Dialectical materialism for Dummies. Preface

Knowledge is a sword that cuts through all illusion.

Mahabharata

I once had the opportunity to witness a wonderful scene in a satirical and humorous feature film. The hero was asked to renounce his discovery, as well as his own beliefs, and one of the reasons why this was easy to do was the argument “Galileo refused.” To which the hero responded with a brilliant phrase: “That’s why I always liked Giordano Bruno more.”

Today we all live in a high-tech age. In any case, we flatter our vanity that this is so. After all, in fact, people do not have answers to the most basic questions to which science, which has been developing for so many years, should have given answers: how was this world created and for what? Who am I? Why am I here? What is life? What is death? But these questions worry every person. Maybe this happens because modern science does not take into account those facts that do not fit into modern scientific theories?

Therefore, there is a need to understand the question: why do we, meaning our entire civilization, believe that we have gone far in our development, but in fact we have not understood the basics?

“The same scientists still do not have a clear idea of, for example, what electric current actually is, what gravity or a black hole is. And yet they operate with these concepts. But in order to globally understand and delve into the nature of these phenomena, it is necessary to have a fundamentally different worldview, qualitatively different from the material worldview.”

There is such a direction - dialectical materialism. If you try to succinctly convey its fundamental postulates, it roughly turns out like this: dialectical materialism is a philosophical doctrine that asserts the primacy of matter and postulates three basic laws of its movement and development:

• the law of unity and struggle of opposites;
• the law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones;
• law of negation of negation.

The central idea of ​​dialectical materialism is the interpenetration and mutual generation of opposites. This idea echoes the ancient Chinese philosophical concept of “yin and yang.” Chinese philosophers adhered to the position of diamata (dialectical materialism) and China took this philosophy as the foundation of communist ideology. The beginning of dialectical materialism as a doctrine is reflected in the works of K. Marx and F. Engels. Let us not go into the jungle of this doctrine, which was specially created to justify the class struggle. Moreover, you can wander in these wilds for a long time.

“There are three real threats to humanity: the materialism of scientists, the ignorance of priests and the chaos of democracy.”

Why, for example, is the idea of ​​ether, which, when studied in a practical sense, can change life on our entire planet, is considered taboo in official science?

After all, people have known about ether since ancient times, starting from ancient Indian philosophers and ancient Greeks and ending with the 19th century. Many outstanding scientists spoke and wrote about the world ether. For example, Rene Descartes, Christiaan Huygens, James Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Heinrich Hertz, Hendrik Lorenz, Jules Henri Poincaré and, of course, Nikola Tesla.

It was he who made a number of serious discoveries that showed the inconsistency of the materialistic theories on which modern science relies. When financiers and industrialists realized that obtaining free energy would lead to the destruction of their empire of power, the deliberate destruction of the theory of ether began in science. All research on broadcasting was stopped. Many scientists who defended the theory of the ether had their work stopped being funded, various artificial obstacles began to be created, for example, closing laboratories, reducing scientific vacancies, creating difficulties in subsequent employment, etc. At the same time, large-scale discrediting of ether as one of the basic concepts of theoretical physics began in the world media. Scientists with a “world name” were artificially created, who called all research on the topic of ether pseudoscience.

As a result, today, almost all modern science is based on materialistic positions of knowledge of the world, and this is wrong.

The fear of scientists to go against the system is understandable - this is a threat to lose not only their jobs, but also fear for their lives. More recently, this was fraught with the loss of personal freedom. There was this joke: “Once upon a time, the Zen Buddhist Fyodor began to deny the greatness of the philosophy of Marxism. However, when he was called “to the right place,” he denied his denial there, thereby becoming convinced of the validity of the law of negation of negation.”

As a result, scientists today spend many years proving their hypotheses, and then it turns out that they are not true. Or maybe this consciousness takes them into such a jungle that it is already difficult to get out of there? After all, science, in particular quantum mechanics, has long come close to the question of the immaterial principle.

In addition, not all scientists affirm the primacy of materialistic theories. For example, Arnold Fedorovich Smeyanovich, as well as Natalya Petrovna Bekhtereva, who wrote in her work “The Magic of the Brain and the Labyrinths of Life”:

“It must be said that basing our biology on primitive materialism led to the fact that we essentially worked within a corridor limited by an invisible, but very barbed wire. Even attempts to decipher the code for ensuring thinking, completely materialistic, as opponents now admit, were initially met with hostility by the “materialists,” whose idea boiled down to the fact that it was impossible to recognize the code of the ideal. But we were looking for the code of the material base of the ideal, which is far from the same thing. And yet, what is ideal? What is a thought? It turns out, from the point of view of materialists, nothing. But she exists!”

“Materialism is the willingness to recognize the authorship of the painting behind the brushes, paints, canvas, but not the artist.”- said writer Viktor Krotov.

Descartes postulated the existence of two different substances - bodily and spiritual. The question posed by Descartes about the interaction of soul and body has become the cornerstone of Western philosophy.

Sir John Eccles (Nobel laureate) also criticized materialism. In his book “The Human Mystery” he wrote:

“The extraordinary success of the theory of evolution has recently protected it from close critical analysis. But this theory is fundamentally untenable. It cannot explain why each of us is a unique, self-aware being.”

And in the book Brain Evolution: The Creation of Personality, Eccles said:

“I believe that the mystery of human life is being trampled upon by scientific reductionism with its claims that “promising materialism” will sooner or later explain the entire spiritual world by processes occurring in neurons. This idea should be considered superstition. It must be recognized that we are also spiritual beings who have souls and live in the spiritual world, as well as material beings who have bodies and brains and exist in the physical world."

George Berkeley, in his Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge, argued that only spirit really exists. In Berkeley's concept, matter is just an illusion that exists exclusively in the mind of the subject.

Another question arises: why is modern science so far from the lives of ordinary people? After all, answers to the most fundamental and important questions for every person (which were mentioned at the beginning) have not yet been given. Everything that will be explored will not satisfy the Personality if the person does not know the basis, there is no understanding: “Who am I? How am I living? What is the purpose of all this? and then what?" - then he is just a cog in the system of material values. But this is the most basic thing. And today, modern science is not able to answer these questions. And how can we, in this case, consider ourselves civilized? Just because we know how to use a computer or drive a car? Or because we have laws? This video will dispel such illusions.

And people feel that something is wrong in the world. Everyone has at least once thought about the meaning of their life and asked the question: “why?” It’s as if a person is sitting with a bunch of puzzles, but they haven’t given him a picture of exactly how to put them together. Today there are books and programs through the prism of which the world is seen differently. They give Knowledge, after accepting which you understand the essence. Like a breath of fresh air, they awaken and remind you “why?” And it’s interesting, people who read A. Novykh’s book “AllatRa” and watched the epoch-making program “Consciousness and Personality. From obviously dead to eternally Alive”, for the most part, they say that they did not learn something new, but as if they were remembering something they had long forgotten. This Knowledge has already changed the world and will change even more if people choose to do so.

Considering the pace of life, the reduction of time, and so on, everyone has a unique opportunity to find out the answers to these questions and master Knowledge in a short time. After all, science and Knowledge should belong to all people on Earth, regardless of social status, level of income, social classification and other conventions. Every person can learn and study the Truth. For:

“Real science is a process of cognition of Truth, and not a means of achieving power.

When this information about a black hole and about the heaviest micro-objects in our material Universe is confirmed (and this can be done even with modern technology), then these discoveries will not only answer many currently unresolved questions of science, from the origin of the Universe to the transformations of particles in the microcosm . This will radically change the entire understanding of the structure of the world from micro to macro objects and the phenomena of their components. This will confirm the primacy of information (spiritual component). Everything is information. There is no matter as such, it is secondary. What comes first? Information. Understanding this will change a lot. This will create new directions in science. But, most importantly, people will answer the question of how a person really works. After all, it is still silent about its Essence and its general energy structure, different from the physical body. This understanding, in turn, will radically change the worldview of many people from material to spiritual.”

A. Novykh "AllatRa"

Yu.M. Bochenski

A. Dialectical materialism. Characteristic

In the overall European philosophy, dialectical materialism occupies a very special position. First of all, it has almost no supporters in academic circles with the exception of Russia, where it is the official philosophy and therefore enjoys advantages like no other school of our time. Further, it represents the philosophy of one political party, namely the Communist Party, and thus it is closely connected with the economic and political theories, as well as with the practical activities of this party, which regards it as its “general theory” - also a unique situation. In Russia, where the Communist Party rules, no philosophy other than dialectical materialism can be taught, and even the interpretation of its classical texts is very strictly monitored. This surveillance, but also, apparently, the Russian national character, explains the peculiar external form of the publications of dialectical materialists. These publications are distinguished from all others primarily by their uniformity - all the authors say exactly the same thing, as well as by the presence of countless references to the classics, which at every step must support the propositions put forward. It is possible that surveillance is also to blame for the fact that the philosophers of this school are so mediocre. In any case, it is responsible for the extreme dogmatism, chauvinism and aggressive position of dialectical materialists.

But even more important than these features, which could be transitory, is the reactionary character of dialectical materialism: in fact, this philosophy takes us back to the middle of the 19th century, trying to revive unchanged the spiritual situation of that time.

B. Origins and founders

The founder of dialectical materialism among Russians is considered to be the famous scientific theorist Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883), with whom Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) worked closely. Marx was a student of Hegel. During the period when he studied at the University of Berlin (1837-1841), “right” and “left” had already emerged in the Hegelian school. A notable representative of these leftists, who interpreted the Hegelian system materialistically and presented world history as the development not of spirit, but of matter, was Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872). Marx closely aligned himself with Feuerbach, while at the same time being influenced by rising natural-scientific materialism. This explains his admiration for science, his deep and naive faith in progress and his fascination with Darwinian evolutionism. Moreover, Marx himself was an economist, sociologist and social philosopher; he founded historical materialism, whereas the general philosophical basis of the system, dialectical materialism - mainly the work of Engels. This dialectical materialism consists of combining Hegelian dialectics with nineteenth-century materialism.

Subsequently, the teachings of Marx and Engels were taken up by Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin, 1870-1924), who interpreted them and prescribed them to the Communist Party. Lenin changed Marxist doctrine slightly, but he developed it further in the course of his polemics with its mechanistic and empirio-critical interpretations. Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Stalin, 1879-1953), who collaborated with him and succeeded him in the leadership of the party, systematized the teachings of Marx in accordance with his Leninist interpretation. The philosophy thus formed is called “Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism” and is considered in Russia as an indivisible whole. It is presented in encyclopedias, in mediocre works and small catechisms, and in higher educational institutions of the Soviet state it is a compulsory subject. As for the authors of the relevant textbooks, they hardly deserve mention, since, as already said, they only repeat the reasoning of Lenin and Stalin.

B. Course of events in Russia

Here it is worth adding something about philosophy in Soviet Russia, since Soviet-Russian philosophy is identical with dialectical materialism, and its Western European supporters are important only insofar as they agree with Russian philosophers. This is explained by the fact that dialectical materialism owes its influence almost exclusively to the support of the party, and the party is strictly centralized and allows only philosophy that corresponds to Russian norms.

There are four periods in the history of Soviet-Russian philosophy. 1) After a short war period (1917-1921), during which relative freedom still reigned, all non-Marxist philosophers were arrested, expelled from Russia or liquidated. 2) In the period 1922-1930. heated discussions developed between the so-called “mechanistic” and “Menshevik-idealistic” schools. The first of them presented dialectical materialism as pure materialism, and the second, led by A.M. Deborin, sought to keep both of its elements in balance. 3) On January 15, 1931, both schools were condemned by the Central Committee of the Party, and this began the third period (1931-1946), during which, with the exception of the publication of Stalin’s work (1938) (“On Dialectical and Historical Materialism” - ed.), philosophical life in Russia has come to a complete standstill. Philosophers published only commentaries or popularization books. 4) The fourth period opens with the speech of A.A. Zhdanov, delivered on June 24, 1947 on behalf of the Central Committee and Stalin personally. In this speech, Zhdanov condemns one of the leading Russian philosophers, G.F. Alexandrov, and demands more active systematic work from all Russian philosophers. The response to this demand followed immediately. At present (1950) in Russia there are heated discussions about the interpretation of the “classics” in connection with certain special areas in which it has not yet been dogmatically approved by the aforementioned Stalin’s pamphlet. In this regard, we can mention the condemnation of “Logic” by V.F. Asmus because of her “apolitical and objectivist character” (1948), the renunciation of B.M. Kedrov from his attempt to muffle wild nationalism (1949), the current (1950) attacks on “Fundamentals of General Psychology” by S.L. Rubinstein and especially the discussion around the significant work of M.A. Markov “On the nature of physical knowledge” (1947), which A.A. Maksimov was branded as an unbeliever (1948).

Corresponding processes took place in the field of psychology. If earlier the word “psychology” itself was considered incorrect and they tried to replace it with “reactology” or other names, then recently psychology has been accepted as a legitimate educational subject (as, indeed, the previously rejected logic). In all these discussions, as well as in the famous discussion on genetics (1948), M.B. played a fatal role. Mitin. He was considered the spokesman for the views of the government and participated in all the condemnations of his too independent-minded colleagues. Meanwhile, Mitin can be considered the most prominent philosophical representative of modern dialectical materialism.

It is also worth noting that all these discussions take place strictly within the framework of dialectical materialism, without encroaching on any of the basic provisions of the system defined by Stalin, and the discussion techniques consist in the fact that opponents seek to convict each other of disloyalty to Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin. At the same time, it should be noted that they refer least of all to Marx himself, but mainly to Engels and Lenin.

G. Materialism

According to materialism, the only real world is the material world, and the spirit is only a product of the material organ - the brain. The opposition between matter and consciousness has only an epistemological meaning, and ontologically only matter exists. True, dialectical materialists criticize previous materialist theories, but this criticism does not concern materialism as such, but exclusively the absence of a “dialectical” element, the lack of a correct understanding of development.

Of course, the assessment of dialectical materialism depends on what meaning is given to the word “matter”. In this regard, there is a certain difficulty associated with its Leninist definition.

According to Lenin, matter is only a “philosophical category for designating objective reality,” and in the theory of knowledge, matter is always opposed to consciousness and identified with “objective being.” Meanwhile, there should be no doubt here, because, on the other hand, dialectical materialists claim that we know matter with the help of our senses, that it obeys deterministic and purely causal laws and is opposed to consciousness. In general, it is clear that the word “matter” for dialectical materialists has no meaning other than the ordinary one. Dialectical materialism is classical and radical materialism.

At the same time, this materialism - not mechanistic. According to the accepted teaching, only inorganic matter is subject to mechanical laws, but not living matter, which is subject, although to deterministic-causal laws, but not to mechanical laws. Even in physics, dialectical materialists do not defend unconditional atomism.

D. Dialectical development; monism and determinism

Matter is in constant development, as a result of which more and more complex things arise - atoms, molecules, living cells, plants, people, society. Thus, development is seen not as circular, but as linear and, moreover, in an optimistic spirit: every last thing is always more complex, which is identified with the best and highest. Dialectical materialists fully retained the 19th century belief in progress through development.

But this development occurs, from their point of view, through a number of revolutions: in the essence of each thing small quantitative changes accumulate; tension, struggle arises, and at a certain point new elements become strong enough to upset the balance; then, from previous quantitative changes, a new quality arises abruptly. Thus, struggle is the driving force of development, which occurs in leaps and bounds: this is the so-called “dialectical development”.

This entire process of development takes place without a goal, occurring under the pressure of purely causal factors through pushes and struggles. Strictly speaking, the world has neither meaning nor purpose; it develops blindly in accordance with eternal and calculable laws.

Nothing is sustainable: dialectical development covers the whole world and all its components; everywhere and everywhere the old dies and the new is born. There are neither immutable substances nor “eternal principles.” Only matter as such and the laws of its change are eternally preserved in universal motion.

The world is seen as a single whole. In contrast to metaphysics, which (according to this doctrine) saw in the world many unrelated entities, dialectical materialists defend monism, and in two senses: the world for them is the only one reality (besides him there is nothing and especially no God) and he, in principle, homogeneous, all dualism and pluralism are rejected as false.

The laws that govern this world are deterministic laws in the classical sense of the word. True, for some reasons dialectical materialists do not want to be called “determinists.” According to their teaching, for example, the growth of a plant is determined not simply by the laws of this plant, because due to some external cause, say, a hailstorm, these laws may not be in effect. But in relation to the entire universe, according to dialectical materialists, all chance is obviously excluded; the totality of world laws unconditionally determines the entire movement of the world as a whole.

E. Psychology

Consciousness, spirit is only an epiphenomenon, a “copy, reflection, photograph” of matter (Lenin). Without the body, consciousness cannot exist; it is a product of the brain. Matter is always primary, and consciousness or spirit is secondary. Consequently, it is not consciousness that determines matter, but, on the contrary, matter that determines consciousness. Thus, Marxist psychology is materialistic and deterministic.

At the same time, this determinism is more subtle than that of previous materialists. First of all, as we have already noted regarding randomness, dialectical materialists do not at all want to be considered determinists. From their point of view, it is possible to use the laws of nature; this is freedom. True, man himself remains conditioned by his own laws, but he is aware of this, and his Liberty consists (as in Hegel) in consciousness of necessity. Moreover, according to dialectical materialists, matter does not directly determine consciousness; rather, it operates through society.

The fact is that man is inherently social; he cannot live without society. Only in society can he produce vital goods. The tools and methods of this production determine, first of all, the interhuman relations resting on them and, indirectly through these latter, the consciousness of people. This is the thesis historical materialism: everything that a person thinks, desires, wants, etc., is ultimately a consequence of his economic needs, which develop on the basis of methods of production and social relations created by production.

These methods and relationships are constantly changing. Thus, society is brought under the law of dialectical development, manifested in the social struggle of classes. For its part, the entire content of human consciousness is determined by society and it changes in the course of economic progress.

G. Theory of knowledge

Since matter determines consciousness, cognition must be understood realistically: the subject does not produce the object, but the object exists independently of the subject; knowledge lies in the fact that in the mind there are copies, reflections, photographs of matter. The world is not unknowable, it is completely knowable. Of course, the true method of knowledge is only in science associated with technical practice; and the progress of technology sufficiently proves how untenable any agnosticism is. Knowledge is essentially sensory knowledge, but rational thinking is also necessary to organize the data of experience. Positivism is “bourgeois quackery” and “idealism”; in fact, through phenomena we comprehend the essence of things.

In all this, Marxist epistemology appears as an unconditional and naive realism of the well-known empiricist type. The uniqueness of dialectical materialism lies in the fact that with these realistic views it connects others, namely, pragmatist. From the fact that the entire content of our consciousness is determined by our economic needs, it follows, in particular, that each social class has its own science and its own philosophy. Independent, non-partisan science is impossible. That which leads to success is true; The criterion of truth is only practice.

These two theories of knowledge exist side by side in Marxism, and Marxists do not try very hard to reconcile them with each other. At most, they refer to the fact that our knowledge strives for perfect truth, but for now it is relative according to our needs. Here, apparently, the theory runs into a contradiction, for even if truth were determined through needs, knowledge could not be any, even partial, copy of reality.

H. Values

According to historical materialism, the entire content of consciousness depends on economic needs, which, for their part, are constantly developing. This especially applies to morals, aesthetics and religion.

In a relationship morality dialectical materialism does not recognize any eternal laws; Each social class has its own morality. For the most progressive class, the proletariat, the highest moral rule is this: only that which contributes to the destruction of the bourgeois world is morally good.

IN aesthetics the situation is more complicated. We have to admit that in reality, in the things themselves, there is an objective element that forms the basis of our aesthetic assessment, prompting us to consider something beautiful or ugly. But on the other hand, the assessment also depends on the development of the classes: since different classes have different needs, everyone evaluates in their own way. Accordingly, art cannot be separated from life; it must take part in the class struggle. Its task is to provide an image of the heroic efforts of the proletariat in its struggle and in building a socialist society (socialist realism).

Finally, regarding religion The theory looks a little different again. According to dialectical materialists, religion is a set of false and fantastic statements condemned by science. Only science gives us the opportunity to know reality. The root of religion is fear: being powerless in relation to nature, and then in relation to the exploiters, people began to deify these forces and pray to them; in religion, in belief in the other world, they found consolation that they could not find in their slave existence as exploited people. For the exploiters (feudal lords, capitalists, etc.), religion turned out to be an excellent means of keeping the masses in check: on the one hand, it accustoms them to obedience to the exploiters, and on the other, by promising a better life after death, it distracts the proletarians from revolution. But the proletariat, which exploits no one, does not need religion. If morals and aesthetics must only change, then religion must disappear completely.

Published by ed.

Bokhensky Yu.M. Modern European philosophy. M.: Scientific world, 2000

Dialectical materialism Alexandrov Georgy Fedorovich

2. MARXIST PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM - THE HIGHEST FORM OF MATERIALISM

Marxist philosophical materialism is qualitatively different from all previous materialist teachings. Having revolutionary-critically adopted the advanced traditions of the materialist teachings that preceded it, Marxist philosophical materialism was a fundamentally new, highest stage in the development of philosophical thought. Marxist philosophical materialism is not only a correct theory of knowledge of the world, but also a theoretical justification for its revolutionary transformation.

UNITY OF DIALECTICAL METHOD AND MATERIALIST THEORY. The fundamental difference between the materialism created by Marxism and the materialist teachings that preceded it was its dialectical character.

Marxist philosophical materialism is dialectical materialism. Dialectics and materialism constitute a single whole in Marxist-Leninist philosophy. The Marxist dialectical method guides our knowledge of objective reality, revealing to us a general picture of the interdependence and development of phenomena. Marxist philosophical materialism reveals the material basis of interdependence, movement, development of phenomena and indicates the scientific path to their knowledge.

The main features of the Marxist dialectical method characterize the development of matter itself, which exists as a coherent whole and is in a state of continuous movement. It is matter that is qualitatively diverse, and imperceptible quantitative changes occurring in the material world lead to fundamental qualitative changes. The law of the struggle of opposites, revealing the source of development, is inherent in matter itself. It constitutes the internal content of the development of all material things and processes.

By establishing a distinction between method and theory, Marxism-Leninism does not at all contrast them to each other. The main features of the Marxist dialectical method are an expression of the most general laws of development inherent in everything that exists: materialist dialectics as a method of cognition is therefore an analogue of reality. The Marxist dialectical approach to the phenomena of nature and society is materialistic. On the other hand, the Marxist philosophical interpretation of the world differs from the theory of metaphysical materialism in that it is materialistic. Thus, Marxist philosophical materialism means a dialectical-materialist interpretation of the world, the only correct explanation of the phenomena of the surrounding world in their unity and diversity, in their movement, change, development.

Dialectical materialism is organically connected with the achievements of all sciences, as a result of which it completely overcomes and eliminates the mechanistic limitations that were characteristic of the materialism of the 17th-18th centuries. Pre-Marxist materialists identified matter with mass, considering the latter absolutely unchangeable. Dialectical materialism proved that all qualities of matter are changeable. Accordingly, Marxist philosophical materialism considers matter as infinitely diverse, rejecting the reduction of matter to any one type. Pre-Marxist materialism, identifying matter with substance, did not understand what the material basis of social life was. Marxist philosophical materialism showed that matter is an objective reality, i.e. everything that exists outside and independently of consciousness and is reflected in it.

By deriving consciousness from matter, Marxist philosophical materialism, in contrast to metaphysical materialism, does not identify it with matter. Matter exists outside and independently of consciousness, therefore, consciousness is not matter, although it is inseparable from it.

Consciousness does not exist outside, independently of the subject, no matter how all kinds of idealists try to prove it. Thinking is a product of matter, but it itself is no longer matter, but only a special kind of property of highly organized matter. Thus, Marxist philosophical materialism decisively rejects both the absolute opposition of consciousness and matter, and the identification of both, revealing the dialectical relationship between consciousness and being, thinking and objective reality. V.I. Lenin, dismissing the demagogic statements of idealists that Marxist materialism absolutely contrasts the mental and the physical, pointed out that dialectical materialism limits this opposition to the framework of the question: what is primary and what is secondary, derivative.

Rejecting the absolute opposition of consciousness and matter, spiritual and material, Marxist materialism shows that there is a dialectical relationship between both: consciousness, generated by being, has a reverse effect on it and is thus an essential factor in changing being itself. So, for example, the social consciousness of people, reflecting the material life of society, can have an accelerating or retarding influence on its development.

Marxist philosophical materialism is directly and directly connected with the latest discoveries of science, with the achievements of physics, biology, psychology, etc. The great discoveries of natural science of the 19th and 20th centuries. were philosophically generalized by dialectical materialism. Each new stage in the development of science, confirming Marxist philosophical materialism, is at the same time the basis for new philosophical generalizations, enriching the Marxist-Leninist worldview.

THE UNITY OF THE MATERIALIST UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE AND THE MATERIALIST UNDERSTANDING OF SOCIETY. Marxist philosophical materialism inevitably leads to a materialist understanding of history and to revolutionary communist conclusions. The highest form of materialism created by Marxism expels idealism from its last refuge - from sociology. V.I. Lenin characterizes Marxist philosophical materialism as “consistent materialism, covering the area of ​​social life...”.

A feature of the dialectical-materialist solution to the question of the relationship of consciousness to being is that it covers not only nature, but also society.

Marxism-Leninism teaches that social existence, the method of production of material goods, determines the face of society and serves as the basis for historical development.

“Materialism in general,” says V.I. Lenin, “recognizes objectively real being (matter) independent of consciousness, sensation, experience, etc. of humanity. Historical materialism recognizes social being independent of the social consciousness of humanity.”

A person's social consciousness reflects social existence. Consideration of social consciousness as a reflection of social existence fundamentally distinguishes dialectical materialism from metaphysical materialism. At the same time, Marxist philosophical materialism shows that any, even perverted, false social consciousness is a product of reality. French materialists, for example, believed that religion does not reflect anything in objective reality, since it represents a false view. Marxist materialism, on the contrary, shows that the religious consciousness of the oppressed and exploited masses reflects in a perverted form the fact of their enslavement, suppression by the exploiters, expresses the economic, political and spiritual oppression to which they are subjected in an antagonistic society.

The materialistic understanding of social life became possible thanks to overcoming the reduction of matter to just one physical, chemical or some other form of its existence, characteristic of old materialism. Marxist philosophical materialism reveals the specific nature of the material life of society and the corresponding specificity of social consciousness. The material life of society is, first of all, the production of material goods, the two main sides of which are the productive forces and the corresponding production relations of people, which develop and exist independently of the consciousness and will of people. A change in social production causes a change in social consciousness. Thus, in society, in a specific company, the basic pattern established by materialism manifests itself and operates: matter is primary, consciousness is secondary, derivative.

Having materialistically resolved the question of the relationship of social consciousness to social existence, Marxist-Leninist philosophy created on this theoretical basis a scientific understanding of the entire historical process of social life. Marxism views social development as a natural-historical process, subject to laws, but not dependent on the will, consciousness and intentions of people, but, on the contrary, determining their will, consciousness and intentions.

The materialist understanding of history was the philosophical basis for proving the objective inevitability of socialism; On this theoretical basis, the classics of Marxism-Leninism developed the doctrine of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the doctrine of building a communist society.

The materialistic understanding of history enriches the theory of knowledge, revealing the social nature of knowledge, revealing the role of the material, practical activities of people in the process of knowledge. Pre-Marxist materialism did not understand the material, practical basis of knowledge, did not see the connection of knowledge with material production and the socio-political life of people. Even in those cases where pre-Marxian materialism pointed to the role of practice in knowledge, practice itself was understood in a limited way, mainly as an activity pursuing a certain benefit or as an experiment. The materialist understanding of history reveals the decisive importance of the main form of practical activity of people - material production, showing how it determines the development of knowledge. Marxism-Leninism thus revealed the place of knowledge in social life, in the history of society, explored the connection between theory and practice, and placed the theory of knowledge on a scientific basis.

Marxist philosophical materialism, with its interpretation of natural and social phenomena, theoretically substantiates their revolutionary change. Thanks to the materialistic understanding of history, it became possible to completely and completely overcome the contemplation inherent in metaphysical materialism. Marxist philosophical materialism put an end to the metaphysical opposition between nature and society, showing that changes in nature by people are the material basis of social life, the basis of knowledge and all human history in general. Thus, knowledge of reality was first understood as a powerful means of transformation; it was shown that knowledge of the laws of nature creates the possibility of practical mastery of them for the benefit of man. Marxist philosophical materialism did away with the contemplative understanding of social life. In this sense, Marx and Engels characterized the philosophical theory they created as a theoretical justification for the paths of revolutionary, communist transformation of the world.

Marxist philosophical materialism is a living, constantly developing teaching. The revolutionary, creative character of Marxist philosophical materialism makes it a powerful weapon of the Communist Party.

INTEGRITY AND MONOLITHICITY OF MARXIST PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM. The main features of Marxist philosophical materialism were formulated by Marx and Engels. They received their further development in the works of V.I. Lenin. In the work of J.V. Stalin "On dialectical and historical materialism" the development and systematic presentation of the main features of Marxist philosophical materialism is given.

The first feature of Marxist philosophical materialism speaks of the materiality of the world, rejecting the idealistic, religious idea of ​​​​the existence of this world and the other world. The unity of the world lies in its materiality, i.e. in the fact that all the diversity of existence represents various forms of movement of matter. Objects, phenomena, as well as patterns governing movement, change, and development are material in nature, for these patterns are not some kind of supernatural institutions, but certain forms of interconnection and interdependence of phenomena.

If the first feature of Marxist philosophical materialism answers the question of what the world is, then the second feature answers the question: in what relationship are material and spiritual sawings to each other? Matter is primary, consciousness is secondary, that is, it is a product of the long development of matter; it is inseparable from matter as a function of highly organized matter, as a reflection of objective reality.

Marxist philosophical materialism provides an answer to the second side of the main question of philosophy, revealing the epistemological relationship of consciousness to objective reality, proving the knowability of the world and its laws and pointing out the paths of scientific knowledge. Marxist philosophy proves that the data of sensory perception are the source of knowledge about the external world, the source from which abstract thinking emanates. These provisions are revealed in the third feature of Marxist philosophical materialism.

BRIEF SUMMARY

Marxist philosophical materialism is a scientific and philosophical interpretation and explanation of the objective world. If a scientific dialectical approach to the study of phenomena is impossible without materialism, then, in turn, a consistent scientific-materialist explanation of the world is impossible without understanding the interconnection of phenomena, their movement, change, development. Marxist philosophical materialism and the Marxist dialectical method form a monolithic unity.

Marxist philosophical materialism is the highest form of materialist philosophy, qualitatively different from all materialist teachings that preceded it. In the pre-Marxist era, there existed, successively replacing each other, three main historical forms of materialism: the materialism of advanced thinkers of a slave-owning society, the materialism of advanced bourgeois thinkers, when the bourgeoisie was still a progressive class fighting against feudalism, and the materialism of revolutionary democrats, which reached the highest degree of its development in Russia, - the philosophy of the liberation movement of the peasant masses. A specific feature of ancient materialism is naive dialectics, based primarily on direct sensory contemplation of objective reality. A specific feature of the materialistic teachings of the 17th-18th centuries. is their metaphysical, mechanistic nature and idealistic understanding of history. Russian revolutionary democrats came close to dialectical materialism, but due to the backwardness of Russia at that time, they could not completely overcome the main defects of previous materialism and create a fundamentally new materialist philosophy.

The main drawback of all these materialistic teachings is idealism in the understanding of social life. Marxist philosophical materialism is qualitatively different from all previous materialist philosophy, since it is dialectical materialism. Marxist philosophical materialism provides a materialistic understanding of both nature and social life. The great significance of Marxist philosophical materialism lies in the fact that it is a theoretical weapon of the working class and its party in the struggle for the communist transformation of the world.

1 V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 19, p. 8

2 Sensualism is a philosophical doctrine about the origin of all knowledge from sensory perceptions. The main position of sensationalism: There is nothing in the mind that was not previously in sensory perception.

3 L. Feuerbach, Fundamentals of the Philosophy of the Future, 1936, p. 126

4 F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, Gospolitizdat, 1952, p. 39

5 V. G. Belinsky, Selected philosophical works, vol. II, M. 1948, p. 309

6 D. I. Pisarev, Selected works in two volumes, vol. II, M. 1935, p. 88

7 A. I. Herzen, Selected philosophical works, vol. I, M. 1948, p. 126

8 A. I. Herzen, Selected philosophical works, vol. I, M. 1948, p. 80

9 V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 14, p. 346

10 N. G. Chernyshevsky, Complete Works, vol. VII, M. 1950, p. 222

11 N. G. Chernyshevsky, Complete Works, vol. IV, M. 1948, p. 6

12 N. G. Chernyshevsky, Complete Works, vol. VII, M. 1950, p. 645

13 V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 330

14 V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 330

15 V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 330

16 V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 21, p. 32

17 V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 14, p. 312

From the book Introduction to Marxism by Emil Burns

Chapter VII. Marxist view of nature We have already said that Marxism considers man, and therefore human society, to be a part of nature. Therefore, the origin of man should be sought in the development of the world; man evolved from previous forms of life into

From the book Fundamentals of Philosophy author Babaev Yuri

Consciousness as the highest form of reflection. Social essence of consciousness. Consciousness and speech Reflection as a universal property of matter and its role in the life of living forms was discussed in general terms in the previous topic. Here this issue is covered somewhat more broadly, since speech

From the book Inertia of Fear. Socialism and totalitarianism author Turchin Valentin Fedorovich

Marxist Nihilism Many adherents of Marxism are attracted to its positive aspects: socialist ideals and the determination to seek effective methods for their implementation. However, the nihilistic aspect of Marxism is its most important feature, defining

From the book Sensual, intellectual and mystical intuition author Lossky Nikolay Onufrievich

1. Definition of materialism. The case for materialism. Having become acquainted with the teachings about the elements of the world, about ideal and real being, as well as with the teachings about such types of real being as matter and soul or material and mental process, you can begin to study

From the book Ethics of Transfigured Eros author Vysheslavtsev Boris Petrovich

4. Methodological materialism, Economic materialism The philosophical underdevelopment of materialism is so obvious that among thinkers standing at the level of modern philosophical culture one can hardly find at least one representative of this worldview. Historian

From the book Cosmic Philosophy author Tsiolkovsky Konstantin Eduardovich

13. TRAGISM AS A DIALECTIC OF FREEDOM. LOWER AND HIGHER FORMS OF TRAGISM In Gargman, Sollensantinomie is depicted as a theoretical contradiction; its solution shows the conceivability of thesis and antithesis. From our point of view, this antinomy is a life conflict and a life tragedy, and

From the book The Atman Project [A Transpersonal View of Human Development] by Wilbur Ken

The Highest Truth Along with death and destruction, we see revival and creation. New lives arise in the bodies of animals due to the food they absorb. Literally the same thing happens in plants: inorganic substances of the earth turn into organic ones. Earth, dead

From the book A Brief Essay on the History of Philosophy author Iovchuk M T

Higher Causal Realm Beyond the lower causal realm, in the higher causal realm, all manifested forms are transcended so radically that they no longer even need to appear or arise in Consciousness. This is total and ultimate transcendence and

From the book Critique of the Laws of Dialectical Materialism author author unknown

§ 3. The Marxist method of understanding the history of philosophy and the laws of its development The essence of the Marxist method in the history of philosophy. Dialectical and historical materialism sees two sides in philosophy: cognitive, since philosophy to one degree or another

From the book Philosophy: lecture notes author Shevchuk Denis Alexandrovich

§ 3. The newest revolution in natural science and its philosophical analysis in Lenin’s work “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” The beginning of the revolution in natural science. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. A revolution in natural science began. This revolution has enormous philosophical significance,

From the book The Lifestyle We Choose author Förster Friedrich Wilhelm

From the book Mirology. Volume I. Introduction to Mirology by Battler Alex

2. Marxist analysis of the social-class structure of society It can be considered that the most developed, from a class perspective, analyzing the social structure of society is the Marxist-Leninist theory, the origins of which were Marx and Engels, and in which

From the book by Francois Marie Voltaire author Kuznetsov Vitaly Nikolaevich

11. Higher discipline Many people think that restraint is important only in relation to primitive instincts and passions. But few people think that higher inclinations and impulses require at least the same discipline and control. In the paintings of old masters

From the book Dialectical Materialism author Alexandrov Georgy Fedorovich

2. A.A. Bogdanov - Marxist positivist Among the Russian scientists who made a significant contribution to scientific studies, one cannot fail to mention two outstanding encyclopedists: V.I. Vernadsky and A.A. Bogdanov. Although Vernadsky’s activities are largely related to

From the author's book

Chapter II. “The deist form of materialism”, from his earliest youthful works, Voltaire was unshakably convinced that outside and independently of human consciousness there exists nature, which is a collection of an infinite number of different material

Dialectical materialism is the worldview of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to natural phenomena, its method of studying natural phenomena, its method of knowing these phenomena is dialectical, and its interpretation of natural phenomena, its understanding of natural phenomena, its theory is materialistic.

Historical materialism is the extension of the provisions of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, the application of the provisions of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of social life, to the study of society, to the study of the history of society.

When characterizing their dialectical method, Marx and Engels usually refer to Hegel as the philosopher who formulated the main features of dialectics. This, however, does not mean that the dialectic of Marx and Engels is identical to the dialectic of Hegel. In fact, Marx and Engels took from Hegel’s dialectic only its “rational grain”, discarding Hegel’s idealistic husk and developing the dialectic further in order to give it a modern scientific form.

“My dialectical method,” says Marx, is not only fundamentally different from Hegel’s, but is its direct opposite. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he even transforms into an independent subject under the name of idea, is the demiurge (creator) of the real, which is only its external manifestation. For me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing more than the material, transplanted into the human head and transformed in it” (K. Marx, Afterword to the second German edition of the 1st volume of “Capital”).

When characterizing their materialism, Marx and Engels usually refer to Feuerbach as the philosopher who restored materialism to its rights. However, this does not mean that the materialism of Marx and Engels is identical to the materialism of Feuerbach. In fact, Marx and Engels took from Feuerbach’s materialism its “basic grain”, developing it further into the scientific and philosophical theory of materialism and discarding its idealistic and religious-ethical layers. It is known that Feuerbach, being basically a materialist, rebelled against the name - materialism. Engels stated more than once that Feuerbach “despite his materialistic basis, has not yet freed himself from the old idealistic shackles”, that “Feuerbach’s real idealism comes out as soon as we approach his ethics and philosophy of religion” (K. Marx and F. Engels , vol. XIV, pp. 652–654).

Dialectics comes from the Greek word “dialego”, which means to have a conversation, to conduct a debate. In ancient times, dialectics was understood as the art of achieving truth by revealing contradictions in the opponent’s judgment and overcoming these contradictions. In ancient times, some philosophers believed that uncovering contradictions in thinking and the clash of opposing opinions was the best means of discovering truth. This dialectical way of thinking, subsequently extended to natural phenomena. turned into a dialectical method of cognition of nature, which considered natural phenomena as eternally moving and changing, and the development of nature as a result of the development of contradictions in nature, as a result of the interaction of opposing forces in nature.

At its core, dialectics is directly opposed to metaphysics.

A short course on the history of the CPSU (b). Chapter IV. 2. About dialectical and historical materialism. 1938

Dialectical materialism was based on the achievements of advanced practice and theory. This teaching about the most general principles of the development and movement of consciousness, nature and society continuously developed and enriched along with the progress of science and technology. This philosophy views consciousness as a social, highly organized form. The dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels considers matter to be the only basis of the whole world, while recognizing the existence of a universal interconnection of phenomena and objects in the world. This teaching represents the highest result of the entire previous history of the formation

Marx's dialectical materialism arose in the nineteenth century, in the forties. At that time, in order to wage the struggle of the proletariat for the social liberation of itself as a class, knowledge of the laws of social development was necessary. The study of these laws was not possible without philosophy to explain historical events. The founders of the doctrine - Marx and Engels - subjected to deep revision of Hegel's teaching. Having analyzed everything that had been formed before them in philosophy and social reality, having assimilated all the positive conclusions, thinkers created a qualitatively new worldview. It was this that became the philosophical basis in the doctrine of scientific communism and in the practice of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. Dialectical materialism was developed in sharp ideological opposition to various views of a bourgeois nature.

The nature of the emerging worldview of Marx and Engels was greatly influenced by the ideas of followers of the bourgeois trend (Ricardo, Smith and others), the work of utopian socialists (Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier and others), as well as the French historians Mignet, Guizot, Thierry and others. Dialectical materialism also developed under the influence of the achievements of natural science.

The teaching extended to understanding social history, substantiating the significance of social practice in the development of humanity and its consciousness.

Dialectical materialism made it possible to clarify the fundamental nature of the world and social existence, and to materialistically resolve the issue of the active influence of consciousness. The doctrine contributed to the consideration of social reality not only as an object opposed to man, but also in the form of his specific historical activity. Thus, materialist dialectics overcame the abstractness in contemplation that was characteristic of previous teachings.

The new teaching was able to theoretically substantiate and practically implement a conscious complex of practice, and dialectics, deriving theory from practice, subordinated it to revolutionary ideas about transforming the world. The characteristic features of philosophical teaching are a person’s orientation towards achieving the future and an exclusively scientific prediction of upcoming events.

The fundamental difference between the doctrine of dialectical materialism was the ability of this worldview to penetrate the masses and be realized by them. The idea itself develops in accordance with the historical practice of the people. Thus, philosophy directed the proletariat to transform the existing society and form a new, communist one.

Lenin's theoretical activity is considered a new, highest stage in the development of dialectical materialism. The development of the theory of social revolution, the idea of ​​​​an alliance of workers and peasants was most closely connected with the defense of philosophy from the onslaught of bourgeois ideology.