature and the general, it has always been a problem that cannot be solved by objective idealism. Zhang Xianglong said, “Western traditional philosophy has been making careless eye on this crucial issue for more than 2,000 years. The incompetence of western traditional philosophy on this important issue is like the fairy tale‘the emperor's new dress'.”^[6]

Objective idealism treats the fake things created by consciousness as something that really exists. Hegel's Logic and Heidegger's Being and Time were all weaving the new clothes of the emperor. They described the emperor's new clothes infinitely beautiful, and even they were all fooled to be convinced.

What I said is that there is no theory outside mind, but we cannot said that there isn't matter outside mind. The specific material is objective. Our experience and interests are not arbitrarily generated and there is an alienation. Many things we do not want to see always appear, so there is the matter outside mind, and there are many courses outside the mind. But things outside the mind have different meanings from things in the heart.

What is out of mind is not the most important. The most important thing is the thing in the heart, and consciousness is the origin. Although the matte is also origin and the matter is outside of consciousness, but the matter that we think and say is consciousness. In this way, we can say that the material and course are all in our heart. Berkeley said, the world is my image. This sentence is wrong. It should be changed to: the world we think and say is my image. The changing of matter and the effect of matter on us are out of consciousness. It will work no matter whether we think of it or not. But objective things will not influence my decision until they become my consciousness. Only what we think and say will affect our decision-making. People's decision determine human practice. People's practice determine the change in the physical world. I call this as “I think, so I do”. This sentence is more important than the famous saying of Descartes,“I think, so I am.”

For example, there was a stone in front of me. I didn't see it and I walked forward. The result was I fell down. The second time I came here, I would bypass it. This stone is outside my consciousness. No matter whether I see it or not, it is an objective reality, it will affect my practice, but only when I see it, can it affect my decision-making, I bypassed it. When I didn't see it, it will not affect my decision. I will keep walking. In the sense of decision- making, consciousness is the origin, and material is not the origin. The matter only affects the result of practice, but it does not affect decision-making. What is the purpose of understanding? To serve decision-making. All theories are for decision-making. When we say knowledge guidance practice we mean to guide decision-making rather than directly guide the result of practice. The result of practice is influenced by the material, but the practical decisions are not directly affected by the material.

Therefore, only idealism can develop the dynamic aspect of philosophy. Once the result of practice is formed, it cannot be changed. Decision-making can be changed, it is positive and dynamic. This is the first value of subjective idealism.

The second value of subjective idealism is that the criterion of truth is a subjective standard. I firmly oppose the principle of seeking truth from facts. It is right to test the truth in practice. But how does practice test the truth? When we create a hypothesis, for example, a new medical theory, then we make a new drug, and predict based on this hypothesis. For example, we predict that this new drug can cure heart disease. Then we go to practice, let the patient take medicine, and then see if the result of practice is consistent with the prediction. If it is consistent, it proves that the hypothesis is truth, that is to test the truth with prediction.

But what is the result? Is it a fact? No, it is a new experience. It may be true and may not be true. The feeling may be inaccurate, the results of the examination may be inaccurate, the relief of illness may be a temporary phenomenon, and may have a hidden danger, even the experimental data published in the paper may be forged. Therefore, we cannot confirm what is the fact and cannot seek truth from facts. We can only use experience to test the truth.

However, if we consider “fact” as direct experience and consider seeking truth from facts as that truth should be tested with direct experience instead of indirect experience, then it is right. However, we must know that facts do not refer to objective facts but direct experience. Direct experience is consciousness, not matter. Seeking truth from facts belongs to subjective idealism instead of materialism.

Of course, direct experience has some objective characters, not arbitrarily fabricated, and is often inconsistent with people's subjective desires. In other words, direct experience is alienated, which is an objective character. Therefore, seeking truth from facts does not completely belong to subjective idealism. It should belong to dialectic dualism.

The ontological part of Taiji Evolutionism is called Dialectic Dualism. Matter and mind are both the origin. They are dialectically unified. Dialectical materialism of Marx tried to unify materialism with idealism but failed. Materialism believes there is only one origin. So it is impossible to be dialectic. If you want to be dialectic, you must accept two origins. The root of all dialectic relationships is the dialectic relationship of matter and mind. So only Dialectic Dualism is correct. Moreover, Marx's dialectical materialism is doped with many elements of objective idealism. Dialectical Dualism is the dialectical unity of materialism and subjective idealism, and it firmly opposes objective idealism.

Why did I say that Marx's dialectical materialism have many elements of objective idealism? For example, the objective law is a Platonic concept. It is neither  matter nor subjective consciousness, but a consciousness outside the mind, an abstract presence. Is objective law the truth? No, truth is human consciousness. Some of our understanding is truth, and some are not truth. They are all things in our consciousness. But if the objective law does exist, then since it is objective, it is not the consciousness of the mind. Therefore, objective laws can only influence the result of decision and cannot guide decision. If it can't guide the decision, what is the usage of it? Since it has no use, then there is no need to acknowledge its existence. This is in line with the principles of Occam's razor. We only need to recognize the existence of concrete substances in the objective world. There is no need to recognize the existence of abstract things in the objective world. Marxists always criticize others for not acting in accordance with objective laws. Such criticisms are wisdom that can be judged only in retrospect. I would like to ask who holds the objective law in your hands. We only have consciousness, relative truth, no objective laws. Objective laws are absolute truths. There is no absolute truth in the world, so there is no objective laws. The “Dao”of Laozi and “Li”of Zhuxi are all objective laws, all belong to objective idealism.

It can be said that the history of philosophy is the history of the struggle between materialism and idealism. But no one is completely correct and winner. Only their dialectical unity, that is, dialectical dualism is correct. The history of philosophy is the tortuous history of development of dialectical dualism and the dynamic balance between materialism and subjective idealism. When one of them develops itself without denying the other, it advances. When it opposes the extreme theory of the other, it progresses. When it goes into the extreme and wants to put the other side to death, it is reactionary.

The development of ontology of world philosophy is divided into three phases. Ancient philosophy is the stage of objective idealism and materialism. Subjective idealism is in the bud. Objective idealism and materialism are simultaneously produced and developed. They are indepen- dent and basically do not interfere with each other. Pythagoras, Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle are all objective idealists.

Why were the ancient philosophers interested in studying the origin of the world? Because philosophers looked for the commonality of everything. We can deduce from common things to concrete things. Deduction requires a major premise (big premise). It requires a bigger premise to get this big premise. The biggest premise is called the origin. The origin of philosophy is not the source of the world. The source of the world is physics problem, the origin is philosophical problem, philosophy is the basis of science, they need laws of deductive relationship. 

This deductive process is a thought process from simple to complex. Because the material world is also a development process from simple to complex, much like a deductive process, so people study how to deduce from the material world, which becomes the study of the origin. People want to find one thing, and with it they can make everything else. At first, water, fire, earth and other materials were considered the origin. And then, elementary particles such as atoms and quarks were discovered. It is true that the universe was originally made up of only elementary particles, but these materials are not able to evolve into the world now. The difference between substances is structure. Structure determines function, which includes various forces and complex interactions. So the world evolves from simple to complex with both basic particles and structure.

Basic particle and structure are matter. But the search for the origin is not for the material source of the world, but the logical starting point. This logical starting point is the beginning of the conscious world, not the material world. Pythagoras noticed that abstract things such as numbers could reflect commonality of things, and later Plato invented the Idea, which then dominated philosophy. Although people wanted to find the origin of the objective world, and they don't know the origin is the logical starting point, but people need commonality and theory to support practice every day, so people felt that the abstract concept is more philosophical than atoms. An idea is a dead thing, Hegel makes it a alive. So the theory of starting point and process of deduction is more abundant. Although Hegel's interpretation of the world woven in the logic is completely wrong, his theory still has great value.

In the second stage of the development of philosophy, Descartes created subjective idealism, so it was recognized that Descartes was the founder of modern philosophy. The criticism of objective idealism by subjective idealism is correct, but objective idealism didn't die. Many philosophers such as Leibniz, Nietzsche, Hegel and Heidegger are objective idealists. It was even pushed into climax by Hegel. The criticism to materialism by subjective idealism is right and wrong, and the materialism of France, Soviet Union and China continued to develop. On the whole, a tripartite situation has been formed. Philosophical ontology has always circled in situ and cannot produce a universally recognized theoretical system. The problem will be completely resolved only after the dialectical unity of materialism and subjective idealism.

In the third stage, the subjective idealism and mate- rialism realized the dialectical unity, formed Dialectical Dualism. The third stage has no position of objective idealism. It should exit the stage of history in the second stage. We must resolutely criticize objective idealism while also criticizing objective idealism hidden in materialism and subjective idealism.

Reference

1.Aristotle.(2016). Metaphysics. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis; Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company,  p.19.

2. Hegel,G.W.F.(1980). The Encyclopaedia Logic. A New Translation with Introduction and Notes by T.F.Geraets, W.A.Suchting, and H.S.Harris. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., Indianapolis/Cambridge, p.30.

3. Heidegger,M.(1991). Nietzsche. Translated by David Farrell krell. New York: Harper San Francisco, p.173.

4. Cramer, F. (1993). Chaos and Order (The Complex Structure of Living System). Translated by D. I. Loewus. Weinheim: VCH, p.2.

5. Heidegger,M.(1991). Nietzsche. Translated by David Farrell Krell. New York: Harper San Francisco, p.175.

6. Zhang, X.L.(2003). Toward Event Itself--Introduction to Phenomenology, Seven Lectures. Beijing: United Press, p.7.(In Chinese)