On Contradiction (1937)
Original: (zh-CN) 人的概念的每一差异，都应把它看作是客观矛盾的反映。客观矛盾反映入主观的思想，组成了概念的矛盾运动，推动了思想的发展，不断地解决了人们的思想问题。
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908)
Source: One-Dimensional Man (1964), p. 103
On Contradiction (1937)
On Contradiction (1937)
Original: (zh-CN) 共产党内正确思想和错误思想的矛盾，如前所说，在阶级存在的时候，这是阶级矛盾对于党内的反映。这种矛盾，在开始的时候，或在个别的问题上，并不一定马上表现为对抗性的。但随着阶级斗争的发展，这种矛盾也就可能发展为对抗性的。苏联共产党的历史告诉我们：列宁、斯大林的正确思想和托洛茨基、布哈林等人的错误思想的矛盾，在开始的时候还没有表现为对抗的形式，但随后就发展为对抗的了。中国共产党的历史也有过这样的情形。我们党内许多同志的正确思想和陈独秀、张国焘等人的错误思想的矛盾，在开始的时候也没有表现为对抗的形式，但随后就发展为对抗的了。目前我们党内的正确思想和错误思想的矛盾，没有表现为对抗的形式，如果犯错误的同志能够改正自己的错误，那就不会发展为对抗性的东西。因此，党一方面必须对于错误思想进行严肃的斗争，另方面又必须充分地给犯错误的同志留有自己觉悟的机会。在这样的情况下，过火的斗争，显然是不适当的。但如果犯错误的人坚持错误，并扩大下去，这种矛盾也就存在着发展为对抗性的东西的可能性
Remarks after the Solvay Conference (1927)
Context: I consider those developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as "objective" and "subjective" are, a great liberation of thought. The whole thing started with the theory of relativity. In the past, the statement that two events are simultaneous was considered an objective assertion, one that could be communicated quite simply and that was open to verification by any observer. Today we know that 'simultaneity' contains a subjective element, inasmuch as two events that appear simultaneous to an observer at rest are not necessarily simultaneous to an observer in motion. However, the relativistic description is also objective inasmuch as every observer can deduce by calculation what the other observer will perceive or has perceived. For all that, we have come a long way from the classical ideal of objective descriptions.
In quantum mechanics the departure from this ideal has been even more radical. We can still use the objectifying language of classical physics to make statements about observable facts. For instance, we can say that a photographic plate has been blackened, or that cloud droplets have formed. But we can say nothing about the atoms themselves. And what predictions we base on such findings depend on the way we pose our experimental question, and here the observer has freedom of choice. Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation. To that extent, every physical process may be said to have objective and subjective features. The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, as we know today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality. Admittedly, even in our future encounters with reality we shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division between the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the way things are looked at; to a certain extent it can be chosen at will. Hence I can quite understand why we cannot speak about the content of religion in an objectifying language. The fact that different religions try to express this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Perhaps we ought to look upon these different forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man's relationship with the central order.
Source: "Quotes", The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (1982), Chapter One, p. 13
On Contradiction (1937)
System of Transcendental Philosophy (1800)
Source: Reasons and Persons (1984), pp. 223-224
"Subjective and Objective," in Mortal Questions, Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 196.
