During the development of philosophy, the concept of "practice" has attracted widespread attention and has become the focus of many discussions.

Aristotle integrated "good" into "practice". This concept was subsequently expanded by Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach and others, and was finally deepened in Marx's "Theses". The development of this concept is quite complex.

Aristotle attaches great importance to the status of "good" in "practice".

He lived in the ancient Greek period, when philosophical discussions were extremely active.

He believes that practice is the pursuit of "good" realization activities.

This point of view is to give people a standard for judging their behavior in terms of morality and ethics.

In the daily activities of many city-states in ancient Greece, many of people's behaviors, including public decision-making and interpersonal interactions, can all be considered in terms of their significance based on the standard of "goodness."

At the same time, this also laid a certain foundation for later philosophers' thinking on the concept of practice.

From an ethical perspective, his view had a profound impact on the formation of people's moral concepts at that time. This influence plays a key role in the formation of moral concepts.

With the gradual development of the philosophical system, the practical concept centered on "goodness" proposed by Aristotle has become a key starting point. On this basis, many philosophers have deeply discussed the relationship between practice and people, as well as the clear definition of the content of practice.

Kant was in an era of changes in philosophical thought.

He divided philosophy into a theoretical part and a practical part.

The practice he mentioned is divided into two categories, one is technical practice, which is commonly known as practice; the other is moral practice, which he believes is the real practice.

Kant's division brought new development to Western practical philosophy.

In that academic atmosphere where scientific research and philosophy converged, his theory made the definition of practice clearer.

However, Kant's understanding of practice is mostly limited to the field of moral practice and ethics.

In the German social environment of the eighteenth century, factors such as religious beliefs and moral principles restricted his thoughts to a certain extent.

Moreover, this limitation also became the entry point for later philosophers to further break through their thoughts.

Hegel recognized the practical significance of productive labor.

Industrial production began to flourish, and productive labor gradually became an indispensable part of people's lives.

He recognized that productive labor and technology belong to the realm of practice.

And it also introduces the practical category into the field of epistemology.

In the stage of undergoing changes in social production relations, such an understanding can enhance people's ability to understand the relationship between practice and cognition.

Hegel believed that practice is an integral part of the development of knowledge. He emphasized that to understand practice, we must start from the dialectical relationship between subject and object. This view is of great significance in the history of philosophy. It allows the concept of practice to transcend the limitations of ethics and morality and is closely connected with epistemology.

Feuerbach was in a period when philosophical ideas were facing changes.

He got rid of Hegel's theoretical constraints on abstract spiritual activities and combined people's actual perceptual activities with practical activities.

His thoughts are the result of reflection on the shortcomings of old materialism.

In a period when the development of materialism was limited by traditional thinking, his innovations closely linked practical concepts with real human activities.

This innovation of his had a profound impact on later philosophers such as Marx. Marx was able to expand the depth of his practical and conceptual thinking based on the research results of Feuerbach and other predecessors.

Marx proposed in the 19th century that the truth of thinking is a matter of practice.

The social, political and economic situation at that time was facing tremendous changes.

He pointed out that practice is the only criterion for testing truth.

Facing the controversial theories on the relationship between environment, people and education in old philosophy, Marx always carried out in-depth criticism from a practical perspective.

At the same time, based on human practice, it is proposed that human nature is the sum of all social relations.

This view has had an impact on the understanding of the fundamental nature of man. During the period of rapid industrialization and urbanization, people formed various social connections through a large number of production activities. Marx's elaboration of this essence reflects his profound insight into the social relations at that time.

Nowadays, colleges and universities pay more attention to theoretical teaching in ideological and political education.

In the allocation of teaching resources in many universities, theoretical teaching takes up a lot of time.

This is contrary to Marx's view of practice.

In today's society, knowledge is updated rapidly and values ​​have become diversified. However, ideological and political education that only relies on theoretical teaching cannot give students a deep understanding of Marx's practical concepts.

Students often find it difficult to effectively combine the theories in ideological and political courses with problems encountered in real life, interpersonal interaction, and social practice, which greatly reduces the actual effect of ideological and political courses.

Colleges and universities need to review their ideological and political education models, increase the proportion of practical teaching, and ensure that students can more effectively implement Marx's concept of practice in ideological and political learning.

So how should colleges and universities attach importance to the concept of practice in ideological and political education?

This issue is indeed worthy of our careful consideration, and I hope all readers can actively participate in the discussion, give it a like, and don’t forget to forward it.