, 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