As a matter of the natural order of things, the existence of one certain Oulianoff (alias Lenin) had preceded the fact of his having written a certain treatise titled "Materialism vs. Empiriocriticism".No less demonstrable (logically) can be the necessity of the existence of some reader of that treatise, for any 'content' of that treatise to be considered at all (or of any treatise for that matter).
There being some statements within this text regarding Prius, it looks like Mr. Lenin's Prius had been grossly misplaced.
The existence of some objects around (usually) one would not deny (which, I understand, was Mr. Lenin's Prius). However, can the observer be brought down to the levels of the observed.
It may be not so easy, to be rational on a piece of utter confusion. However, have you been blind, the university professor (Academia), etc., etc.
This veritable idiocy kept going on and on, not so often but noticed. Some people would use it to abuse others.
Where is the damnable Academia, may I ask.
There should be at least some university professors, scientists, people of mere good sense, who are neither blind nor illiterate.
Does a Lenin equal a brick equal a horse equal a cloud equal a stone ?
That is exactly what this treatise implies ; only stated in some other terms.
WPT, Apr 08
ON DIALECTICS The division of the one and the cognition of its contradictory parts (see the quotation from Philo on Heraclitus at the beginning of Part III, �Knowledge,� in Lassalle�s book on Heraclitus) is the essence (one of the �essentials,� one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics. This is precisely how Hegel also puts the matter (Aristotle in his Metaphysics continually grapples with it and combats Heraclitus and Heraclitean ideas).Comment Before the �division of the one and the cognition of its contradictory parts� (as in the quotation) can occur — some one must exist.This overlooked, the essence of �dialectics� is not an essence of anything at all (but some windbag speech ; by one who, if he did not know better, should have said nothing at all on such subjects ; if he did know better than he actually wrote then a monstrous crime against humanity had been committed, for the sake of some relatively puny political gain at the moment).
It could be that Mr. Lenin simply did not know better, his being an activist political a role of sorts. That still would not justify anybody's being deceived by all those fallacies.
The errors, once planted, could persist and even multiply. Anybody can read, over there, Academia, etc. ? (WPT).
Lenin, Vladimir Il'ich, 1870-1924 Title(s) Materializm i �mpiriokrititsizm. English Materialism and empirio-criticism, by V. I. Lenin. Publisher Peking, Foreign Languages Press, 1972. Paging 450 p.