|
|
| 乌杰文库——《系统辩证论》 |
|
Chapter One
Section One and "process" to interaction between parts of a system and the development of the whole. Professor Qian Xuesen pointed out that "the extremely complex object of study is called a system, that is, an organic whole, with specific functions, which consists of interactive and interdependent parts; and the system itself is part of a larger system in which it belongs" (The Science and Systems Engineering of Socialist Modernization Construction, p. 221 ). In his General Theory of Systems L. von Bertalanffy says, "System is the whole of all its parts that are interrelated and related to the environment" (Journal of Natural Science and Philosophy, January 1979). The Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) takes system as "the thing in which many constituents keep organic order and proceed to one aim." All of the above make it clear that system possesses the qualities of wholeness, interconnection, dynamics, order and pre-determination. Therefore, system in philosophy means an organic whole of certain interrelated elements or parts combined with a special function and a common aim. The most general or ordinary sense of system is ontology in philosophy. System gives a very important philosophical sense to ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology. It fits in with the scientific research from material object to complex system. It is a manifestation of the human way of thinking from "material as center" to "process as center." Class- ical Marxists considered the theoretical thinking of every epoch as products of history. There are two important tendencies in modern science: separation and combination. On the one hand, science breaks up rapidly, and branches of learning proliferate. On the other hand, borderline subjects and synthetical subjects appear continuously, and many extremely different subjects become interwoven at a higher level. Thus, the content of science becomes more and more complex, pushing knowledge beyond people's daily experience, while many complex problems are unexpectedly simplified to mathematical or physical models. Science is described and handled as number and quality. This principle of scientific development, thoroughly accelerating the scientific way of thinking and the appearance of systems thinking, is shown in three aspects: (1) People's views change from "material as center" to "system as center." People begin to study all objective phenomena as a system or parts or elements of a larger system, not as concrete objects. Furthermore, the locus of study changes to a system's development process, function and relationships, from studying the existence and structure of the system. (2) Science tends to be an organic whole; the boundary between subjects has been broken. People realize the common denominators among different subjects and among objects of different subjects. (3) People pay more and more attention to the whole and to the inner relationships of the whole, and study not only parts or branches of science. The tendency to become a whole makes scientific knowledge develop new combinations. Especially in the last 20 years, scientific, quantitative and comprehensive research in economics, the military and politics has tended to make people's thinking integrated and improved. All in all, the development of modern science and the formation of the concepts of whole systems have improved the way of thinking and make it natural for human knowledge of the world to turn from the general "material view" to the deeper "systems material view." From the three points above we can see not only a unification of the material view and the systems view but also that the systems material view is deeper and more advanced than the material view. The concept of "system" embodies systems thinking. There are three notions about the categories to which "systems think- ing'' should belong: The first considers it to belong to scientific thinking. Many European and American scholars agree with this. The second considers that it is a link between philosophical thinking and scientific thinking. The last considers it to belong to Marxist philosophical dialectics, and that it is part of mate- rialist dialectics. Many scholars insist on this because they observe things as a systematic whole and the relationship be- tween the parts of the whole. The systems principle, according to them, includes the general existence of wholeness, structure, order and mobility in objective reality. It is the philosophical basis of dialectics. There are also different opinions among these scholars: Some of them think that the systems principle itself is a theory of philosophy and dialectics, and that it has been perfectly explained in Marxism. As Wuyemov says, "The systems category also has some features of the category of dialectics. It occupies the position of a philosophical concept." Others consider that some principles and categories are indistinct and incompatible if described in natural language. But some advanced sciences like systematics, cybernetics and information theory, with the help of mathematical models and computers, can cause vague dialectical principles to materialize into concrete and fixed quantities. Furthermore, many scholars in our country consider that systems thinking has been summarized in Marxist philosophy and also replenishes and develops Marxist dialectics. In my opinion, systems thinking has long been explained in Marxist philosophy. Marx's world was organically connected. In this world dialectical materialism was the philosophical summation of the view of systems dialectics. At the same time, after being summarized and combined with Marxist philosophy, philosophical thinking in modern systems theory has now become a new pattern: systems dialectics. Professor Qian Xuesen considers the foundation of systems theory as helpful for making "system" clear and definite. It replenishes and deepens Marxism. This is the developmental process: social practice--basic science--systems theory. Systems theory comes to Marxist philosophy, which is the perfect summary of human knowledge, across the bridge of the systems view. II. The Substance of Systems Philosophy Bertalanffy considered systems philosophy as a philosophy that studies systems; systems philosophy emphasizes studying the world and things as an organic and complex system. Its basic principles include wholeness, structure and the principle of stages. Bertalanffy considered that general systematics had far exceeded the requirements of technology. Changes of goals had become the trend in the scientific field, from scientific subjects to philosophy. It appeared in different kinds of fields and had succeeded to a certain extent. It proclaimed the advent of a new point of view (Bertalanffy, General Theory of Systems, Qinghua University Press, p. 4). E. Laszlo said that, as a new point of view, systematic philosophy was being formed in the minds of advanced scientists worldwide (Laszlo, Seeing the World from the Perspective of Systematics, p. 4). A. Toffler wrote, "The concept of the systems method is widely used by social scientists, psychologists, philosophers, foreign affairs policy makers, logicians, linguists and engineers, as well as politicians" (Toffler, The Third Wave, p. 372). The Russian philosopher Sadovski considered, "Analyzing systematics is one of the most important tasks for modern philosophy and science" (V. N. Sadovski, The Principle of General Systematics, p. 2). Although systems philosophy was not initiated by students of Marxism, we should study it scientifically only if it is scientific. Everyone knows that neither modern materialism nor dialectics was created by Marxists, but this does not bar a Marxist from affirming and studying them. Certainly, there is an unscientific part or aspect of Bertalanffy's systems philosophy. But we know that all science develops from the imperfect to the perfect. Therefore, we should absorb its reasonable core and discard what is erroneous. Although some of the proponents of systems philosophy oppose materialism and dialectical philosophy, there is also a tendency to draw close to Marxist philosophy. Bertalanffy himself considers that the resemblance between the general systematics principle and dialectical materialism is obvious. Laszlo also said that, as we understand it, modern systems philosophy agrees with Marxist philosophy. Systems philosophy affirms the relationship between understanding and reforming the world. If Marx were still alive he would still study modern society and improve his theory of it (Academic Studies, April, 1988, p. 87). So I think systems philosophy is a new philosophy that has appeared in the 20th century. Marx considered that philosophy should be founded and developed on the basis of the latest scientific achievements. This is embodied clearly in systems philosophy, for it is a product of times in which science has made rapid and continuous strides. The debate in the world's Marxist philosophical circles, about whether systems philosophy is a philosophy, focuses on one question: Is system the most universal philosophy summarizing nature, society and ideas? With this standard, more and more people come to admit that the system is of universal significance because, whatever it is, nature, society or thought are all expressed in system. System is also an overall concept and it covers a wide range. It gives equal importance to "matter" and "contradiction." For instance, everybody agrees that the world is matter, and that matter is systematic. So "system" and "matter" obviously share a class. The only difference is people's perspective in observing things. Therefore, we may confirm that neither system without matter nor matter without system exists. As another example, everybody confirms that contradiction is universal. But we know that wherever contradiction exists, there must also be system. With contradiction in nature, there is system; with contradiction in society, there is system; with contradiction in thought, there is system. From this we can see that "system" is of universal significance, just as "contradiction" is. So systems philosophy arises on the basis of the "systems" concept. One important theoretical basis for founding systems dialectics is affirming systems philosophy, and the other is treat- ing dialectical philosophy correctly. Scholars in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China affirm dialectical philosophy, but not Western scholars. Many people in our country must be familiar with dialectical philosophy. All confirm that it is a philosophical theory about contradiction and the unity of opposites. "Contradiction dialectics" is its basic pattern. We find this expounded by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao Zedong. Only in confirming this can we adopt the right attitude toward dialectics and other philosophies. Dialectics is a theory studying both contradiction and the unity of opposites. Therefore it cannot include everything. For instance, systems philosophy is compatible with connection and development. But what it mainly discusses in this regard is not the contradictory but the systematic. Accordingly, we may draw a demarcation line between different philosophies, but not replace one with the other. III. The Unity of Systems Philosophy and ing of philosophy. It is well known that materialist philosophy and dialectical philosophy were founded in modern times. In materialism, there are the English philosophers--Bacon and his Novum Organum, Hobbes and his comparative natural theory and Locke and his materialist epistemology; there are French philosophers like Diderot and P. H. D. Holbach (Natural System) as well as the German philosopher Feuerbach and his materialist theories, etc. In dialectics, Rousseau, Diderot, Kant, Fichte and Hegel enriched this field by creating many important theories. After them, Marx and Engels founded the modern theory of dialectical materialism by summarizing materialist philosophy and dialectical philosophy scientifically. This was a significant combinatory process. Lenin and Mao Zedong inherited Marx and Engels' philosophical system and theory. For example, Lenin expounded on materialist epistemology and Mao Zedong's works such as On Practice, On Contradiction, etc., all enriched and developed Marxist philosophy. This shows that the history of modern philosophy is a history of summarization, creation and development. The process is endless. Systems philosophy and dialectical philosophy have identical qualities and can be unified. (i) They are unified in reality. When Engels talked about thought, he said, "Without making blunders, thought can bring together into a unity only those elements of consciousness in which or in whose real prototypes this unity already existed before. If I include a shoe-brush in the unity mammals, this does not help it to get mammary glands" (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 81). The unity of the two is derived from reality. Engels pointed this out when he talked about this unity: "The unity of the world does not consist in its being, although its being is a precondition of its unity, as it must certainly first be before it can be one. Being, indeed, is always an open question beyond the point where our sphere of observation ends. The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved not by a few juggled phrases, but by a long and wearisome development of philosophy and natural science" (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 83). The unity of the world here points to the world itself. And we also know that dialectics in Marx's theory comes from reality, too. While systems and dialectical qualities are all attributes of reality, all are based on matter and all are forms of expression of the world, so unity must exist in them. This is the basic evidence for the unity of systems philosophy and dialectical philosophy. (ii) They have the same characteristics. Although dialectical philosophy is about contradiction and the unity of opposites, the contradiction and unity of opposites both reflect the connection between things and development. Therefore, it is a science about general connection and eternal motion. So is systems philosophy. System and wholeness in systems philosophy also disclose connection, movement and the development of things. Therefore, they agree on this basic characteristic. The only difference is a difference in perspective, degree and sense of revealing the world. (iii) They are interdependent. We can see that all works on dialectics consciously or unconsciously talk about systems theory; their topic is dialectics. For instance, Marx's Capital is a dialectical model, but there is much systems thought in it. Engels also said dialectics "can present in an approximately systematic form a comprehensive view of the inter-connection in nature" (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 4, p. 242). These are all good examples of combining systems thought and dialectical thought consciously. On the other hand, people who emphasize systems philosophy always touch upon dialectics. Bertalanffy in Systematic History said, "There are many outstanding people's names in this history, including those of Marx and Hegel in connection with dialectics." This proves the organic connection between them. We can confirm that systems philosophy and dialectical philosophy can be combined. Certainly, this combination is not simple systems philosophy plus dialectical philosophy, but includes an enormous summary and combination of modern science and the latest theories. Section Two Compared with its lengthy history, it is only recently that systems dialectics has been put forward and developed. To a certain extent, it may be said that in the whole history of civilization the development of human thought has provided an abundance of materials for it. The very first human knowledge of the material world was used to view the situation as a whole. Then, as human civilization developed to a certain extent, that was replaced by the process of analysis. This process pays much attention to analyzing every part of a thing, then puts these together as a view of the whole. But along with the development of science and technology, these two ways of cognition could not satisfy the needs to first recognize and then transform the world. As a result, the latest way of cognition appeared, that is, to view the whole world from the inner and outer connections between two different things. This is the stage of systems dialectics. It is exactly along such a road, "whole analysis --systems whole," that cognition has developed. I. Rudimentary Holistic Thinking The very first ideas about wholeness came from ancient social practical experience. People had to handle various objects when they were engaged in various social practices. Therefore, they accumulated the experience of recognizing systems and handling systems problems. The embryonic natural ideas on wholeness were thus created. For instance, the ancient Babylon- ians and Egyptians looked at space as hierarchical and as a whole. As an ancient agricultural country, China gave birth to Yin and Yang, the Eight Diagrams and the Five Elements (earth, wood, metal, fire and water) on the basis of animal husbandry and agricultural development. These were used to research the foundation and development of space. The very first thinking and practice on systems started in this way. Famous works like "Di Yuan" of Guan Zi, and The Book of Songs (the poem "Seventh Month" in particular) narrated dialectically and systematically the relationship between crops and seeds, topography,soil, moisture, fertilizer, the seasons, etc. The famous military work Sunzi's Art of War considered war as a whole from every angle--timeliness, topographical advantage, commanders, legal system and politics. The famous medicinal treatise Huang Di Nei Jing ( The Yellow Emperor's Canon of Medicine) also emphasized the organic relationship between the systems of the human body. Philosophical knowledge of the whole was gradually formed based on knowledge gained from experience of the whole. The rudimentary idea of wholeness was expressed as natural dialectics in ancient Greek and ancient Chinese philosophy. The Milesian schools of Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus and Democritus all expounded a view of the integrity of systems in their philosophical thought. Aristotle was the first philosopher in the history of European intellectual thought to systematize many branches of science. He established the famous thesis: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. He pointed out that the cycle of life and death could be explained by the "Doctrine of the Four Causes" (material, form, motive and purpose). Aristotle's "Doctrine of the Four Causes," and theories of wholism, purposivism and organizations are four perfect ex- pressions of ancient natural systems thinking centered on wholeness, and constitute a most valuable cultural heritage. There was also much discussion of wholeness in ancient Chinese philosophy. Many thinkers in the Spring and Autumn Period emphasized the unity of the natural world. The Book of Changes considered man and natural things which people could perceive in the natural world as the source of the world. These were: sky, earth, thunder, fire, wind, water and mountain. Mother sky and mother earth created thunder, fire, wind, water and mountain. Metal, wood, water, fire and earth were the basic elements of the world. These five elements and the eight diagrams constructed the natural world. The great thinker Lao Zi mentioned that the Tao (way) produces one, one produces two, two produces three, and three produces all things on earth. Xun Kuang in the Tian Lun, from a different angle, also forwarded a preliminary systems model of knowing and explaining the world. Wang Anshi in the Song Dynasty developed the five elements theory. He said the Yin and Yang of the sky and earth, respectively, changed into metal, wood, water, fire and earth. "Cold begets water, heat begets fire, wind begets wood, dryness begets gold, and damp begets earth." At the same time, the five elements also depend on each other and are restricted by each other. Thus the five elements form the world, which represents the space in which all things are connected and restricted. Although this systems thinking was crude and rudimentary, it was also on the right track. Therefore, we call this ancient idea of wholeness "systems thinking in embryo." II. Mechanistic Systems Thinking Since the 15th century, classification as a means of study has replaced the ancient rudimentary systematic and holistic way of viewing the world. This kind of thought was suited to the stage of development of natural science at the time. During the Renaissance modern natural science combined the systems view and experimentation with a thorough system of logic so as to found systematic scientific theory on the basis of experimental fact. This kind of mechanical system included the "sun as the center" system of the "Copernican Revolution," the system of mechanics which was born in the first great scientific age of synthesis, as well as the theory of the organism as a system based on the other two. Francis Bacon considered that all experimental results must be broken down, then listed according to certain rules. The classification method was to be so created. This way of thought later was summarized philosophically by Hobbes at the beginning of the 17th century. He made Bacon's theory systematic and radical. He explained matter and its movement by using mechanical and geometrical theories. He considered the movement of material as mechanical; it depended on outer strength. He said substance plus life plus reason , equaled man. Then Newton developed these thoughts to their ,apex and integrated them into mechanics and physics.In 1687 Newton published Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy in which he combined mathematical reasoning and experimental observation to explain the laws of the formation of matter, and its interaction and movement, and thereupon established a complete and universal system of mechanics. Another of Newton's works, Universal Arithmetick, explained space as a huge system. Nevertheless, as with Copernicus, Newton was also restricted by his times. He thought that space was changeless, and that it was completely mechanistic. This led him into metaphysics. In modern philosophy Descartes, of whom Engels said, "Dialectics had brilliant exponents" (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 59), utilized mechanics to study organisms. He was the first person to mention the famous dictum "an animal is a machine." He said, "Space is a huge machine, and the organism is also a precise machine." This reflected his mechanistic systems thinking. There are three philosophers whose ideas on mechanistic systems thinking should be noted. One is Spinoza, whose sub- stantialism took the world as a natural substance that moves in its own way. Complex and numerous connections exist in this substance. The reasons for its existence and change depend on itself. This was a development of the rudimentary systems thinking. Another was Diderot, who thought everything was changing and was in flux; what was unchangeable was the whole. The world is born and dies continuously, it comes into being and passes away every minute, There is no exception to this rule and it can never have an exception. His ideas about things in motion were highly valuable. Finally there was the German mathematician Leibniz whose "Monadology" was somewhat like today's systems theory. He considered the monad as the basic element; it was also the "haplont which composes compound objects." The monad was not a mechanical but an active substance. All so-called "things" were expressions of monads. The differences between monads are what constitute the variety of things. Being is exhibited in the transition from low to high. General connections between monads constitute the world. He emphasized wholeness, harmony and independence, as well as the connections between monads. All in all, Leibniz's monadology exhibited an almost perfect systems thinking. His ideas were very close to today's systems theory. His methodology was also similar to systems methodology. Therefore, Bertalanffy appreciated that "Leibniz's monad stage seems very much like today's systems theory" (Collection of Scientific Treatises in Translation, Science Press, 1981, p. 306). Although mechanistic systems thinking had its limitations, we have to admit that it was a period which systems thinking had to experience. Its limitations existed in its mechanistic perspective, that is, only using the standards of mechanics to measure the chemical and organic processes. It denied the principle "The whole is more than the sum of its parts," but rather insisted that "the whole equals the sum of its parts." So it was a metaphysical way of thinking. Although this thinking emphasized analysis too much, it did not deny that the parts of things were connected. It also admitted knowledge of the natural system from the whole. Some of its representative ideas played a crucial role in the creation of today's systems thinking. Therefore, as a transitional theory in the history of systems thinking, mechanistic systems thinking provided valuable material for later ideas on systems. III. Dialectical Systems Thinking Since the early 17th century scientific achievements have developed dialectical systems thinking. As Engels pointed out, "We have now arrived at the point at which we can demonstrate the interconnection between the processes in particular spheres of nature, and on the whole can present in an approximately systematic form a comprehensive view of the interconnection between the spheres of nature" (Marx and Engels, Complete Works, Vol. 4, pp. 241-242). By the 19th century the development of natural science had fundamentally changed people's views of the world. Darwin's theory of evolution had provided a theoretical base for biological origins. Systems thinking has a very direct relationship with the development of evolution- ary theory, which considers living beings as changing systems which, under the influence and selection of outside natural conditions, change their structures correspondingly. Darwin's evolutionary theory of life challenged mechanistic systems thinking and caused the systems mode of thinking to develop substantially.The development of systems thinking is divided into two periods: the idealistic systems thinking and the Marxist materi- alist systems thinking. The idealist systems thinking, to a certain extent, was influenced by Kant, founder of German "transcendental philos- ophy," who understood human knowledge as a kind of unified whole which, with order and hierarchy, consists of certain elements. He also emphasized the whole as greater than the sum of its parts. He divided the whole in the natural scientific field into a mechanical whole and a whole with purpose. He also believed that using the purposive perspective of systems wholes was beneficial to the design and development of scientific research. Bertalanffy set a very high value on Kant's views, believing they contained the element of systems and were rich in systems thinking. As the first person in history of philosophy to completely and consciously explain the general way of applying dialectics, the German philosopher Hegel, whose philosophical theory is full of profound systems thinking, understood the whole world of nature, history, and spirit as one process. Using the systems viewpoint and method, Hegel constructed an "absolute spirit," a complete philosophical system of dialectical development, according to the triad: "affirmation, negation, negation of negation." He believed all existence was an organic whole, and "the concept of its own development is an organic system, a whole in which there are many stages and connections" (Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, 1957, Vol. I, p. 32). Hegel considered man's thinking ability as a systems process having hierarchical layers: the systems developmental process from sensuousness to passive reason to active reason. He undertook deep investigations of truth and science as organic scientific systems. He noted the truthfulness and levels of the inherent links between this kind of system and its elements. He said that the precondition for the existence of truth is concept, and the true pattern of truth is the scientific system. "Only via concept can science to be an organic system" (German Philosophy in the Late 18th and Early 19th Centuries, p. 277). He thought that the system of categories developed in the historic process from abstract to concrete, from lower to higher stages. Every period of development was a special scientific field or system. The transition from one system to another reflected the expansion of scientific knowledge. From this we can see that Hegel's conceptual system was one of systems. Certainly, we must admit Hegel's dialectics was "upside down," that is, he used the development of the systems concept to inversely reflect the development process of real systems. But at the same time we must recognize that his dialectical thinking method especially his ideas concerning the whole in the systems process was outstanding. Engels commented approvingly: "Hegel's basic thought is that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, coming into being and passing away,..." (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 4, pp. 239-240). Since the mid-19th century, modern science and technology's great development, represented by such things as cytology, the theory of evolution, and the law of the conservation and transformation of energy, has disclosed the objective world's essential attributes of general connection and mutual effect. Marx and Engels sublated earlier philosophical thinking, espe- cially Hegel's dialectics, absorbed its "reasonable core" and created materialist dialectics. Thus began a new era for systems thinking. In Marx and Engels' works, "system" and "system thinking" are used many times on a philosophical level. For instance, "system," "organic system," "whole," "overall," "aggregate of process," etc. From their views, systems theory can be separated into four areas: (i) The interconnected space system. Marx and Engels considered that the whole natural world we are confronted with forms a system, that it is a whole in which all things are ,connected with one another. Space is a system; it is a whole in which all things are connected. (ii) The natural view of a systems whole. Marx and Engels considered all things and processes, as well as the whole world, to be a systems whole interconnected and interdependent, mutually affected and restricted. "The essence of all thought consists in bringing together the elements of consciousness into a unity" (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 80); "But the knowledge of this system presupposes a knowledge of all nature and history" (Marx and Engels, Complete Works, Vol. 20, p. 663). (iii) The forms of movement and the scientific systems hierarchy. In accordance with the then level of scientific devel- opment, Engels divided movement forms into five: mechanical motion, physical motion, chemical motion, life motion and social motion. And he thought scientific classification was the classification and arrangement of those forms of motion following their inherent order. (iv) The systems theory of social movement. Marx and Engels considered society as an organic system with certain economic patterns and "a unified whole" "in which all relations coexist and support one another" (Marx and Engels, Complete Works, Vol. 4, pp. 144-145). Marx's Capital is an important and great work which embodies the systems view and method. Based on commodities, the basic elements of capitalist society, he established the theory of surplus value, while systematically analyzing capitalism as a social organism. Lenin's thought also included systems. He pointed out that Marxism's overall spirit and its overall system require that people study each theory in three ways: a) historically, b) in Connection with other theories, and c) in connection with con- crete historical experience (Lenin, Complete Works, Vol. 35, p. 238). "We have to master and study every aspect, connection and intermedium if we want to understand things thoroughly" (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. 4, p. 453). Stalin pointed out: "Dialectics does not study natural fields as independent parts and phenomena but as a connected and unified whole, in it parts and phenomena are connected and dependent on each other" (Stalin, Selected Works, Vol. 2, pp. 425-426). All these individuals emphasized the importance of the cognitive system. All of the above proves that Marx and Engels were the founders of the "systems science" concerning social and natural phenomena. They were the scholars who first concretely and extensively studied systems principles. Even the founder of systematics, Bertalanffy, realized this. IV. Quantitative Systems Thinking Since the end of the 19th century the development of the natural and social sciences has pushed the development of systems thinking from a philosophical theory with qualitative determination to a quantitative way of scientific thinking, with broad significance. We know that the general rule of scientific knowledge is always to determine the nature of the object studied, then to research and analyze its quantity. At the same time, the only way to understand the essence of a thing is to accurately research its quantitative aspects. Marx once pointed out that the really perfect science was the one which could make abundant use of mathematics. This is also true of systems thinking. As a foundation for qualitative research modern science and technology provides a mathematical tool for the quantitative analysis and calculation of the interconnection and influence between all the elements in a system. This allows people to better know and improve the world. It is an objective requirement of modern science and technology that systems thinking reach the quantitative period. Along with the development of the latest subjects, the objects which people are confronted with become more and more complex; people are always meeting with problems that are super small or super large, broad in scope, and have high parameters. This has forced people to seek an understanding of complex matter and has resulted in the foundation of quantita- tive systems thinking. Bertalanffy actively promoted general systems thinking from the 1930s. He summarized that the organism explained the scientific systems principle, and considered that one could not explain the characteristics of a higher level by simply adding up the absolute parts. Higher-level movement can only be deduced if you know the relationship between all the parts. Thus it is possible for systems thinking to change qualitative analysis into quantitative analysis. Bertalanffy published his thesis "On General Systems Theory" in 1945 and his "Normal Systems Theory" in 1968. He pointed out that research on systems should include three aspects: "systems" science and mathematical systems theory, i.e. "general systems theory"; "systems technology," including systems engineering and systems methodology; and "systems philosophy," namely research on systems philosophy. After him, the psychologist Miller established his general life systems theory. He considered that all specific living systems should be called "life systems" divided into seven stages, which are further divided into 19 key systems. Many people hold that Miller's theory, providing a plausible way for the unity of the living world, can rival Mendeleyev's periodic table. In 1969 physical chemist Prigogine promoted the theory of dissipative structure. From the second law of thermodynamics he declared that "disequilibrium may become thc source of order, while irreversible process results in the so-called 'dissipative structure,' a new type of dynamic state of matter." (Prigogine and Dissipative Structure, Shanxi Science Press, 1982, p.110). His theory explained why systems of the universe are all open systems that depend and act on the environment, whether they are organic or inorganic systems. Synergetics, a new theory initiated by the German physicist Haken in 1971, notes that synergetic reactions outstrip the combined single reactions of all the elements involved, making an entire system a unified macro pattern. This process was called the synergetic process by Haken, who established a set of mathematical models and management methods for all kinds of systems that are transformed from disorder to order. The Russian scholar Wuyemov promoted a parameter-type systems theory in 1975 to remedy the defects in Bertalanffy's discussion of order and the teleology of his analogical system. Besides, some social scientists have established a kind of social systems theory by deriving systems theory from the social sciences or researching social systems by using systems theory. Some of them are noted below. The theory of social systems. A social system is a unity composed of the coordinated activity of various key social elements and interrelated functions. Human society is a self-adaptive system. Representative figures of this approach are T. Parsons, M. Bunge and W. Barkley. In his study of mathematical logic, discrete mathematics and systems analysis, M. Bunge noted the use of nmthcmatical tools to research and express materialist ontology. These mathematical tools are set theory, abstract algebra, propositional calculus, predicate calculus, matrices, graph theory, state function and state space analysis. This makes it possible for philosophy to be accurate and formalized. Bunge described materialist philosophical categories by using modern mathematical tools. He made people realize that philosophy can be not only qualitative, but also quantitative. Philosophy and modern science can now be expressed in the same way. It is just as Marx said, that perfect science can be obtained only when mathematics can be utilized successfully in it, and it has also reached Engels' goal of "Mathematics, dialectical aids and expressions" (Marx and Engels, Complete Works, Vol. 20, p. 357). The theory of economic systems. The first example is the checkerboard list of input and output developed by W. Lointiff, an American economist. According to the product trading members of each national economic department, an activity list of output requirements for each department or unit is drawn up, and likewise for the input requirements of other departments. in this way we can make an effective economic analysis. A second theory is the entropic procedure economic system put forward by the economist K. E. Boulding, which holds that consumption is a typical process of increasing entropy and that production is a typical process of decreasing entropy. Economist N. Georgeschol also contributed valuable academic ideas concerning this question. He considered the economic order as an entropic order and the economic system as an entropy- changing process. Mechanical phenomena are reversible, but entropic phenomena are not. Finally, a third theory is that of entropic resource systems promoted by the Japanese scholar Tsuchida Atsushi, who considered that the overall flow of the ingestion and consumption of resources and the discharge of waste substances and heat is the reason why social, economic and biological quantitative systems exist. The theory of organizational management systems. The enterprise is a "cooperative system" composed of material,biological, individual and social elements. The coordination of these elements is the core of enterprise management. The creators of this theory were the American Chester Bernard and others. In short, all kinds of modern systems theories have formed a good base for research into systems philosophy. Section Three As a new pattern of modern philosophy based mainly on knowledge of the essence of philosophy and a view of the modern world's processes, especially modern natural science, social science and the science of thought, systems dialectics enriches and develops Marxist philosophical theory. Therefore, it is necessary for us to introduce and explain the times we are in and their relationship with philosophy.
Marx gave a scientific answer to these questions by pointing out that "any real philosophy is the cream of its time" (Marx and Engels, Complete Works, Vol. 1, p. 131). Here he emphasized two points, one is that philosophy is the "essence of the spirit"; another is that philosophy has the property of time. The former discloses the essence of philosophy, the latter shows that time is an essential feature of philosophy. Marx contributed greatly to humanity by founding the Marxist philosophical system in the mid-19th century based precisely on this insight. In fact, not only Marxist philosophy, but also all valuable philosophies agree with this. Hegel said, "Everybody is the child of his times. So is philosophy" (Hegel, Principles of Legal Philosophy, p. 12). Hegel also emphasized philosophy's temporal feature. It is not difficult to understand that Hegel also founded his broad and profound idealist dialectical philosophical system based on this theory. Lenin and Mao Zedong enriched and developed Marxist philosophy by grasping the general issues of their times and the rational answers to them. All of the above was done based on a close observation of the changeable situation of the particular times. Therefore, it is impossible for us to ignore our times when we reflect on the significant and serious problem of developing Marxist philosophy. Now we are in the 1990s. The world today has undergone earth-shaking changes since Hegel's times (150 to 170 years ago) and Marx and Engels' times (100 to 140 years ago). Even in comparison with Lenin and Mao Zedong's times, there have been cataclysmic changes. More importantly, in the last few years the whole world has embarked upon reform and is no longer the world with two super-powers, two antagonistic camps, three poles, or three belts, but has entered a period of pluralism or multi-polarity. Practice is the root of systems dialectical thinking. Marxist philosophy will inexorably develop in pace with the development of practice. A great number of new things and problems are emerging in both capitalist and socialist countries day by day. Science and technology have advanced by leaps and bounds since the Second World War. Modern capitalist philosophy contains much that is valuable. All the above requires an up-to-date summary of Marxism, and the development of Marxism and its creative philosophy. The resolution of the Central Committee of the CPC, which is the guiding principle for the construction of socialist spiritual civilization, points out, "The great changes which have happened and which are happening in China and the whole world, on the one hand show the vitality of Marxism, and on the other require us to solve new problems creatively by using fundamental principles and methods of Marxism. The task for our country's Marxist scholars in this new period is to study the new situation, its experiences and problems in economics, politics, culture and society in socialist modernization construction and overall reform in order to find the rationale behind the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics, in the meanwhile, we must study the new changes in today's world and its thinking, and absorb and summarize, in a critical way, the latest scientific achievements." The life of philosophy exists in creation. There is no immortal thing, according to dialectics, except that which can create life from death. Therefore, the only thing which is immortal is that which dares to improve itself. Philosophy also has its own life. it exists not only in its quality of truth, but also in its value in practice. Hegel said, "Philosophy is time represented by thoughts." Philosophy represents its times, it is the systematic theoretical expression of the spirit of the age. On the other hand, philosophy serves its times. It is exactly these seemingly abstract theories and categories which rule people's basic ways of thinking in observing and handling problems. This is the value and life source of philosophy. The fate of a philosophy is mainly determined by how it satisfies the needs of the times and how it fulfills the demands of the times and answers the questions raised by the times. Marxist philosophy is thorough materialism and dialectics. It is already a philosophical theory that has obtained the form of a science. Historically speaking, Marxist philosophy made itself the strongest theory by combining theory and practice. Marxist philosophy should give answers to China's prominent theoretical problems which are emerging in the course of socialist reconstruction. It should also enrich and improve itself as it accompanies the march of history and scientific progress, especially adapting itself to China's reforms. Marxist philosophy has to be reformed and developed. Il. Advance of Modern Science Propels How can philosophy develop? Mao Zedong pointed out, "Philosophy is the summary of nature and social knowledge." Engels said, "What really pushed them forward was the powerful and ever-more-rapidly onrushing progress of natural science and industry" (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 4, p. 222). Therefore, philosophy can only develop in as far as it summar- izes modern scientific achievements and solves an epoch's problems. Marxism was founded in Europe in the 1840s. Its es- tablishment accomplished a major reform in the history of philosophy. But that was not an end to the development of philosophy. Mao Zedong said, "Because the objective world is changing endlessly, in practice people's understanding of truth is also changing endlessly. Marxism and Leninism have not ended truth but found a way to understand truth" (Mao Zedong, Selected Works, p. 284). The world has witnessed an earth-shaking change during the hundred-odd years since the establishment of Marxist philosophy. Now we are in an epoch of reform and development, an epoch in which new theories, new technology and new science appear continuously. It is also an epoch in which multipolar resolution exists everywhere. On the whole, this epoch should be called the "epoch of systems." Engels said, "With each epoch-making discovery in the sphere of natural science even materialism has to change its form" (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 4, p. 224). Modern natural science has enlarged man's vision: from researching somewhat simple mechanical principles to the development of principles for disclosing the movement of life and society; from studying the earth oil which human life exists to studying the immensity of space; from describing the quality of the macrocosta to investigating the essence of the microcosmic world so as to discover the structure of matter and the profound mysteries of space, from both the microcosmic and macroscopic aspects. The discovery of quantum mechanics disclosed the quality of the particle and the wave-particle duality. This achievement proved the unity of opposites in the property of energy as continuous and discontinuous, an intrinsic decisiveness. Relativity theory proved the relativity of space, time and speed. It explained the inner unity of opposites in motion, and matter in space and time. it also gave a new explanation for the relationship between quality, energy and the velocity of matter. Cybernetics has profoundly disclosed the controlling relationship between the three different forms in the motion of life, society and man-made technology. Furthermore, it has set up a new bridge between the inorganic and the organic, thus advancing the principle of the unity of the material world a step further. The development of information theory has not only disclosed the existence of the law of joint motion in the sphere of man-made technology, living beings and society, it has also further disclosed the universal relations of the material world. Furthermore, it has enriched our understanding of the process and the relationship between matter and consciousness. Systems theory goes a step further toward enriching and developing the ideas of universal relations in the material world, in fact, the inner connections and outer connections that we usually refer to actually designate the interaction between the elements of a system or the interaction between the whole system and its surroundings. The theory of self-organization, which mainly consists of a dissipative structure and synergetics, primarily discloses the general mechanism and regularity of systems evolution from disorder to order or from lower to higher orders. It pushes dialectics from being a philosophical theory of general development (evolution) to a new stage, thus providing ample social, economic and scientific evidence for the creation of a new philosophy--systems dialectics. III Developing Marxism Necessitates We are now in a special epoch in which the trend of the times is changing people's world-views and ideologies. People are confronted with severe challenges in many aspects, including philosophy. Therefore, we have to face the challenges of reality and science, and set up a scientific way of thinking in order to break out of the mechanical approach and develop Marxist philosophy. The only philosophy that can improve objective reality is the philosophy that integrates itself with objective reality. Certainly this is an arduous task. With regard to developing Marxist philosophy, China should certainly contribute its share. On the basis of this awareness I study systems dialectics, the theoretical significance of which is as follows: First of all, it is helpful for us to adopt a correct attitude toward the relationship between systems philosophy and dialectical philosophy, and to integrate them. At present, people's understanding of systems philosophy and dialectical philosophy differ greatly. A widespread problem is the inability to unify them appropriately. Some set the two against each other, and consider one superior to the other. Some, although agreeing on the unity of the two, sink one into the other. According to the situation in each country's Marxist philosophical circles, it is normal to under-evaluate systems philosophy thinking. Most treat it only as a concept or category, or at most a strand of dialectical philosophy. I think this is not beneficial to the development of Marxism. Therefore, a very serious philosophical problem we face today is how to scientifically clarify the relationship between systems philosophy and dialectical philosophy. Actually, many philosophers throughout history, especially some classical Marxist authors, have elaborated on the unity of the systems view and the dialectical view. What I would like to do here is to further clarify, specifically expound and develop these important thoughts by combining them with the progress of modern science and philosophy. Secondly, it is helpful for us to obtain a comprehensive way of theoretical thinking. Marxist materialist dialectics is the greatest crystallization of human wisdom in modern society. On the whole, dialectical philosophy emphasizes the theory of contradiction and provides a powerful ideological tool for observing and studying problems. While dialectical philosophy mainly emphasizes a systems philosophy, it provides important tools for people to observe the world from a new point of view. These tools are integrated, connected and unified. Therefore, a perfect theory will emerge if we combine systems philosophy and dialectical philosophy to guide us in playing a more dynamic role in studying and reforming the world. Thirdly, it is helpful for raising our knowledge to a new level in contemporary philosophy. Not rigid and unchanging, philosophical theory is essentially a developing, critical and revolutionary theory armed with the latest scientific achieve- ments. This is the very reason why it can attract, enlighten, encourage and arm people to guide their progress, in addition, man's thinking has gone through several different stages in history, if metaphysics laid emphasis on the concept of "one," or single, unchangeable and monovalent thinking, then dialectics focuses on the idea of "two," that is, "one divides into two" or "division." Systems thinking stresses "many" or the "whole"; it is the idea of the connections within and the optimization of the whole. The latter two ideas are the greatest fruits so far in the arena of man's thinking. Therefore, it is undoubtedly important for us to synthesize these ideas and raise them to the height of contemporary philosophical theory. Needless to say, this is crucial to the cognitive activity that guides us. A more important purpose of my studying systems dialectics lies in its practical values: First, it can teach us how to understand and reform the world. This world is varied and complex, human development has been enlarged greatly, the relationships in society have become wider and wider, and the range and depth of scientific development have been unprecedented. If there is no systems whole and varied thinking when we study and try to reform the world, we cannot reform today's world effectively or even adjust to it. The appearance of modern systems theory, the application of varied systems engineering and the popularity of systems, as well as the fact that people are paying more attention to systems theory as time goes on, prove that people have already begun to realize this problem. Therefore, we have to find a new world view, methodology and understanding in order to confront this new world. All those people who have done so in the last twenty years must have received great benefits in practice. Hence, the study of the world of systems dialectics makes us understand this point in order to guide our activity. Secondly, systems dialectical philosophy is especially suited to meeting the requirements of philosophy in the present world, and to realizing its transformation in direction and focus. The most basic feature of systems dialectics is that it makes the great achievements of systems theoretical thinking, based on Marxist materialist dialectics, its central part. It puts diversified thinking and systematic thinking in an extremely important position. In the past, contradictions between classes were very obvious when societies reformed and, when conflict existed between all social forces. The rule of feudal states, the aggression of imperialist states, as well as rampant fascism, sharpened all kinds of contradictions. In this situation, because contradiction dialectics met the needs of the peace-loving people of the world in their struggle for self-government and in their establishment of people's democracy, it has become the main theme in the philosophical sonata and has achieved great success. Nevertheless, in today's world, the high-speed development of the social productive forces has alleviated, to a certain extent, many contradictions and acute global problems, and economic cooperation between countries has become a priority. Opposing factors have weakened while the status and function of many harmonious factors have surfaced. Comrade Deng Xiaoping said we have emphasized the danger of war for many years, but now our viewpoint has undergone somewhat of a change. This reflects a very important change in the world. On the other hand, with the development of human civilization, science has made great progress, and naturally it puts a higher demand on the scientificness and accuracy of philosophy. Thus, as the philosophy of the time, it has to make corresponding changes in its main theme. It is the adaptations to these changes that make systems theory so widely accepted. Thirdly, systems dialectics can better guide today's reform and opening policy and socialist modernization construction. Now that the focus of our work has shifted, modern construction becomes more and more important, if a "philosophy of struggle" is needed in wartime, then a philosophy of construction, one which coordinates many forces, is needed in times of construction. Deng Xiaoping made a great invention when he created the theory of "one country, two systems" to solve the problems left over by history. At the same time, China's present social life is also changing rapidly as the process of reform and opening goes on. Socialized production, expanded communications, diversified links, as well as the ramification of science make systems dialectics a real necessity. Systems dialectics is precisely the theoretical expression of the needs of the times. Therefore, along with the process of China's reform, opening and socialist modernization, the need for systems dialectics is increasingly evident. Systems dialectics will greatly speed this process. |
|
乌杰系统科学网 联系：liongrant@gmail.com |