The basis of dialectical materialism is the developed method. Vulgar and dialectical materialism

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM - system philosophical views K. Marx and F. Engels, which Engels characterized as dialectical materialism, contrasting it not only with idealism, but also with all previous materialism as the negation of philosophy as a science of sciences, opposed, on the one hand, to all private sciences, and on the other hand, to practice . “This,” wrote Engels, “is no longer philosophy at all, but simply a worldview, which should find confirmation not in some special science of sciences, but in real sciences” (Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 20, p. 142). At the same time, Engels emphasizes the positive, dialectical nature of this negation of all previous philosophy. “Philosophy, therefore, is “sublated” here, that is, “at the same time overcome and preserved,” overcome in form, preserved in its actual content” (ibid.). The dialectical character of Marxist philosophy was directly connected, firstly, with the materialist processing of Hegel’s idealist dialectics and, secondly, with the dialectical processing of previous metaphysical materialism. Marx wrote; “The mystification that dialectics underwent in the hands of Hegel did not at all prevent the fact that it was Hegel who was the first to give a comprehensive and conscious image of its universal forms of movement. Hegel has dialectics on his head. We need to put it on its feet in order to reveal the rational grain under the mystical shell” (ibid., vol. 23, p. 22). Marx considered materialist dialectics not a specifically philosophical, but a general scientific method of research, which he, as you know, applied in his “Capital”. Engels also assessed dialectics in the same way, emphasizing that natural scientists need to master this method to solve their scientific problems and overcome idealistic and metaphysical errors. At the same time, he referred to the great natural scientific discoveries of the 19th century. (the discovery of the cell, the law of energy transformation, Darwinism, Mendeleev’s periodic system of elements), which, on the one hand, confirm and enrich dialectical materialism, and on the other, indicate that natural science is approaching a dialectical worldview.

The dialectical processing of previous materialism consisted in overcoming its historically determined limitations: the mechanistic interpretation of natural phenomena, the denial of the universality of development, and the idealistic understanding public life. Solidarizing with old materialism in recognizing the primacy, uncreateability, indestructibility of matter, and also in the fact that consciousness is a property of matter organized in a special way, Marxist philosophy considers the spiritual as a product of the development of matter, and moreover, not just as a natural product, but as a social phenomenon, as public consciousness reflecting social existence of people.

Characterizing the subject of Marxist philosophy, Engels defines it as a universal dialectical process taking place both in nature and in society. Dialectics, he emphasizes, is “the science of the most general laws of any movement” (ibid., vol. 20, p. 582). Movement is considered as the implementation of a universal connection, the interdependence of phenomena, their transformation into each other. In this regard, Engels points out: “Dialectics as the science of universal connection. The main laws: the transformation of quantity into quality - the mutual penetration of polar opposites and their transformation into each other when they are taken to extremes - development through contradiction, or the negation of negation - a spiral form of development” (ibid., p. 343). Materialist dialectics, or dialectical materialism (these concepts are synonymous), is, therefore, the most general theory of development, which should be distinguished from special theories of development, for example. Darwinism. Marx and Engels use the concept of development without entering into its definition, that is, accepting it as completely determined in its content thanks to scientific discoveries. However, individual statements by Engels indicate a desire to reveal the dialectical inconsistency of the development process. Thus, Engels states: “Every progress in organic development is at the same time a regression, for it consolidates one-sided development and excludes development in many other directions” (ibid., p. 621). At the same time, this understanding of development, which excludes its reduction to progress alone, does not receive development in its general characteristics historical process. World history, Engels declares, is a process of “the endless development of society from the lowest level to the highest” (ibid., p. 275). This understanding social development clearly does not agree with the description of the development of a class antagonistic society, especially capitalism, which is given in other works of the founders of Marxism.

The idea of ​​the laws of dialectics as a special, supreme class of universal laws to which all natural and social processes are subject is, to say the least, problematic. The universal laws discovered by the natural sciences are not laws that determine social processes. Shouldn't we therefore consider the laws of dialectics as a generalized theoretical expression essence of the laws of nature and society? We do not find an answer to this question in the works of Marx and Engels, despite the fact that they repeatedly pointed out the dialectical nature of certain natural and social laws. Meanwhile, without overcoming the Hegelian idea of ​​a special class of supreme laws of everything that exists, it is impossible to put an end to the opposition of philosophy to concrete scientific research. Engels rightly noted that Marxist philosophy is acquiring a new historical form with every new epoch-making scientific discovery. Marxist philosophy in the form in which it was created by Marx and Engels theoretically reflected the outstanding natural scientific discoveries of Ser. 19th century The end of this century and especially the beginning of the 20th century. were marked by new epoch-making natural scientific discoveries, which V.I. Lenin tried to comprehend philosophically. In “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,” he analyzes the methodological crisis in physics associated with the discovery of the electron, the explanation of which did not fit within the framework of classical mechanics. The confusion among many natural scientists caused by this discovery found expression in idealistic speculation about the dematerialization of matter. Lenin, defending materialism, argued that the electron is material, even if it does not possess the generally known signs of matter, because it exists outside and independently of the consciousness and will of people. In this regard, Lenin proposed a philosophical definition of the concept of matter, designed to retain its meaning regardless of what new, unexpected properties of matter may be discovered in the future. “Matter is a philosophical category to designate objective reality, which is given to a person in his sensations, which is copied, photographed, displayed in our sensations, existing independently of them” (Lenin V.I. Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 18, p. 131). The definition proposed by Lenin did not contain anything new. It was adhered to by G.V. Plekhanov, K. Kautsky, and in pre-Marxist philosophy by P. Holbach and even the idealist J.-J. Rousseau, who argued: “Everything that I am conscious of outside myself and that acts on my feelings, I call matter” (Rousseau J.-J. Emile, or On Education. St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 262). It is also clear that the definition of matter as a sensually perceived objective reality does not prove the materiality of the electron. This sensualist definition of the concept of matter is as limited as the sensualist thesis according to which objects are knowable because they are perceived by our senses. After all, there are countless material phenomena that are inaccessible to the senses. Linking the concept of matter with sensory perceptions introduces a moment of subjectivity into its definition. Thus, the task of creating philosophical concept matter has not been resolved.

The theory of knowledge of Marxist philosophy is usually characterized as a theory of reflection, which was also adhered to by pre-Marxian materialism. However, in the philosophy of Marxism, reflection is interpreted not as a direct relationship of the cognizing subject to the object of cognition, but rather as an indirect result of the cognition process. Marx and Engels dialectically reworked the materialist theory of reflection. They made a qualitative distinction between theoretical and empirical (and even more so sensory) knowledge, proving that theoretical conclusions are fundamentally irreducible to sensory data and empirical conclusions based on them. Thus, the founders of Marxism overcame the limitations of the sensualistic epistemology of previous materialism. What allows theoretical research to be relatively independent of empirical data and often even come into conflict with them? Engels points out the importance of natural scientific hypotheses, which often anticipate future observations and experimental data.

The irreducibility of theoretical thinking to empirical data is directly revealed in the categories with which thinking operates. It cannot be said that Marx and Engels paid much attention to the epistemological study of categories. Nevertheless, we find in their works a dialectical understanding of identity as containing difference, a dialectical analysis of cause-and-effect relationships, the unity of necessity and chance, possibility and reality.

The central point in Marxist epistemology is the theory of truth, the dialectical-materialist understanding of which reveals the unity of the objectivity and relativity of truth. The concept of relative truth, developed by Marxist philosophy, is contrasted with the anti-dialectical concept of absolute truth as the unchanging, exhaustive content of the object of knowledge. Absolute truth, insofar as it is understood dialectically, is relative within its limits, since it is composed of relative truths. The opposition between truth and error, if the latter is understood not simply as a logical error, but as a substantive error, is relative.

The problem of the criterion of truth belongs to the most complex epistemological problems. This criterion cannot be located within knowledge itself, but it cannot be found outside the relationship of the subject to the object of knowledge. The criterion of truth, according to the philosophy of Marxism, is practice, the forms of which are diverse. This position was introduced in the Marxist theory of knowledge, but it did not receive systematic development in the works of Marx and Engels. Meanwhile, it is clear that practice is not always applicable to assessing the results of cognition. And like any human activity, practice is not free from misconceptions. Naturally, therefore, questions arise: does practice always form the basis of knowledge? Can every practice be a criterion of truth? Practice, whatever its form and level of development, is constantly subject to scientific criticism. Theory, especially in the modern era, tends to outstrip practice. This does not mean, of course, that practice ceases to be the basis of knowledge and the criterion of truth; it continues to play this role, but only to the extent that it masters and absorbs scientific achievements. But in this case, it is not practice in itself, that is, without regard to scientific theory, and the unity of practice and scientific theory becomes both the basis of knowledge and the criterion of the truth of its results. And since the truths that are meant are relative truths, then practice is not an absolute criterion of truth, especially since it develops and improves.

Thus, Marx and Engels proved the need for dialectical materialism, which presupposes a materialist reworking of idealist dialectics, a dialectical reworking of previous materialism, and a diadectic-materialist interpretation and generalization of scientific achievements. They laid the foundations for this fundamentally new type of philosophy. Disciples and continuers of the teachings of Marx and Engels were Ch. O. propagandists, popularizers of their philosophy, committed

but not sufficiently developing and deepening its basic provisions. Lenin's “philosophical notebooks” show that he sought to continue the work of the founders of Marxism in the materialist reworking of Hegelian dialectics.

In the USSR and in a number of other countries, Marxist philosophy was the subject of not only propaganda and popularization, but also development, especially in such sections as the theory of knowledge, philosophical generalization of the achievements of natural science, history of philosophy, etc. However, the transformation of the teachings of Marx and Engels, as well as Lenin's views on the system of indisputable dogmatic positions were complicated and largely distorted research work philosophers. It is enough to point out the fact that for a decade and a half, Soviet philosophers were mainly busy commenting on the work of I.V. Stalin “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” which is an extremely simplified and largely distorted presentation of Marxist philosophy. Due to these and a number of other circumstances, Marxist philosophy is not so much systematized as sketchy in nature, not to mention the fact that some of its provisions turned out to be erroneous. See also Art. J. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin.

Lit.: Marx K., Engels Ch>. From early works. M., 1956; Marx K. Theses on Feuerbach. - Marx K., Engels F. Works, vol. 3; Marx K., Engels F. The Holy Family. - Ibid., vol. 2; They are. German ideology.-Ibid., vol. 3; Engels F. Ayati-Dühring. - Ibid., vol. 20; It's him. Dialectics of nature. - Ibid.; It's him. Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy. - Ibid., vol. 21; Marx K. Capital, vol. l.-Ibid., vol. 23; Gramsci A. Selected Prod., vol. 1-3. M., 1957-1959; Dietzgen I. Izbr. philosopher. op. M., 1941; LaBrulla A. Towards the “crisis of Marxism”. K„ 1906; LafargueP. Works, vol. 1-3. M.-L., 1925-31; Lenin V.I. Materialism and empirio-criticism.-Complete. collection cit., vol. 18; It's him. Philosophical notebooks.-Ibid., vol. 29; It's him. On the meaning of militant materialism.-Ibid., vol. 45; Mering F. Literary critical articles, vol. 1-2. M.-L., 1934; Plekhanov G.V. Selected. philosopher, prod., vol. 1-5. M., 1956^ 1958; AveryanovA. H. System: philosophical category and reality. M., 1976; Axelrod-Orthodox L. N. Marx as a philosopher. Kharkov, 1924; Alekseev P.V. Subject, structure and function of dialectical materialism. M., 1978; Arefieva G.V. Lenin as a philosopher. M., 1969; Asmus V.F. Dialectical materialism and logic. K., 1924; Afanasyev V. G. The problem of integrity in philosophy and biology. M., 1964; Bazhenov L. B. General scientific status of reductionism. M., 1986; Bibler V. S. Thinking as creativity. M., 1975; Bykhovsky B. E. Essay on the philosophy of dialectical materialism. M.-L., 1930; Introduction to Philosophy, Parts 1-2, ed. I. T. Frolova. M., 1989; Girusov E.V. Dialectics of interaction between living and inanimate nature. M., 1968; Gorsky D. P. The problem of general methodology of science and dialectical logic. M., 1966; Gott V.S. Philosophical questions modern physics. M., 1988; DeborinA. M. Introduction to the philosophy of dialectical materialism. M., 1916; Egor“ A.G. Problems of aesthetics. M., 1977; Zotov A.F. The structure of scientific thinking. M., 1973; Ilyenkov E.V. Dialectics of abstract and concrete in Marx’s “Capital”. M., 1960; Kazyutinsky V.V. Philosophical problems cosmology. M., 1970; Kedrov B. M. Dialectics and modern natural science. Mch 1970; It's him. Problems of logic and methodology of science. Favorite works. M., 1990; Kopnin P.V. Introduction to Marxist epistemology. K., 1966; Korshunov A. M. Reflection theory and modern science. M., 1968; Kuptsov V.I. Philosophical problems of the theory of relativity. M., 1968; Kursanov G. A. Dialectical materialism about the concept. M., 1963; Lektorsky V. A. Subject, object, cognition. M., 1980; Mamardashshi M.K. Forms and content of thinking. M., 1968; Mamchur E. A. Theoretical and empirical in modern scientific knowledge. M., 1984; Melyukhin S. T. Material unity of the world in the light of modern science. M., 1967; Merkulov I. P. Hypotheticodeductive model and development scientific knowledge. M., 1980; Materialistic dialectics, vol. 1-5, ed. F.V. Konstantinova and V.G. Marakhova. M-, 1981-1985; Mumm M. B. Combat issues of materialist dialectics. M., 1932; Narekai I. S. Dialectical contradiction and logic of knowledge. M., 1969; Nikitin E. P. The nature of justification. Substrate approach. M., 1981; Ogurtsov A.P. Disciplinary structure of science. M., 1988; Oiüfman T.I. Dialectical materialism and history of philosophy. M., 1979; It's him. Experience of critical understanding of dialectical materialism. - “VF”, 2000, No. 2, p. 3-31; Omelyanovsky M.E. Dialectics in modern physics. M., 1973; Pavlov T. Theory of reflection. M„ 1936; RakitovA. I. Marxist-Leninist philosophy. M., 1986; Rosenthal M. M. Questions of dialectics in Marx’s “Capital”. M., 1955; Rozov M. A. The problem of empirical analysis of scientific knowledge. Novosibirsk, 1977; Ruzavin G.I. Methods of scientific research. M., 1974; Rutkevich M. N. Dialectical materialism. M., 1973; Sadovsky V. N. The problem of the logic of scientific knowledge. M., 1964; Sachkov Yu. V. Dialectics of fundamental and applied. M., 1989; Svidersky V.I. Contradiction of movement and its manifestations. L., 1959; Sitkovsky E. P. Categories of Marxist dialectics. M., 1941; Smirnov G. D. Questions of dialectical and historical materialism. M., Î967; Spirkin A.G. Fundamentals of Philosophy. M., 1988; Stenin V. S. Dialectics-worldview and methodology of modern natural science. M., 1985; Theory of knowledge, vol. 1-4, ed. V. Lektorsky and T. Oizerman. M„ 1991-1994; Tugarinov V.P. Correlation of categories of dialectical materialism. L., 1956; Fedoseev P. N. Dialectics of the modern era. M„ 1978; Frolov I. T. About man and humanism. Works different years. M., 1989; Chudinov E. M. Nature scientific truth. M., 1979; Shvyrev V. S. Theoretical and empirical in scientific knowledge. M., 1978; Sheptulin A.P. System of categories of dialectics. M., 1967; Yakovlev V. A. Dialectics of the creative process in science. M.. 1989.

Philosophy and its main question. Materialism.( see №2)

Vulgar materialism and its main representatives in the 19th century.

Vulgar materialism (German: Vulgärmaterialismus) is the name by which the philosophical movement within the framework of materialism of the mid-19th century is known. The name belongs to Friedrich Engels.

It arose during the period of great discoveries of natural science in the 19th century. The theoretical predecessor of vulgar materialism was the French materialist P. Cabanis, the main representatives were the German scientists K. Focht and L. Buchner, and the Dutchman J. Moleschott. The named authors were primarily concerned with medicine, anatomy and physiology; philosophical studies stemmed from their scientific and biological activities. The emergence of vulgar materialism was influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution and the discovery of organic matter. In many ways, the movement was a reaction against German idealism.

F. Engels called them vulgar materialists, since they simplified, from his point of view, the materialistic worldview, denied the specificity of consciousness, identifying it with matter (“the brain secretes thought, like the liver secretes bile”; “there is no thought without phosphorus”), rejected the need to develop philosophy as a science. They also explained human personality physiologically (“A person is what he eats” - Moleschott). The social thought of these authors (especially Buchner) is characterized by social Darwinism. Vulgar materialism popularized the achievements of natural science and atheism.

In Russia, vulgar materialism was quite popular in the 1860s (“physiological pictures” of Vocht, Buchner and Moleschott were translated and reviewed by D. I. Pisarev), although some revolutionary democrats criticized it. In Dostoevsky’s novel “Demons,” nihilists chop down icons and set fire to church candles before the works of these three authors. Tendencies of vulgar materialism were characteristic of “mechanists” in the USSR.

The thinking characteristic of vulgar materialism was reflected in the literature of the 19th century (this is essentially the “scientific approach” to heroes in Zola’s naturalism).

Dialectical materialism and its main representatives.

Dialectical materialism (Diamat) is a direction in philosophy in which the main attention is paid to the relationship between being and thinking and the most general laws of development of being and thinking. According to the main provisions of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, dialectical materialism asserts the ontological primacy of matter relative to consciousness and the constant development of matter over time.

According to dialectical materialism, matter is the only basis of the world, consciousness is a property of matter, the movement and development of the world is the result of overcoming its internal contradictions. Dialectical materialism is an integral part of Marxist theory, and not an independent philosophical doctrine.

In the development of the provisions of D. m. after the death of Marx and Engels, mainly in its propaganda and defense, in the fight against bourgeois ideology, much was done by their most outstanding students and followers in various countries: in Germany - F. Mehring, in France - P. Lafargue, in Italy - A. Labriola, in Russia - G.V. Plekhanov, who criticized idealism and philosophical revisionism with great talent and brilliance. Plekhanov's philosophical works of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Lenin rated Marxism as the best in all international philosophical literature.

Dialectical materialism (Diamat) - a direction in philosophy, a materialistically interpreted dialectic of Hegel, is philosophical basis Marxism. Dialectical materialism is based on the ontological primacy of matter relative to consciousness and the constant development of matter over time. According to dialectical materialism:

matter is the only basis of the world;

thinking is an integral property of matter;

the movement and development of the world is the result of overcoming its internal contradictions.

A. Characteristics. 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 considers 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 differ from all others primarily in their uniformity - all the authors say exactly the same thing, as well as in the presence of countless references to the classics, which at every step must support the positions 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, while the general philosophical basis of the system, dialectical materialism, is mainly the work of Engels. This dialectical materialism consists in combining Hegelian dialectics with the materialism of the 19th century.

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 respective teaching aids, then 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 completely frozen. 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” among dialectical materialists has no meaning other than the ordinary one. Dialectical materialism is classical and radical materialism.

At the same time, this materialism is 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 considered 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 series of revolutions: small quantitative changes accumulate in the essence of each thing; 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.

There is nothing stable: 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 teaching) saw in the world many unrelated entities, dialectical materialists defend monism, and in two senses: the world for them is the only reality (besides it there is nothing and especially no God) and it is, 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 freedom consists (as in Hegel) in the 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 of 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. Cognition 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 ones. 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 relation to 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, with regard to religion, the theory again looks somewhat different. 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.

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 - philosophical doctrine, which 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“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 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 in Lately protected it from scrutiny. 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 think it's a mystery human life is trampled upon by scientific reductionism with its claims that “promising materialism” will sooner or later explain the entire spiritual world in terms of processes occurring in neurons. This idea should be considered a superstition. It must be recognized that we are also spiritual beings, possessing souls and living in spiritual world, - as well as material beings that 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