Part 1: The philosophical problem
Introduction
 | 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. |
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
| 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. |
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
| 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 |
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 makeIt 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?
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.