|
|
| (14 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Part 1: The philosophical problem==
| |
| ===Introduction===
| |
|
| |
|
| {{Message box|text=Summary: The worker needs to practice dialectical materialism in order to connect theory to practice to carry out a just revolution. This method of analysis and reasoning can solve all problems and is the basis of Marxist philosophy. It wholly stems from and evolves with science.|image=Article.svg}}
| |
|
| |
| '''Dialectical Materialism'''
| |
| * Connects theory to practice
| |
|
| |
| '''What is the method of analysis and reasoning that the worker activist needs?'''
| |
| * a method that never separates theory from practice, that takes into account facts and circumstances that are never the same.
| |
|
| |
| '''What should we avoid'''
| |
| * Ready made solutions (dogma)
| |
|
| |
| '''Why should we study philosophy'''
| |
| * We the worker activist need a method of analysis and reasoning that is just in order to carry out a just revolution
| |
|
| |
| '''What is Philosophy'''
| |
| * Study of the most general problems
| |
|
| |
| '''How does science differ'''
| |
| * The study of more specific problems
| |
|
| |
| '''Philosophies connection to science'''
| |
| * Extension of sciences; It’s based and depends on science
| |
|
| |
| '''Materialism'''
| |
| * Is nothing other then the scientific explanation of the universe
| |
|
| |
| '''What is the common confusion to which the word materialism gives rise?'''
| |
| * Thought to be one who only thinks of enjoying material pleasures. This is wrong. It does not prevent us from having an ideal and fighting to make it triumph
| |
|
| |
| '''What is the relationship between materialism and Marxism?'''
| |
| * Marxism based on materialism; consequently stems from science, rests on them and evolves with them
| |
|
| |
| '''What was the impact of Marx and Engels on materialism?'''
| |
| * updated ancient materialism and brought it into the age of modern science
| |
|
| |
| '''What marxists take into account when looking at class struggle?'''
| |
| * Economic, political and ideological struggle.
| |
|
| |
| '''Who will give the movement the best direction?'''
| |
| * The one who is able to fight on all these terrains
| |
|
| |
| '''How important is the study of philosophy for the militant worker?'''
| |
| * In order to carry out a just revolution it is necessary
| |
|
| |
| '''What more particular importance does the study of dialectical materialism have for them?'''
| |
| * It will allow them to solve all the problems and to unveil all the campaigns of falsification of marxism, which pretend to complete and renew it.
| |
| ''- my note: Like the new left/dem socialists. All Marx but no bite''
| |
|
| |
| '''Bourgeoisie campaign of silence'''
| |
|
| |
| * Separating Marxism from materialism. Marxism taught only as political doctrine and historical materialism spoken of without mentioning philosophy of materialism
| |
|
| |
| === The fundamental problem of philosophy ===
| |
|
| |
| {{Message box|text=Summary: The fundamental question of philosophy is which one came first, being or thought (aka: spirit or matter) and there are only two answers to this question, the materialist and idealist ones. Materialism is based in science and says that ideas come from matter and idealism is non-scientific and says that spirit created matter.
| |
| |image=Article.svg}}
| |
| '''Two ways of explaining the world?'''
| |
| * 1)the scientific conception 2) the non scientific conception
| |
|
| |
| '''What two distinctions did philosophers make when explaining the world?'''
| |
| * Matter and spirit:'' objects that are material and those that are not material like ideas, mind and thought''
| |
| '''All the ways these distinctions are named'''
| |
| * being and thinking/mind and matter/brain and consciousness/social experience and social consciousness/power and will
| |
| '''What is the fundamental question of philosophy'''
| |
| * Which one precedes the other? Which is the most important?
| |
| '''There can only be two answers to this question...'''
| |
| * 1)a scientific answer 2) a non-scientific answer
| |
| '''What do we struggle with believing?'''
| |
| * That there has always been something and we tend toward there having been nothing.
| |
| '''What have we found is easier to believe?'''
| |
| * What religion teaches, “The spirit hovered above the darkness... then came the matter” Spirit preceding matter
| |
| '''During early humans what were dreams and imagination attributed to?'''
| |
| * a double existence leading early philosophers to attribute these thoughts and feelings double to the soul that left the body after death
| |
| '''God’s and spirits'''
| |
| * Attributed to external phenomenon they couldn’t understand or control like storms, germination and floods
| |
| '''What question split philosophers into two great camps?'''
| |
| * Did God create the world or has the world been in existence eternally?
| |
| '''Idealism answer'''
| |
| * non-scientific explanation - God created the world - spirit created matter
| |
| '''Materialism answer'''
| |
| * scientific explaination - nature, matter was the main element
| |
|
| |
| '''Support for materialism'''
| |
| * there are bodies without thought, like stones, metals, earth, we never observe, on the other hand, the existence of mind without body.
| |
|
| |
| '''Can only be two answers to question How is it that man thinks?'''
| |
| * idealist 1)humans’ think because we have a soul / materialist 2)humans’ think because we have a brain
| |
|
| |
| === Idealism ===
| |
| {{Message box|text=Summary: Philosophical Idealism is the belief that thought precedes matter. As science dispensed with creationism, idealism changed through Berkeley to matter doesn’t exist. Berkeley argued that our minds are incapable of creating things on their own so they need a higher power which creates and imposes on us all the ideas of the world. This school of thought is taught today having undergone various disguises|image=Article.svg}}
| |
|
| |
| '''What is the common confusion to which the words idealism give rise?'''
| |
| * confusing moral idealism with ''philosophical'' idealism
| |
| '''Moral idealism'''
| |
|
| |
| * devoting oneself to a cause/ideal
| |
| '''Philosophical idealism'''
| |
| * it is thought which is the principle element, the most important the first.
| |
| '''What is the first form of idealism'''
| |
| * It is the spirit which produces matter.
| |
| '''How did idealism change'''
| |
| * As science began to explain nature and dispensed with creationism, idealism changed to combat it by ''denying the very existence of matter''
| |
| '''18th century father of this kind of idealism'''
| |
| * Berkeley, an English bishop
| |
| '''The gist of Berkeley’s idealism'''
| |
| * Our sensations are only ideas that we have in our mind. So the objects that we perceive through our senses are nothing but ideas, and ideas cannot exist outside our mind.
| |
| '''Consequence of idealist reasoning - Solipsism'''
| |
| * Everything is ideas so the outside world does not exist therefore I am the only one who exists, since I only know other men through my ideas, that other men are for me, like material objects, only collections of ideas
| |
| '''Why is Berkeley’s work important to know?'''
| |
| * '''''The basis of the arguments of all idealistic philosophies are found in the reasoning of Bishop Berkeley.''''' This method of thought dominates the official history of philosophy and is part of our religions, schools and the fabric of society to the extent it has penetrated our everyday thinking.
| |
| '''What are the main idealistic arguments?'''
| |
| * spirit creates matter, the world does not exist outside our thinking and it’s our ideas that create things
| |
| '''The two perspectives that stem from spirit creates matter'''
| |
| * 1)'''''ordinary idealism of theologies''''' - God created the world and it exists outside of us 2)'''''Berkely’s immaterialist ideaology'''''- God created the illusion of the world by giving us ideas that do not correspond to material reality rather spirit is the only reality
| |
| '''How does a higher power fit into this?'''
| |
| * Our mind is incapable of creating these things on it’s own so it can not do what it wants with them therefore it needs a more powerful mind. This higher power creates our spirit (mind) and imposes on us all the ideas of the world we encounter in it.
| |
|
| |
| === Materialism ===
| |
| '''Why should we study materialism?'''
| |
| * We have learned through our society to think in an idealistic way and we must study materialism to change that.
| |
| '''When there was next to no scientific knowledge…'''
| |
| * Philosophers and nascent sciences formed a whole one being the extension of the other
| |
| '''When science brought precision in the explanation of the phenomena of the world…'''
| |
| * It contradicted the dogmas of idealistic philosophies which created a schism between these two
| |
| '''Materialism was born with…'''
| |
| * science and grew with it until it was reunited with science through the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels
| |
| '''What is the reasoning for matter being the most important?'''
| |
| * There can be no thought without matter/brain. Therefore matter doesn’t need thought to exist but thought only exists because of matter.
| |
| * Things around us exist independently from us: they are what give us our thoughts; and our ideas are only the reflection of things in our brain.
| |
|
| |
| === Which is right, idealism or materialism? ===
| |
| '''To summarize, Idealists say 3 things and materialists say the opposite.'''
| |
| # That it is spirit that creates matter;
| |
| # That matter does not exist outside our thoughts, and that it is therefore for us only an illusion;
| |
| # That it is our ideas that create things.
| |
| '''What three questions do we need to discuss to know who is right about the fundamental problem of philosophy'''
| |
| # Is it true that the world exists only in our thoughts?
| |
| # Is it true that it is our ideas that create things?
| |
| # Is it true that spirit creates matter?
| |
| '''Is it true that the world only exists in our thinking'''
| |
| * Materialist recognize that we don’t just have our senses anymore to rely on to find out what is real rather we have science. So the sun exists, not because of what we detect with our senses (flat, red disc) but it exists by invoking science which allows us to correct the errors our senses makeI'''t follows that the materialist is…'''
| |
| * Not discussing the properties of things, but their existence.
| |
| * Not discussing whether our senses deceive us and distort material reality, but whether this reality exists outside our senses.
| |
| '''Berkeley’s argument relies on?'''
| |
| * Our senses and the properties of things (which is what we relied on before science) and all it proves is that our senses can deceive us/we can see things differently then someone else. Not that matter doesn’t exist.
| |
| '''This leads to…'''
| |
| * Materialist’s using science to assert the existence of things outside us while idealists “argue about words, make great speeches, write many pages.”
| |
| '''How do idealists respond to the question, did the world exist before humankind?'''
| |
| * Thought inhabited animals
| |
| '''What does it all come back to for idealists?'''
| |
| * Even if there was only a solar system without man, thought and spirit existed in God. God is at the crux of it. Idealism cannot sustain itself without God, and God cannot exist without idealism.
| |
| '''Idealism vs Materialism comes down to?'''
| |
| * God vs Science.
| |
| '''What allows us to see the world as an objective reality'''
| |
| * science
| |
| '''According to Lenin, what confounds the Idealist?'''
| |
| * The criterion of practice
| |
| '''What will allow us to answer the question, is it true that it is our ideas that create things?'''
| |
| * science and practice
| |
| '''What provides the proof that idealists are actually materialists'''
| |
| * If an idealist is walking onto the street while a bus is coming and they don’t want to be crushed they will be careful as there is no difference between an objective and subjective bus to them in this scenario.
| |
| '''Because of practice and science...'''
| |
| * Idealist no longer assert, like Berkeley, that the world does not exist. The arguments are much more subtle and hidden
| |
| '''If a conception is right or wrong'''
| |
| * It is practice alone which, through experience, will demonstrate it to us.
| |
| '''The example of the bus shows'''
| |
| * That there is an objective reality and to answer the previous question that our ideas do not create things
| |
| '''Idealist’s proof for God'''
| |
| * Idealist point to mysteries that only prove we haven’t been able to explain those mysteries yet not that there is a God.
| |
| '''Example of “proof”'''
| |
| * When the idealists want to "prove" to us the necessity of the creation of the world by saying that matter could not always have existed, that it had to have a birth, they resort to a God who never had a beginning.
| |
| '''Does science allow us to think that the spirit created matter'''
| |
| * No. For this to be possible it would have been necessary that spirit existed alone before matter. But science has shown us that there is no spirit without matter, that spirit is always linked to matter, and we see in particular that the mind of humans is linked to the brain, which is the source of our ideas and thoughts. Science does not allow us to conceive that ideas exist in a vacuum.
| |
| '''What can we conclude from this'''
| |
| * The mind of God needs a brain to exist. So we can conclude that it is not God who created matter, and man as well, but that it is matter, in the form of the human brain, that created the God-mind.
| |
| '''What can we conclude from the fundamental problem of philosophy'''
| |
| * Materialists are right and science proves our assertions
| |
|
| |
| === Is there a third philosophy? Agnosticism? ===
| |
| '''What is the basis for Agnosticism?'''
| |
| * We can never know the real basis of things only appearances
| |
| '''What is appearances'''
| |
| * what we can detect through our senses. The external aspects of something.
| |
| '''Who are the founders of this philosophy'''
| |
| * Kant and Hume
| |
| '''What does Hume admit'''
| |
| * the existence of an external universe
| |
| '''What does he refuse to admit'''
| |
| * objective reality.
| |
| * this existence of external universe is nothing more than an image (called “things for us”), and our senses which observe this existence, this image, are incapable of establishing any relation whatsoever between mind and object (called “things in themselves).
| |
| '''So is the bus from the last chapter an objective reality?'''
| |
| * Agnostic’s tells us that it is not certain, that we cannot know if the bus is a thought or a reality.
| |
| '''What is agnosticism’s consequences'''
| |
| * Agnostics say that scientists get things wrong (”error yesterday truth today error tomorrow”) so reason cannot bring us certainty. By diminishing confidence in science, agnosticism thus prepares the way for the return of religions. '''''It’s consequence is paving the way back to idealism'''''
| |
|
| |
| '''How can we refute this third philosophy'''
| |
|
| |
| * to prove their claims, materialists use not only science, but also experience, which allows them to control science. Thanks to the "criterion of practice", one can know things.
| |
| * The reason we can make synthetic rubber is that science knows the "thing in itself" that is rubber.
| |
|
| |
| ==== Highlights ====
| |
| Look into The conservation of energy: first law of thermodynamics - matter and motion, or as it is now called, energy, can neither be created nor destroyed. Does this mean the universe has always existed…although the universe could’ve transformed into what it is…does this mean that matter has always existed?
| |
| <blockquote>From the moment we turn to our own use these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense perceptions. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail. But if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is positive proof that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves. And whenever we find ourselves face to face with a failure, then we generally are not long in making out the cause that made us fail; we find that the perception upon which we acted was either incomplete and superficial, or combined with the result of other perceptions in a way warranted by them—what we call defective reasoning. So long as we take care to train and to use our senses properly, and to keep our action within the limits prescribed by perceptions properly made and properly used, so long we shall find that the result of our action proves the conformity of our perceptions with the objective nature of the things perceived. Not in one single instance, so far, have we been led to the conclusion that our sense perceptions, scientifically controlled, induce in our minds ideas respecting the outer world that are, by their very nature, at variance with reality, or that there is an inherent incompatibility between the outer world and our sense perceptions of it.
| |
| Since the 18th century, among the various thinkers who have borrowed to a greater or lesser extent from agnosticism, we see that this philosophy is sometimes torn by idealism and sometimes by materialism. Under cover of new words, as Lenin says, even pretending to use science to support their reasoning, they only create confusion between the two theories, allowing some to have a convenient philosophy, which gives them the possibility to declare that they are not idealists because they use science, but that they are not materialists either, because they don't dare to go to the end of their arguments, because they are not consistent with themselves.
| |
| What, indeed, is agnosticism, writes Engels, if not shameful materialism? The agnostic's conception of nature is entirely materialistic. The entire natural world is governed by laws and does not admit the intervention of external action; but he adds, as a precaution: “We do not possess the means to affirm or deny the existence of any supreme being beyond the known universe.”
| |
| Hence, this philosophy is playing into the hands of idealism and, all told, because they are inconsistent in their reasoning; agnostics lead right back to idealism. “Scratch an agnostic,” says Lenin, “and you will find an idealist.”
| |
| We have seen that one can know which is right between materialism or idealism.
| |
| '''We now see that the theories that claim to reconcile these two philosophies can, in fact, only support idealism, that they do not provide a third answer to the fundamental question of philosophy and that, consequently, there is no third philosophy.'''</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| == 2. The philosophical materialism ==
| |
|
| |
| === Matter and Materialist ===
| |
| '''Who was the first to give a materialist explanation of the world?'''
| |
| * Democritus
| |
| '''How has the theory of matter changed'''
| |
| * It went from ancient Greece where matter was a full and impenetrable reality that could not be divided into infinity to today where matter is seen as no longer a full and impenetrable reality as it has negatively charged electrons in motion and a positively charged nucleus where all of it’s mass is concentrated
| |
| '''What is matter?'''
| |
| * Matter is an agglomeration of atoms, and if it opposes a resistance to penetration, it is because of the very movement of the particles that compose it
| |
| '''How did idealists use this discovery to argue that matter didn’t exist?'''
| |
| * They claimed that matter was nothing more then an electrical charge in motion. If there is no matter in electrons then why would there be any in the nucleus. “So matter has vanished, there is only energy”
| |
| '''How did discovering electrons change how we viewed matter and motion?'''
| |
| * We originally believed matter and motion were two distinct realities. Now we recognize, as Lenin said in ''[[Library:Materialism and empiriocriticism|Materialism and empiriocriticism]]'', that energy and matter are inseparable. Energy is material, and movement is the only mode of existence of matter.
| |
| '''What is matter for materialists'''
| |
| * On this subject, it is essential to make a distinction: it is a question of seeing first:
| |
|
| |
| # What is matter?
| |
|
| |
| then
| |
|
| |
| # What is matter like?
| |
| '''What is matter?'''
| |
| * external reality independent of spirit that does not need spirit to exist.
| |
| '''what is matter like?'''
| |
| * It is not for us to answer it is for science.
| |
| '''Because we claim matter exists outside of us, we need to make clear…'''
| |
| # Matter exists in time and space.
| |
| # Matter is in motion.
| |
| '''How do idealist think about space and time'''
| |
| * space and time are ideas of the mind
| |
| '''Materialists affirm…'''
| |
| * that time is an indispensable condition for the unfolding of our life; and that, consequently, time and space are inseparable from what exists outside of us, that is, from matter
| |
| '''What is the last precision provided to us by science'''
| |
| * Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Matter without motion is as inconceivable as motion without matter
| |
| '''How has modern science proved this'''
| |
| * world in its present state is the result, in all fields, of a long evolution and, consequently, the result of a slow but continuous movement.
| |
| '''What used to be believed about this?'''
| |
| * Matter was incapable of motion. Inert.
| |
| '''What do we specify after having demonstrated the existence of matter?'''
| |
| * the universe is only moving matter, and this moving matter can only move in space and time
| |
| '''It follows…'''
| |
| * The idea of a “pure spirit” creator of the universe is meaningless. God outside of space and time is something that cannot exist.
| |
| '''In order to believe in a God existing outside time…'''
| |
| * '''It is necessary to share the idealistic mysticism, c'''onsequently not to admit any scientific control, to believe in a God existing outside time, that is to say not existing at any time, and existing outside space, that is to say not existing anywhere.
| |
| '''What do Materialists, strengthened by the conclusions of science, affirm?'''
| |
| * that matter exists in space and at a certain moment (in time).
| |
| '''Therefore what does this affirm?'''
| |
| * The universe could not have been created…because it would have taken God to create the world at a moment that was at no time (since time for God does not exist) and it would also have sprung the world out of nothing.
| |
| '''Why can’t science admit creation?'''
| |
| * We would have to first admit that there was a moment when the universe did not exist, and then that out of nothing something came out. Which as we have already concluded God outside of space and time is something that cannot exist.
| |
|
| |
| === What does it mean to be a materialist ===
| |
| '''What does it mean to be materialist?'''
| |
|
| |
| * One must be in the field of (1)thought and (2)action
| |
| '''What does it mean to be a materialist in the field of thought'''
| |
| * Knowing the fundamental formula of materialism: being produces thought, knowing how this formula is applied
| |
| '''But until it is applied...'''
| |
| * it is an abstract general formula
| |
| '''Being and thought ''in general'' are?'''
| |
| * Abstractions. Subjective realities that don’t exist.
| |
| '''Beings and thoughts in particular…'''
| |
| * do exist and are something concrete. Like individual horses vs the horse.
| |
| '''What does the materialist recognize'''
| |
| * how to transform this abstract general formula (general thought and being) into a concrete formula.
| |
| '''By recognizing this and with practice the materialist can…'''
| |
| * know where the being and where the thought is in all situation
| |
| '''How would this be applied to the brain and ideas?'''
| |
| * The materialist identifies the brain as being and ideas as thought. Then identifies it is the brain (the being), which produces our ideas (the thought).
| |
| '''How would this be applied to the life of society: economic and political life'''
| |
| * The first (primary) factor, the being, the one that gives life to society, is economic life. The second factor, the thought that is created by the being, which can only live through it, is political life.
| |
| '''To conclude, the materist will say that...'''
| |
| * economic life explains political life, since political life is a product of economic life (historical materialism)
| |
| '''Lets apply this to the poet. Does the Poet write because of inspiration?'''
| |
| * Not exactly It doesn’t explain why the poet writes this rather then that. The poet doesn’t just have thoughts in his head he lives in society. It is society that gives him life therefore society is the primary factor, the being, while the secondary factor, is what society gives rise to which is his thoughts.
| |
| '''What can be concluded from this…'''
| |
| * The fundamental element that explains the poet is society specifically the society that he lives.
| |
| '''How to be a materialist in practice?'''
| |
| * taking ''reality'' as the first and most important factor, and ''thought'' as the second factor.
| |
| '''Examples of those who take thought as the primary factor'''
| |
| # '''Individualist (solipsist):''' Who lives as if alone in the world. The outside world exists only for him. For him, the important thing is ''himself'', his thought.
| |
| # '''A dilettante:''' He who learns ''for the sake of learning'', who assimilates well, has no difficulties, but keeps it all for himself. He attaches primary importance to himself, to his thought.
| |
| # He who reasons about all things in relation to himself undergoes an idealist deformation. For example: He will say, of a meeting where things were said that were unpleasant to him: "This is a bad meeting". This is not the way to analyze things; one must judge the meeting in relation to the organization, to its purpose, and not in relation to oneself.
| |
| # '''''Sectarianism''''' is not a materialist attitude either. Because the sectarian has understood the problems, because he agrees with himself, he claims that others should be like him. It is still giving primary importance to oneself or to a sect.
| |
| # The '''''doctrinaire''''' who has studied the texts, has drawn definitions from them, is still an idealist when he is content to quote materialist texts, when he lives only with his texts, because then the real world disappears. He repeats these formulas without applying them in reality. He gives primary importance to the texts, to the ideas. Life unfolds in his consciousness in the form of texts, and, in general, we see that the doctrinaire is also sectarian.
| |
| # Selfishness of the individualist. The selfish limits the universe to his own person.
| |
| # Being closed off to the outside world, to reality: The materialist is always ''open'' to reality; that is why those who take courses in Marxism and who learn easily must try to transmit what they have learned.
| |
| # Judging whether something is bad or good based on your comfort or experience with it rather then based on what gave rise to it, to it’s purpose.
| |
| '''What characteristics are not considered materialist from these examples'''
| |
| # Selfishness of the individualist. The selfish limits the universe to his own person.
| |
| # Being closed off to the outside world, to reality: The materialist is always ''open'' to reality; that is why those who take courses in Marxism and who learn easily must try to transmit what they have learned.
| |
| # Judging whether something is bad or good based on your comfort or experience with it rather then based on what gave rise to it, to it’s purpose.
| |
| '''What is an example of a sectarian attitude?'''
| |
| * To believe that the revolution is a question of education, to say that in explaining "once and for all" to the workers the necessity of the revolution they must understand and that if they do not want to understand, it is not worth trying to make the revolution. This is sectarianism
| |
| '''How to address this in a materialist way?'''
| |
| * We have to note the cases where people do not understand; we have to look for reasons why this is so, note the repression, the propaganda of the bourgeois newspapers, radio, cinema, etc., and look for all possible means to make people understand what we want, through leaflets, brochures, newspapers, schools, etc.
| |
| '''Other examples of those who are inconsistent materialists/idealists'''
| |
| * To have no sense of reality, to live on the moon and, practically, to make projects without taking into account the situations and realities, is an idealist attitude that gives primary importance to beautiful projects without seeing if they are feasible or not.
| |
| * Those who continually criticize, but do nothing to make things better, proposing no remedies, those who lack critical sense themselves, all of them are inconsistent materialists.
| |
| '''Why do we have these idealistic faults in us?'''
| |
| * because we separate practice from theory and the bourgeoisie, which has influenced us, likes us not to attach importance to reality.
| |
| '''Consequences of these flaws'''
| |
| * They benefit the bourgeoisie.
| |
| * we must note that these defects, engendered in us by society, by the theoretical bases of our education, of our culture, rooted in our childhood, are the work of the bourgeoisie. We must get rid of them.
| |
|
| |
| === History of materialism ===
| |
| '''Why was early dialectical materialism, which developed with the emergence of science in sixth/fifth B.C.E., abandoned?'''
| |
| * The state of science did not allow us to prove what was being claimed and the social conditions necessary for the dialectic to flourish were not yet realized.
| |
|
| |
| '''What was the science of the middle ages'''
| |
|
| |
| * Scholasticism - take passages about a subject from Aristotle then read what St. Thomas Aquinas says about those passages. Then maybe refer to a third book that just repeats the same thing without any critique and rinse and repeat. Science was only studied in books
| |
|
| |
| '''What changed this mode of study'''
| |
|
| |
| * Bacon came up with the experimental method and advocated for studying science in the “great book of nature”
| |
| * Then Locke furthered this through showing all ideas come from experience. The idea of the first table came to man before it existed, because, through experience, he was already using a tree trunk or a stone as a table.
| |
| * Then Descartes argued animals were machines but humans had a soul
| |
| * La Mettrie extends the animal-machine to humans
| |
| * Diderot, in 18th century, almost arrives at the conclusions of contemporary (dialectical) materialism
| |
| * There is a retreat of materialism in first half of 19th century
| |
| * Feuerbach in Germany brings it back into the spotlight
| |
|
| |
| '''What three discoveries lead to enormous progress in the sciences during the 19th century'''
| |
|
| |
| * The living cell
| |
| * the transformation of energy, and evolution (from Darwin)
| |
| * which will allow Marx and Engels, influenced by Feuerbach, to make materialism evolve to give us modern, or dialectical, materialism.
| |
|
| |
| '''Why was it necessary to create and develop the sciences for dialectical reasoning to flourish'''
| |
|
| |
| * One had first to know what a particular thing was before one could observe the changes it was undergoing
| |
|
| |
| '''What did Lenin mean by “idealism is nothing but a refined form of religion.”'''
| |
|
| |
| * idealism is able to present its conceptions much more flexibly than religion. To claim that the universe was created by a spirit floating above the darkness, that God is immaterial, and then suddenly, as religion does, declaring that he speaks (through the Word) and that he has a son (Jesus), is a series of brutally presented ideas. Idealism, by affirming that the world exists only in our thoughts, in our mind, presents itself in a more hidden way. In fact, as we know, it is the same in substance, but the form is less brutal, more elegant. That is why idealism is a refined form of religion.
| |
|
| |
| '''Where do we see the principle that when science develops materialism develops'''
| |
|
| |
| * In the Middle Ages, a weak development of science, a halt to materialism.
| |
| * In the 17th and 18th centuries, a great development of science corresponds to a great development of materialism. The French materialism of the 18th century is the direct consequence of the development of the sciences.
| |
| * In the nineteenth century, we witness many great discoveries, and materialism undergoes a very great transformation with Marx and Engels.
| |
| * Today, science is progressing enormously and so is materialism. We see the best scholars applying dialectical materialism in their work.
| |
|
| |
| '''The struggle of materialism vs idealism is really…'''
| |
|
| |
| * the struggle between two currents. One is pulling humanity towards ignorance and keeping it in this ignorance, the other, on the contrary, tends towards the emancipation of men by replacing ignorance with science.
| |
|
| |
| '''How must we judge the philosophers and scientists of particular time periods'''
| |
|
| |
| * by placing them in this struggle of ignorance against science
| |
|
| |
| '''What kind of struggle is this?'''
| |
|
| |
| * it is not simply a theoretical struggle, but a social and political struggle. The ruling classes in this battle are always on the side of ignorance. Science is revolutionary and contributes to the emancipation of humanity.
| |
|
| |
| '''Why was the bourgeois in favor of science in the 18th century but fighting against it in the 20th century?'''
| |
|
| |
| * In the 18th century, the bourgeois was dominated by the feudal class so it was leading the fight against ignorance. In the 20th century it was the ruling class so it fights against science for ignorance like in the case of hitlerism
| |
|
| |
| '''To sum up, how has pre-marxist materialism played a role in the world…'''
| |
|
| |
| * Pre-marxist materialism developed a general conception of the world that could be opposed to religion, and therefore ignorance. From this springboard the evolution of materialism develops which creates the conditions for the blossoming of dialectical materialism.
| |
|
| |
| '''Why was materialism of the 18th century predominantly mechanical materialism?'''
| |
|
| |
| * It viewed everything like a machine, as if it was only mechanical. Seeing only movement but not change. This was understandable given at the time mechanics, and mechanics of the body and gravity were the only natural sciences that had come to a close. Biology and chemistry were still in their infancy.
| |
| * Motion was thought of as a mechanical movement only. That the same events happened over and over again. We saw the machine side of things but not the living side. This materialism considered that the world did not evolve and that it returned at regular intervals to similar states, nor did it conceive of an evolution of man and animals.
| |
|
| |
| '''What type of thought came from believing life was a perpetual circle?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Life was believed to always produce the same results. That we can’t transform the world or ourselves. It overlooked the role of human action in the world.
| |
|
| |
| == 3. Study of metaphysics ==
| |
|
| |
| === What is the "metaphysical method"? ===
| |
| '''What is the principle of identity?'''
| |
| * preferring immobility to movement and identity to change
| |
|
| |
| '''How does this shape perception of the world?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Leads to views like, there has never been any change (example: creationism), a periodic return to the same events. Man is always the same. “There is nothing new under the sun.”
| |
|
| |
| '''What is an example of this'''
| |
|
| |
| * The criticism of socialism: man is selfish and that it is necessary for some force to intervene to constrain him, otherwise disorder would reign.
| |
| ** We picture the future humans who will live in a relatively distant future as similar to the humans of today (not taking into account that when society changes, humans will also change).
| |
|
| |
| '''Where is the metaphysical conception in the following example?'''
| |
|
| |
| * worker in the Soviet Union receives a salary that does not correspond to the total value of what he produces, so there is a surplus value, that is to say, a deduction from his salary. So it is stolen. In France, it is the same, workers are exploited; there is therefore no difference between a Soviet worker and a French worker.
| |
| ** It consists in not considering that there are two types of societies here and in not taking into account the differences between these two societies.
| |
| ** The surplus value in France goes to the boss; in the USSR to the socialist state
| |
|
| |
| '''What was the error made here?'''
| |
|
| |
| * underestimating change and preferring immobility or, in other words, which tends to perpetuate identity in the midst of change.
| |
|
| |
| '''What is this identity?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Like a house over time, it looks identical and we see it as the same house (as remaining itself). So to be identical is to remain the same, not to become different.
| |
| ** But we are only looking at a glance, when looked at in detail it has always been changing
| |
|
| |
| '''What are the practical consequences of this?'''
| |
|
| |
| * We say life is life and death is death. What is not death is something else. Everything is separated out from each other and the world becomes a collection of separated things which lead into the second principle, '''Isolation of things.'''
| |
|
| |
| '''A field of study where we see this principle?'''
| |
|
| |
| * ancient zoology: classifies animals by clearly separating and seeing no connection between them
| |
|
| |
| '''Whats a''' '''way the bourgeoisie benefit from this?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Seeing absolutely no connection between science, philosophy and politics. A scientist does not have to mix their science with philosophy and politics. It will be the same for the philosopher and a person of a political party.
| |
|
| |
| '''''Note:''''' I now recognize that when I heard an acquaintance say that there is no point in learning philosophy when people are starving, that is metaphysical thinking. They don’t see the connection of philosophy to the disciplines they value in the struggle for liberation. To creating the conditions where everyone is fed.
| |
|
| |
| '''What’s another example of metaphysical thinking?'''
| |
|
| |
| * When Wells proposed to Maxim Gorky to create a literary club where politics would not be made.
| |
|
| |
| '''What does this look like in everyday practice'''
| |
|
| |
| * Studying things only for themselves (like a '''''dilettante).''''' Art for arts sake.
| |
| * Those who see the state separate from society (like folks who believe there are good cops bad cops?)
| |
| * Isolating humans from their environment, society (the belief that people with addictions are lazy, weak, and all racist beliefs etc.)
| |
| * If we also consider the machine for itself by isolating it from the society in which it produces, we make the mistake of thinking: "Machine in Paris, machine in Moscow; added value here and there, there's no difference, it's absolutely the same thing.
| |
|
| |
| '''How are we led to the thinking of eternal, absolute and impassible divisions'''
| |
|
| |
| * We forget the relationship between things from having classified and catalogued them based on our understanding of things as immobile and unchanging.
| |
|
| |
| '''Does this make the Marxist division of the two classes, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, metaphysical thinking?'''
| |
|
| |
| * No, as it is not simply by introducing divisions that one is a metaphysician, it is the way in which one establishes the differences, the relations that exist between these divisions.
| |
|
| |
| '''What would make this way of thinking metaphysical?'''
| |
|
| |
| * The bourgeoisie interpret the two classes as being the rich and poor and and say that “there has always been rich and poor” and “there always will be”. The relation that exists between this division, that makes this metaphysical, is “there has always been” and “always will be.”
| |
|
| |
| '''What does this thinking result in?'''
| |
|
| |
| This division is forever classified independently of each other, and seen as completely separate
| |
|
| |
| '''What makes the Marxist conception of proletariat and bourgeois NOT metaphysical?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Marxist thinking sees the bourgeoisie and proletariat through the mutual relationship of the class struggle.
| |
|
| |
| '''When we don’t see these mutual relationships, the conditions are created for…'''
| |
|
| |
| * setting them against each other leading to opposites being seen as mutually exclusive?
| |
|
| |
| '''What is an example?'''
| |
|
| |
| * A man who has just lost his life is considered dead because it is impossible for him to be both alive and dead at the same time
| |
|
| |
| '''What is the characteristic, Opposites are mutually exclusive?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Opposites mutually exclude each other and which maintains that two ''opposite things cannot exist at the same time''.
| |
|
| |
| '''How does metaphysical thinking look when we talk about democracy and dictatorship?'''
| |
|
| |
| * There can only be one or the other. We have to choose otherwise we are faced with the “horror of contradiction” which we can’t have.
| |
|
| |
| '''How does the Marxist attitude differ'''
| |
|
| |
| * It views the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example, as both dictatorship by the masses and democracy for the exploited masses.
| |
|
| |
| '''How does it differ toward death?'''
| |
|
| |
| * “We believe that the life of living beings is only possible because there is a perpetual struggle between cells and because there are continually some which die only to be replaced by others. Thus, life contains death within itself. We think that death is not as total and separate from life as metaphysics believes, for on a corpse all life has not disappeared, since certain cells continue to live for some time and from this corpse other lives will be born.”
| |
|
| |
| '''To summarize the 4 characteristics of metaphysical thinking are…'''
| |
|
| |
| # Seeing things in their immobility, in their identity.
| |
| # Separating things from one another, detaching them from their mutual relationships.
| |
| # Establishing eternal divisions between things, impassable walls.
| |
| # Opposing opposites, affirming that two opposites cannot exist at the same time.
| |
|
| |
| '''Does the world conform to this conception?'''
| |
|
| |
| * No. We see that everything changes and we see movement. So this conception is not in agreement with the things themselves. It is obviously nature that is right, and it is this conception that is wrong.
| |
|
| |
| '''The universe is viewed as fixed but at a glance…'''
| |
|
| |
| * you might not recognize this way of thinking when viewing how metaphysicians think about nature, society and thought. But if we take a closer look…
| |
|
| |
| '''how is nature viewed as fixed?'''
| |
|
| |
| * When looking at the earth, they admit movement but they make of it a pure mechanical movement, because this movement is without history. It is viewed as a clockwork mechanism.
| |
|
| |
| '''If nature was truly a clockwork mechanism…'''
| |
|
| |
| * things would continually return to the same point without leaving a trace, nature would remain identical to itself
| |
|
| |
| '''Where can we find an example of someone who looked at nature in this mechanical way'''
| |
|
| |
| * Descartes. He seeks to reduce to mechanics all the physical and physiological laws. He has no idea of chemistry (see his explanation of the circulation of blood). Diderot, who is less purely mechanistic, and who, in some writings, glimpses the dialectical conception.
| |
|
| |
| '''How is society viewed as fixed'''
| |
|
| |
| * The Capitalist regime is considered to be permanent and eternal and even compare it at times to a machine
| |
|
| |
| '''What changes are recognized in society by metaphysicians'''
| |
|
| |
| * It is recognized that changes occur, as, for example, in production, when finished products are produced from raw materials; or in politics, when governments succeed each other.
| |
|
| |
| '''How is capitalism treated like a machine'''
| |
|
| |
| * It is viewed as something to be repaired, when it gets out of order, in order to maintain it. It is hoped that this economic machine might continue to distribute dividends to some and misery to others like an automatic apparatus.
| |
|
| |
| '''How is parliament treated like a machine'''
| |
|
| |
| * one thing is asked of the bourgeois parliamentary regime: that is to function, sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right, in order to preserve the privileges of capitalism.
| |
|
| |
| '''What would happen if our society were to continue its march continuously without interruption and without any significant events or changes?'''
| |
|
| |
| * it would not leave any evidence or impact behind, consequently, no continuation in history. There would be no contradictions to create the conditions for change (?) (my conclusion not the authors) and no new societies could emerge.
| |
|
| |
| '''What is an example of society being viewed like a clockwork mechanism?'''
| |
|
| |
| * History is perpetually beginning again or “history continually repeats itself” : a regular march and a periodic return of the same events
| |
|
| |
| '''Are movement and change outright denied?'''
| |
|
| |
| * no but they falsify the movement itself by transforming it into a simple mechanism.
| |
|
| |
| '''What does metaphysical thinking look like toward thought?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Believing we have always had the same way of reasoning and feeling. “Our feelings, we consider them to be the same as the Greeks, goodness and love as having always existed; this is how one speaks of "eternal love
| |
|
| |
| '''What is a metaphysical saying that relates to thought?'''
| |
|
| |
| * “a society cannot exist without having another basis than individual and selfish enrichment”
| |
| * "desires of the men are always the same".
| |
|
| |
| '''What is this way of thinking usually called?'''
| |
|
| |
| * common sense
| |
|
| |
| '''What is an example of conception and method?'''
| |
|
| |
| # The changes we see in society are only apparent, they renew what has already been - that is a conception".
| |
| # When we look at the history of society to see what has already taken place and conclude that "there is nothing new under the sun", this is what "method" is.
| |
|
| |
| '''We have seen what the metaphysical conception is now what is the method?'''
| |
|
| |
| * logic
| |
|
| |
| '''Logic is thought of as the art of thinking well. What are the three main rules?'''
| |
|
| |
| # The principle of identity: it is, as we have already seen, the rule that a thing is identical to itself, does not change (the horse is the horse).
| |
| # The principle of non-contradiction: a thing cannot be at the same time itself and its opposite. It is necessary to choose (life cannot be life and death).
| |
| # The principle of the excluded third party - or exclusion of the third case, which means: between two contradictory possibilities, there is no room for a third. One must choose between life and death, there is no third possibility.
| |
|
| |
| As we see Logic and Metaphysics are intimately linked.
| |
|
| |
| '''What is a syllogism'''
| |
|
| |
| * A syllogism is a group of three propositions; the first two are called premises, which means "sent before"; and the third is the conclusion
| |
|
| |
| '''What is an example of a syllogism'''
| |
|
| |
| * "All men are mortal; this comrade is a man; therefore this comrade is mortal" - (to learn more about syllogism’s read <nowiki>https://redsails.org/the-syllogism/</nowiki>)
| |
|
| |
| '''What is wrong with the syllogism'''
| |
|
| |
| * It leads to making classifications. '''''This is the only problem we have in our mind.''''' We see things as circles or boxes of different sizes, and our concern is to fit those circles or boxes into each other, and into a certain order.
| |
|
| |
| '''Following from the syllogism all men are mortal…'''
| |
|
| |
| * we first determine a large circle that contains all mortals; then a smaller circle that contains all men; and only then that fellow. To classify them we fit the circles into each other. The metaphysical conception is therefore constructed with logic and syllogism
| |
|
| |
| '''What is another example of a syllogism'''
| |
|
| |
| * “In the Soviet Union, before the last constitution, there was the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorship is dictatorship. In the USSR it is dictatorship. So there was no difference between the USSR, Italy and Germany, countries of dictatorship."
| |
|
| |
| '''What does this syllogism lead to us missing in this example?'''
| |
|
| |
| * for whom and on whom the dictatorship is exercised, just as when we praise bourgeois democracy, we are not saying for whose benefit it is exercised.
| |
|
| |
| '''The fundamental problem with syllogism…'''
| |
|
| |
| * to see things and the social world as part of separate circles and to bring the circles into each other.
| |
|
| |
| '''What is an example of this method of thinking being put into practice?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Germany in 1919, where social democracy, in order to maintain democracy, killed the dictatorship of the proletariat without seeing that by doing so it was allowing capitalism to continue and giving Nazism a grip.
| |
|
| |
| '''What helped disrupt this method of thinking in the natural sciences specifically biology and zoology?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Evolution brought in an understanding that there was a connection through evolution of animals and plants and that beings have changed over time.
| |
|
| |
| ”while natural science up to the end of the last century was predominantly a ''collecting'' science, a science of finished things, in our century it is essentially a systematizing science, a science of the processes, of the origin and development of these things and of the interconnection which binds all these natural processes into one great whole.”
| |
|
| |
| '''What is the origin or rationale behind the term 'metaphysics'?”'''
| |
|
| |
| * Metaphysics comes from the Greek meta, which means "beyond", and from physics, the science of the phenomena of the world. Therefore, metaphysics is what deals with things beyond the world.
| |
|
| |
| '''Who wrote the original rules, that we still use today, on logic'''
| |
|
| |
| * Aristotle
| |
|
| |
| '''The explanation of the word "metaphysics"'''
| |
|
| |
| * metaphysics is a bourgeois philosophy that sees everything as eternal, unchanging and separate. We proceed in reasoning by opposition: we oppose spirit to matter, good to evil, etc., that is to say opposites are taken to be mutually exclusive.
| |
| * Metaphysics, mechanism, logic. These three disciplines are always presented together and are called each other. They form a system and can only be understood by each other.
| |
|
| |
| == 4. Study of dialectics ==
| |
|
| |
| === Introduction to the study of dialectics ===
| |
| '''How does dialectics differ from metaphysics?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Dialectics is a method of thinking with great precision.
| |
|
| |
| '''What is a very simple definition of metaphysics and dialectics?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Metaphysics implies immobility and dialectics implies motion
| |
| * Motion and change, which exist in everything which surrounds us, form the basis of dialectics.
| |
|
| |
| '''How does history show us dialectics'''
| |
|
| |
| * Nothing ever stays the same. We had slave societies then feudal and capitalist. The study of these societies shows us that the factors permitting the birth of a new society continually and imperceptibly developed within them.
| |
| '''How did metaphysics emerge?'''
| |
|
| |
| * from the insufficient development of science things were classified and seen as completely separate and unrelated and this carried over into science each subject being seen as unrelated for a while.
| |
|
| |
| '''How does the development of photography to cinema mirror that of the development of thought'''
| |
|
| |
| * Pictures were taken of things in their immobility and later in motion. We studied things at rest before studying them in motion
| |
|
| |
| '''Why did thought develop like this?'''
| |
|
| |
| * my note:Look at the way you or I study things? We usually start by isolating those things and studying them at rest. Look at how we learn a new language.
| |
| * the study of things at rest is a necessary stage of dialectical thought—but only an insufficient, fragmentary ''stage'', which must be integrated into the study of things which are becoming.
| |
| '''Why was eighteenth-century materialism metaphysical?'''
| |
|
| |
| * the materialist concept is linked to the development of all the sciences and among these it was mechanics which developed first because mechanical motion is the simplest kind of motion. It is much easier to study the motion of an apple on a tree which is blowing in the wind than to study the change produced in a ripening apple. The effect of the wind on the apple can be more easily studied than the ripening of the apple. But the former study is “partial” and thus opens the door to metaphysics.
| |
|
| |
| '''What made this type of thinking materialist and metaphysical?'''
| |
|
| |
| * it answered the fundamental question of philosophy by saying that the primary factor is matter and it was metaphysical because it considered the universe to be a complex of fixed and mechanical things and because it studied and saw everything from the point of view of mechanic
| |
| '''How was dialectical materialism developed'''
| |
|
| |
| * First '''''Hegel found that everything in the universe is motion and change''''', that nothing is isolated, but rather everything is dependent on everything else, and this is how he created dialectics. It is due to Hegel that we speak today of the dialectical motion of the world. What Hegel first grasped was the motion of thought, and he called it naturally dialectics. But he was an idealist because, in short, he finds that both spirit and the universe are in perpetual change, but concludes that changes in spirit determine changes in matter.
| |
| * Marx and Engels think that Hegel is right to say that thought and the universe are perpetually changing, but that he is mistaken to declare that it is changes in ideas which determine changes in things. It is, rather, things which give us ideas, and ideas have been altered because things have been altered.
| |
|
| |
| === The laws of dialectics ===
| |
|
| |
| ==== 1st law: The dialectical change ====
| |
| '''The first law of dialectics is?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Nothing ''stays'' where it is. Nothing ''remains'' as it is.
| |
|
| |
| '''When we want to study things according to dialectics'''...
| |
|
| |
| * we study them ''in'' their motion and ''in'' their change.
| |
|
| |
| '''What does this look like if we study an apple'''
| |
|
| |
| * From the '''''metaphysical point of view''''': we shall give a description of this fruit, its shape and color. We shall list its properties; we shall speak of its taste, etc. Then we can compare the apple with the pear, see their similarities and differences and finally conclude that an apple is an apple and a pear is a pear. This is how things were formerly studied, as numerous books will attest.
| |
|
| |
| * From the '''''dialectical point of view''''': we shall place ourselves within the framework of motion; not the motion of the apple when it rolls and moves from place to place, but rather the ''motion of its evolution''. Then we shall find that the ripe apple has not always been what it is. Before that it was a green apple; before being a flower, it was a bud. In this way, we shall go back to the condition of the apple tree in spring. The apple has not always been an apple: it has a history. Likewise, it will not remain what it is. If it falls, it will rot, decompose and scatter its seeds, which will, if all goes well, produce a shoot and then a tree. Hence, neither has the apple always been what it is nor will it remain what it is
| |
|
| |
| '''What does this look like if we study the earth?'''
| |
|
| |
| * From a '''''metaphysical point of view,''''' we shall describe the shape of the Earth in all its details. We shall find that on its surface there are seas, land and mountains; we shall study the nature of the soil. Then we can compare the Earth to other planets or to the Moon, and we shall finally conclude that the Earth is the Earth.
| |
| * from the '''''dialectical point of view''''', we shall see that it has undergone transformations and that, consequently, the earth will undergo in the future even more transformations. We must then take into account today that the present state of the Earth is but a transition between past changes and changes to come.
| |
|
| |
| '''What does this look like if we study society?'''
| |
|
| |
| * From the '''''metaphysical point of view''''', we will be told that there have always been rich and poor. We shall find that there are large banks and enormous factories. We will be given a detailed description of capitalist society, which will be compared with past societies (feudal, slave-owning) by looking for similarities and differences, and we will be told that capitalist society is what it is.
| |
| * From the '''''dialectical point of view''''', we shall learn that capitalist society has not always been what it is. When we find that in the past other societies lived for a while, we shall deduce from this that capitalist society, like all societies, is not permanent and has no intangible basis, but rather it is only a provisional reality for us, a transition between the past and the future.
| |
|
| |
| '''To consider things from the dialectical view...'''
| |
|
| |
| * means to consider them to be provisional, having a history in the past and about to have a history in the future; having a beginning and going to have an end.
| |
| '''Nothing is absolute or final'''
| |
|
| |
| * There is no power in the world or beyond the world which can hold things in a permanent state. ''Absolute'' means not subject to any condition, hence, universal; eternal, perfect.
| |
|
| |
| '''Nothing is sacred'''
| |
|
| |
| * This doesn't mean dialectics despises everything. '''''A sacred thing is regarded as immutable''''' which should neither be touched nor be discussed but only venerated. Capitalist society is considered "sacred." '''''Dialectics tells us that nothing can escape from motion, change or the transformations of history''''' therefore it's impossible for anything to be immutable.
| |
|
| |
| '''Nothing is eternal except?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Change
| |
|
| |
| '''What is an autodynamic change?'''
| |
|
| |
| * a force which comes from the being itself (it's becoming). The essential feature of dialectical motion.
| |
| * A discipline is autodynamic when it is freely consented to, i.e., when it comes from its natural milieu.
| |
| '''What is a mechanical change?'''
| |
|
| |
| * If I crush a fly it is mechanical for without us it would not have been crushed
| |
|
| |
| * we say that there is a mechanical discipline when this discipline is not natural. A mechanical discipline is imposed from the outside; it is a discipline coming from leaders who are different from those they command.
| |
| * if the earth explodes, capitalist society will disappear not through an autodynamic change, but through a mechanical change.
| |
|
| |
| '''What does the author mean when he says we must avoid using dialectics in a mechanical fashion?'''
| |
|
| |
| * repeating like a parrot that things have not always been what they are. We must look for how things were before. For saying that is not the end of an argument, but the beginning of scrupulous research into what things were like ''before''.
| |
| * Marx, Engels and Lenin studied at length and in detail what capitalist society was like before them. They observed the smallest details in order to take note of dialectical changes. Lenin, in order to describe and criticize the changes in capitalist society, and to study the imperialist period, made very detailed studies and consulted numerous statistics.
| |
|
| |
| '''<big>What are three things to look for when studying something?</big>'''
| |
|
| |
| # <big>Finding its autodynamic changes</big>
| |
| # <big>Stating what change one has found</big>
| |
| # <big>Look for the reason this change is autodynamic</big>
| |
| <blockquote><big>'''Dialectics is not a way of explaining and knowing things without having studied them''' but rather a way of studying well and making good observations, by looking for the beginning and the end of things, where they come from and where they are going.</big></blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| ==== 2nd law: Reciprocal action ====
| |
| '''What is the second law of dialectics?'''
| |
|
| |
| * The law of reciprocal action
| |
|
| |
| '''How is it practiced?'''
| |
|
| |
| * In looking dialectically at an apple we have traced it back to the tree that it grew on. This leads us to study the origins and destiny of the tree. Where does the tree come from? From an apple. It comes from an apple which has fallen and rotted in the earth, giving birth to a shoot. This leads us to study the ground, '''the conditions in which the seeds of the apple were able to sprout,''' '''the influences of the air, sun, etc.''' In this way, starting with the study of the apple, we are led to study the soil, proceeding from the process of the apple to that of the tree. The latter process has its sequence in turn in that of the soil. '''We have here what is called a “sequence of processes.”'''
| |
|
| |
| '''Let's take another example of the sequence of processes, that of the Workers’ University in Paris.'''
| |
|
| |
| * We look for where it came from, and find at first this answer: in the autumn of 1932, some comrades meeting together decided to found a Workers’ University in Paris in order to study Marxism. But where did this committee get this idea of teaching Marxism? Obviously because Marxism exists. But then, where does Marxism come from? We see that research into the sequence of processes involves us in detailed and complete studies. Much more: by looking for the source of Marxism, we shall find that this doctrine is the very conscience of the proletariat. We see (whether we are for or against Marxism) that the proletariat then does exist; and so again we ask the question: where does the proletariat come from? We know that it derives from capitalism. We know that the division of society into classes, that class struggle, was not caused, as our adversaries claim, by Marxism. On the contrary, we know that Marxism observes the existence of this class struggle and draws its force from the already existing proletariat. '''''Hence, from process to process, we arrive at the examination of the conditions of existence of capitalism. We have in this way a sequence of processes which shows us that everything influences everything else. This is the law of reciprocal action.'''''
| |
| '''What made elaboration of the law of reciprocal action possible?'''
| |
|
| |
| * The discovery of the living cell and its development, of energy transformation and evolution. These discoveries showed that there is no sharp break in the plant, animal and mineral kingdoms, but rather only processes; everything is connected.
| |
| '''''<big>Hence, we should remember that science, nature and society must be seen as a sequence of processes, and that the motor working to develop this sequence is autodynamism.</big>'''''
| |
| '''What is circle development'''
| |
|
| |
| * Circle development is where we think we always return to the same point. Tree, apple. Apple, tree. or chicken and the egg problem comes from this thinking. This idea of an "eternal return". This is not a process but a circle. We always come back to the same point, the point of departure.
| |
|
| |
| '''Why is circle development incorrect thinking?'''
| |
|
| |
| # Here is an apple.
| |
| # When it decomposes, it engenders a tree or some trees.
| |
| # Each tree does not produce one apple, but several apples.
| |
|
| |
| We don't come back to the same point of departure rather the scope has widened.
| |
|
| |
| '''Hence, we do not have a circle, but a process of development which we shall call?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Historical development
| |
|
| |
| '''Things evolve according to a circular process, but the same developments do not return. What type of development is being described?'''
| |
|
| |
| * A spiral development. Things come back a bit above, on another level, and so on, which produces an ascending spiral.
| |
|
| |
| ==== 3rd Law: Contradiction ====
| |
| '''How does this law show itself?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Things turn into their opposites
| |
|
| |
| '''What are examples of this?'''
| |
|
| |
| * '''''Life and Death:''''' Life derives from death. The transformation of the elements of a dead corpse will give birth to other lives and be used as fertilizer for the earth. Death, in many cases, will help life; death will enable life to be born; and, in living bodies themselves, life is only possible because there is a continual replacement of dead cells by those which are newly-born. Hence, '''''life and death are constantly being transformed into each other'''''
| |
| * '''''Truth and error:''''' sometimes when we exclaim, "Hey, it's raining!", no sooner have we finished saying so than the rain has stopped. The sentence was correct when we began it, but it was transformed into an error. We see a ripe apple on the ground and we say, “There is a ripe apple.” However, it has been on the ground for some time and already it is beginning to decompose, so that truth becomes error.
| |
|
| |
| '''We see that truth changes into error. But does error ever change into truth?'''
| |
|
| |
| * In the beginning of civilization, notably in Egypt, men imagined fights between the gods in order to explain the rising and setting of the sun. This is an error to the extent that it was said that the gods push or pull the sun to make it move. '''''But science says that this theory is partially justified in that there are in fact forces which make the sun move. So we see that error is not diametrically opposed to truth.'''''
| |
|
| |
| '''What would happen if you had 100 percent pure life or 100 percent pure death?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Life could never be death and death could never be life. One couldn't change into the other.
| |
|
| |
| '''What is another example of both existing in each other?'''
| |
|
| |
| * By looking closely, we see that a living being is composed of cells, that these cells are renewed, that they disappear and reappear in the same place. They live and die continually in a living being, in which there is therefore both life and death.
| |
|
| |
| '''Everything not only changes into it's opposite but also contains it's opposite'''
| |
|
| |
| * If we represent a thing by a circle, we have force which pushes this thing toward life, pushing from the center outwards, for example (expression), but we also have forces which push this thing in the opposite direction, forces of death, pushing from the exterior inwards (compression). Thus, within everything opposed forces, antagonisms, exist.
| |
|
| |
| '''What happens between these forces?'''
| |
|
| |
| * They struggle with each other. Consequently, '''''a thing is not only moved by a force acting in a single direction, but everything is really moved by two forces acting in opposing directions: one towards the affirmation and one towards the negation of things, one towards life and one towards death.'''''
| |
|
| |
| '''What does the affirmation and negation of things mean?'''
| |
|
| |
| * In life, there are forces which maintain life, which tends toward the affirmation of life. Then there are also forces in living organisms which tend towards negation. In everything, some forces tend towards affirmation and others towards negation, and, between affirmation and negation there is a contradiction.
| |
| '''Hence, dialectics observes change, but why do things change?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Because they are not in agreement with themselves, because there is a struggle between forces, between internal antagonisms, because there is contradiction
| |
| '''What is the''' '''third law of dialectics?'''
| |
|
| |
| * <big>Things change because they contain contradictions within themselves.</big>
| |
|
| |
| '''Difference between verbal contradiction and dialectical contradiction?'''
| |
|
| |
| * verbal contradiction: someone tells you yes and you say no
| |
| * dialectical contradiction: contradiction in facts, in things themselves
| |
|
| |
| '''This is important to differentiate because when we talk about the contradiction in the heart of capitalism we do not mean...'''
| |
|
| |
| * that some people say yes and others say no about certain theories. This means that there is a contradiction in factual reality, that there are real forces which are fighting each other.
| |
|
| |
| '''What are these forces?'''
| |
|
| |
| # a force which tends to ''affirm'' itself, viz., the bourgeois class which tends to maintain itself;
| |
| # A force which tends toward the ''negation'' of the bourgeois class, viz., the proletariat.
| |
|
| |
| '''Could the bourgeoisie exist without producing, as Marx says "it's own grave-diggers."?'''
| |
|
| |
| In order to prevent this, the bourgeoisie would have stop being itself, which would be absurd. Consequently, by affirming itself, it creates its own negation/opposite, the proletariat.
| |
|
| |
| '''What does the author mean when he says all things are in disagreement with themselves?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Let us take the example of an egg which is laid and sat on by a hen: we find that in the egg there is a seed which develops at a certain temperature and under certain conditions. This seed, while developing, will produce a chick; hence, the seed is already the negation of the egg. We see then that in the egg there are two forces: one which tends to make it remain an egg and one which tends to make it become a chick. Therefore, the egg is in disagreement with itself
| |
|
| |
| '''What does the author mean when he says that a thing begins by being an ''affirmation'' which comes from ''negation''?'''
| |
|
| |
| * The chick is an affirmation born from the negation of the egg. It is one stage of the process. But the chick, in turn, will be transformed into a hen. During this transformation, there will be a contradiction between the forces which fight to make the chick become a hen and those which fight to make the chick remain a chick. The hen will thus be the negation of the chick, the latter having derived from the negation of the egg.
| |
| '''What is the dialectical development process'''
| |
|
| |
| * There is the '''''affirmation''''': The egg
| |
| * The '''''negation''''': The chick
| |
| * The '''''negation of the negation''''' '''(synthesis)''': The hen
| |
| * the hen lays the egg and it starts all over again
| |
|
| |
| '''The development of materialist philosophy'''
| |
|
| |
| * '''Affirmation:''' Primitive spontaneous materialism. Due to its ignorance it creates its own negation
| |
| * '''Negation:''' Idealism - But the idealism which negates the old materialism will itself be repudiated because philosophy, along with the sciences, develops and provokes the destruction of idealism
| |
| * '''Negation of the negation (synthesis):''' Dialectical materialism
| |
|
| |
| '''Evolution of society'''
| |
|
| |
| * '''Affirmation:''' ''primitive communist society'', a society without classes, based on the common ownership of the land
| |
| * '''Negation:''' This form of ownership becomes a hindrance to the development of production and, in this way, creates its own negation: a ''class society'',
| |
| * '''Negation of the negation (synthesis):''' ''Communism -'' this society carries its own negation within itself, because a superior development of the means of production brings about the necessity of negating the division of society into classes, of negating private ownership
| |
|
| |
| <big>So we return to the point of departure: the necessity for a Communist society, ''but on another level, a higher level''. In the beginning, there was a lack of commodities; today, we have a very high capacity of production.</big>
| |
|
| |
| {{Message box|text=The expressions “affirmation,” “negation,” and “negation of the negation” are only verbal shorthand for the moments of dialectical evolution. Therefore, we should be careful not to run about trying to find these three stages everywhere. Sometimes we shall not find all of them because the evolution is not complete. So we mustn’t mechanically try to see these changes as such in everything. Let us especially '''''remember that contradiction is the great law of dialectics. That is the essential point.'''''|image=Warning icon.png}}
| |
|
| |
| '''To conclude'''
| |
| * If things are transformed, if they change and evolve, it is because they are in contradiction with themselves, because they carry their opposites within themselves, because they contain within themselves an interpenetration, a unity and struggle of opposites.
| |
| '''What is a unity and struggle of opposites?'''
| |
|
| |
| * each thing is, at the same time, itself and its opposite. The existence of opposites in the same thing. The interpenetration of opposites
| |
|
| |
| '''What does this look like when it comes to knowledge and ignorance?'''
| |
|
| |
| * For example, ignorance and science: There is no ignorance without science or knowledge. There is no 100 percent pure ignorance. An individual, no matter how ignorant he may be, can at least recognize objects and his food. In the same way there is no absolute knowledge. There is always something to be learned. So what exists is what Lenin calls, "[knowledge that] is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was acquired"
| |
|
| |
| '''According to Engels if our investigation always proceeds from this standpoint what demand will cease?'''
| |
|
| |
| * the demand for final solutions and eternal truths ceases once for all
| |
| '''What is the true meaning of the interpenetration of opposites?'''
| |
|
| |
| * that which is recognized now as true has also its latent false side which will later manifest itself, just as that which is now regarded as false has also its true side by virtue of which it could previously have been regarded as true.
| |
|
| |
| '''What errors should we avoid?'''
| |
|
| |
| * We mustn't think that in all knowledge there is truth ''plus'' error, or ''both'' something true ''and'' something false.
| |
|
| |
| '''How does this error exist in the world'''
| |
|
| |
| * “let’s remove what is false, and what is true and good will remain.” This is said in certain so-called Marxist circles, where it is thought that Marxism is right to point out that, in capitalism, there are factories, trusts and banks which hold economic life in their hands, that it is correct to say that this economic life is going badly; but what is false in Marxism, they add, is class struggle: let’s leave out the theory of class struggle and we shall have a good doctrine. It is also said that Marxism applied to the study of society is correct and true “but why mix in dialectics? This is the false side, let’s remove dialectics and keep the rest of Marxism as true!”
| |
|
| |
| '''What is another mechanical interpretation of the interpenetration of opposites.'''
| |
|
| |
| * Proudhon, after having learned of this theory of opposites, thought that there was a good and a bad side in everything. So, observing that there is a bourgeoisie and a proletariat in society, he said, “Let’s remove what is bad, the proletariat!” That is how he constructed his system of credits which was to create "parcelled out property," i.e., to allow the proletarians to become owners. In this way, there would only be the bourgeoisie and society would be good. However, we know very well that there can be no proletariat ''without'' the bourgeoisie and that the bourgeoisie exists only ''through'' the proletariat: these are two opposites which are inseparable.
| |
|
| |
| '''What was Proudhon's mistake?'''
| |
|
| |
| * In order to get rid of the opposites it is not sufficient to cut one from the other. In order to abolish capitalist society, to create a society without classes, both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat must be eliminated - in order to enable free men to create a materially and intellectually more advanced society, to go towards communism in its superior form and not to create, as our adversaries claim, a communism which is "egalitarian in poverty."
| |
|
| |
| '''What should we avoid when applying this?'''
| |
|
| |
| * We should avoid trying to find everywhere and to apply mechanically, for example, the negation of the negation, or to find the interpenetration of opposites everywhere, for our knowledge in general is limited and this can lead us to blind alleys.
| |
|
| |
| '''What counts is this principle:'''
| |
|
| |
| * dialectics and its laws oblige us to study things in order to discover their evolution and the forces, the opposites, which determine this evolution. We must therefore study the interpenetration of opposites contained in things, and this interpenetration of opposites is tantamount to saying that ''an affirmation is never an absolute affirmation'', since it contains within itself a negative portion. And this is the essential point: ''I'''t is because things contain their own negation that they are transformed'''''<nowiki/>'''. Negation is the “solvent”: if it did not exist, things would not change'''. As, in fact, things do change, they must then contain a solvent principle. We can declare beforehand that it exists since we see things evolving, but we cannot discover this principle without a detailed study of the thing itself, for this principle does not have the same appearance in everything.
| |
| '''When dialectics is put into practice what does it oblige us to consider'''
| |
|
| |
| * both sides. Never to consider truth without ignorance.
| |
| * If we judge a comrade, almost always we see only his good or his bad side. We must see ''both'', without which it would not be possible to have cadres in organizations.
| |
| * If we encounter an adversary belonging to a reactionary organization, we judge him by his bosses. Yet, he is perhaps only an embittered, discontent employee, and we should not judge him like a fascist boss.
| |
| * We see then that this reactionary is, on the one hand, reactionary, but, on the other, he is a worker and in his case there is a contradiction. We should look and find out why he has joined this organization and, at the same time, why he should not have joined. In this way we can judge and discuss his case in a less sectarian manner.
| |
|
| |
| '''The solution to a conflict is?'''
| |
|
| |
| * Change arises from a conflict and it is therefore the solution.
| |
| * Capitalism contains an internal contradiction, the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Change is explained by this conflict and the transformation of capitalist society into a socialist society is the end of this conflict.
| |
| * Contradiction is the negation of the affirmation. When the third term, negation of the negation, is achieved, the solution appears, for, at that moment, the reason for the contradiction is eliminated, ''obsolete''.
| |
|
| |
| '''If chemistry, physics, biology etc. study the laws of change particular to them, what does dialectics study?'''
| |
|
| |
| * According to Engels, “Dialectics is nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of Nature, human society and thought.
| |
|
| |
| ==== 4th Law: Transformation of quantity into quality or the law of progress by leaps ====
| |
