Talk:On Contradiction

Controversy involving the conception of "On Contradiction"
The origin of On Contradiction is not a straight forward as you expressed. Although there are sources that claim the essay is the result of lecture notes, according to Lee Feigon's book, Mao, A Reinterpretation Mao has disavowed the lecture notes. He probably was concerned about being seen as a plagiarist. Therefore, it is not fair to claim On Contradiction is wrought from those notes. Additionally, the essay Stuart Schram noted in his book The Thought of Mao Tse-Tung that Mao only wanted people reading the most current versions of his work. He wrote that both On Practice and On Contradiction were officially published over ten years after those lectures. In that time the essays could have been thoroughly revised in order to reflect Mao's more current thoughts, so although the lectures were definitely a seminal part of Mao's journey as a thinker, they were not necessarily responsible for On Contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammcallister (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a great article; the layout provides a solid background and basis. I enjoy the conclusion section as it adequately summarizes the most core aspects of Contradiction. In terms of content, I think what is here is brilliant. One editing change that might prove helpful is the addition of more links to other wikipedia pages. Ideas such as "metaphysics" and "proletariat" are not linked to their respective Wikipedia pages. While this is by no means a large issue, providing the means to discover the dialogue about these exact terms would be helpful for most readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukelouie (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary to say "In the conclusion, Mao sums up all the points that were made in his essay."? It seems a little elementary, if readers are researching and understanding On Contradiction I'm fairly sure they understand essay structure regardless of the fact that there is no useful information conveyed by that summary sentence. Shouldn't it include either his main points summarized or be removed? Just my two cents... 99.249.182.150 (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Any overlap with logical positivism?
Mao seems to criticize "metaphysicians" in a similar way to the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle (who met regularly up until 1936, a year before this piece of writing was published) AslanFrench (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)