The main question of philosophy, its two sides. The concept of materialism and idealism, ideal, primary, secondary
Reasons explaining the emergence and existence of idealistic philosophy. G.k.i. lie in the very structure of knowledge...
Reasons explaining the emergence and existence of idealistic philosophy. G.k.i. lie in the very structure of knowledge, in the subjectivity of its form, in the contradiction between abstract thinking and a sensory reflection of reality, in the specifics of the formation and development of philosophical knowledge. Subjectivism is the main epistemological source of idealism. Subjectivity as the ability to abstract thinking is a necessary condition for any intellectual activity. Subjectivism manifests itself in ignoring the need to reflect the external world, in the denial of reality independent of knowledge, and, consequently, the objectivity of knowledge (Relativism). It is this that feeds idealism with its sap, which, according to Lenin, grows on the living tree of fruitful, true, powerful human knowledge, misinterpreting the facts of objective reality. Idealism often reveals these facts, but at the same time distorts and mystifies them. These G. to. and. are consolidated due to certain social factors, ultimately originating in the social division of labor, the separation of mental labor from physical labor, in the formation and development social class structure about-va. Idealistic philosophy expresses the specific worldview and ideological attitudes of certain groups and layers of society, as a rule, the ruling classes of an exploitative society, comprehends and embodies their special social experience. Lenin pointed out the ideological function of idealism and its connection with religious ideology. At the same time, he resolutely opposed vulgar sociologization, a simplified and incompetent understanding of the development and functioning of philosophical knowledge, pointed out the need for an organic combination of a principled party approach with strict professionalism, implying a meaningful and subtle analysis of real problems, which are reflected in one or another idealistic concepts are characteristics of social consciousness itself. (See idealism, fideism.)
Ernst Mayr
Dedicated to the memory of the great thinker and teacher K.M. Zavadsky
In the 1960s, the American historian of biology Mark Adams came to St. Petersburg to interview K.M. Zavadsky. During their discussion, Zavadsky asked: “Do you know Ernst Mayr?”
Adams: "Yes, very good."
Zavadsky: “Is he a Marxist?”
Adams: "No, as far as I know."
Zavadsky: “This is very surprising, since his works are pure dialectical materialism.”
I was puzzled by Zavadsky’s remark: which of my ideas or concepts did he consider close to dialectical materialism? I've been thinking about this for 30 years and I think I'm partly closer to the answer. Numerous publications helped me in this, including F. Engels and other theorists of Marxism, as well as R. Levin and R. Lewontin and L. Graham [, ]. Unexpectedly for myself, I discovered that at least six of my ideas are, to one degree or another, shared by the majority of dialectical materialists, but more on that later.
To understand dialectical materialism, let us turn to its history. This theoretical doctrine was developed by Engels and Marx, but more so by Engels, who adopted Hegel's approach to history but rejected Hegel's essentialism and physicalism. Indeed, Engels stated this quite clearly when he said:
“We comprehend ideas with our heads in a completely materialistic way - as a reflection of real things, and do not perceive real things as a reflection of an idea or as a certain stage in the development of an absolute idea.” .
Despite the historical approach, Hegel strictly followed the Cartesians (physicalists), which Marx and Engels abandoned. They, apparently, themselves did not fully understand how evolutionary their theory was until they read “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. In this regard, Marx enthusiastically wrote in a letter to Engels:
“...the book contains a natural historical substantiation of our point of view.”
This strictly empirical approach made a huge impression on Engels. He criticized Hegel for his explanations of the laws of dialectics, considering it a mistake to assert that they are imposed on nature and history by the laws of thought, and are not derived from them. By the way, Graham drew my attention to the fact that Engels never used the phrase “dialectical materialism,” preferring to call it “modern” or “new.”
At the time when Engels and Marx were building their theory of dialectical materialism, the dominant teaching in philosophy was Cartesianism, which was unacceptable to them. Consequently, they needed to develop a theory that would be based partly on their own reflections, partly on similar reflections of modern natural scientists.
Darwin is traditionally cited as the source of evolutionary judgments, which are well reflected, for example, in the works of J. Allen [, ]. However, such ideas were widespread among natural scientists at the beginning of the 19th century. Over the past 200 years, two groups of biologists can be distinguished. One of them includes experimentalists who strive to make biology as exact science, as a physicist, adherents to a greater or lesser extent of Cartesianism. On the other side are naturalists who understood the historical and holistic aspects of natural life, but were often vitalists. Darwinian ideas, which so attracted dialectical materialists, were shared by naturalists of the 19th century.
Having carefully examined the literature on dialectical materialism [, , , etc.], I came across a long list of fundamental provisions that have long been well known to me as the principles of natural history. As an example, I will give six of them.
1 . The universe is in a state of constant development. This statement, of course, has been an axiom for every naturalist since the time of Darwin, but as a general idea it existed even in the time of Buffon.
2 . Inevitably, all phenomena in living and inanimate nature have a historical component.
3 . Typological thinking (essentialism) is not ready to perceive the variability of all natural phenomena, including frequent cases of their internal heterogeneity and the widespread phenomenon of heterogeneity.
4 . All processes and phenomena, including components of the natural system, are internally connected and manifest themselves in many situations as a single whole. This kind of holism or organicism has been supported by naturalists since the mid-19th century.
5 . Reductionism is therefore a misleading approach because it cannot represent the orderly unity of interacting phenomena, especially parts of larger systems. Understanding this, I have paid attention over the years to the widespread occurrence of epistatic gene interactions and the integrity of the genotype.
Dialectical materialism emphasizes the existence of different hierarchical levels of structure, each of which can have its own set of dialectical processes at work.
6 . The importance of a qualitative approach, indispensable, in particular, when considering unique, one-of-a-kind phenomena.
It is not known which of these principles (perhaps most) arose independently of natural history and dialectical materialism. One way or another, it is not difficult to show that the perception of many of them scientific world dates back to the 19th century. And it is very likely that it was they who influenced the development of the ideas of dialectical materialism.
The fact that the principles of dialectical materialism and the line of thought of naturalists have much in common does not convey anything new. Several authors, including Allen [, ], have pointed out this fact. According to Allen,
“The process of natural selection is a dialectical process that we find in nature.”
This author believes that the dialectical vision was lost among natural scientists between 1890-1950. True, Allen analyzed in detail only the development paths of experimental genetics, in relation to which his conclusion is truly valid. As for Zavadsky's remark about my dialectical views, it was made mainly in response to my book published in 1942. But at that time other evolutionists spoke from the same dialectical positions.
According to Allen, two important dialectical principles do not fit into the “holistic materialism” of natural scientists.
First - "the idea that internal change a system is the natural result of the interactions of opposing forces or tendencies within the system itself.” In fact, the literature on evolution, behavior, and ecology is replete with discussions of these kinds of interactions. Competition is a typical example, as are other forms of struggle for existence. The same can be said about coevolution, where there is a kind of “arms race” going on. Time and time again, scientists have come to believe that every phenotype is a compromise between opposing selection pressures. Systems of territorial behavior and social hierarchies are also built on clashes of opposing tendencies.
I cannot find any evidence for the second, according to Allen, discrepancy between the views of natural scientists and dialectical materialism, concerning the thesis “quantitative changes lead to qualitative ones.” In all the examples given by Allen, changes that are quantitative in his interpretation already turn out to be qualitative. Chromosomal inversion is a qualitative change that, like any other mutation, leads to the formation of a new isolating mechanism [although, according to modern data, the role of “chromosomal speciation” turns out to be more than modest, and those small and quantitative changes associated with the “accumulation of uncrossability” turn out to be important. which lead to qualitative shifts - isolation of forms - VC. ] . In other words, I could not find among natural scientists - holistically thinking naturalists - a single idea that would be incompatible with the doctrines of dialectical materialism.
I am deeply grateful to Professor L. Graham for his helpful comments that improved the original version of this article.
Translation O.I. Shutova
Literature
1. Engels F. The Dialectics of Nature. 1888.
2. Levins R., Lewontin R.C.
.
Naive materialism of the ancients Metaphysical Dialectical materialism Varieties of Idealism: 1. Objective Subjective idealism solipsism
dealistic rationalism: rationalism:
Monism Dualism
Question 29. Truth how philosophical problem. Relativism and dogmatism and their manifestation in social management.
Truth is one of highest values. The pursuit of truth is the most important dimension of human dignity. IN Ancient Greece Truth was considered the daughter of Time and the mother of Justice.
1. Idealistic understanding of truth. According to Descartes, truth is what is certain and logical. From a theological point of view, God is the truth. According to subjective idealism, truth has no objective source. One more thing - truth is something that is accepted by many. In all cases, the criterion of truth is subjective.
2. Pragmatic understanding. The criterion of truth is benefit.
3. Materialistic understanding. Truth is the correspondence of knowledge to the subject.
Objective, relative, absolute, true.
1) According to materialism, the source of all true knowledge- an objective world independent of humans. Truth in its source is always objective. Objective truth is the content of our knowledge that does not depend on man and humanity.
2) Since the world is limitless in space, infinite in time and inexhaustible in depth, all knowledge is limited by the knowledge of the era and the measure of comprehension of the subject. Any knowledge is a relative truth. Recognition of the relative nature of our knowledge protects us from arrogance, ossification of knowledge, and dogmatism.
3) The question is whether a person and humanity can cognize the entire objective world as a whole?
Absolute truth is complete objective knowledge of the surrounding world. Is it achievable? absolute truth? No, because the world is infinite. Yes, absolute truth is, in principle, unattainable, since finding any relative truth is finding a grain of absolute truth. This contradiction is objective, not fictitious. Understanding what absolute truth is protects us from relativism.
Answers 35. Materialistic and idealistic understanding of history: their essence and opposition.
Marx never used the term “historical materialism,” which after his death came to designate his metatheory of society. This term was introduced by Engels. Marx preferred to use the more cautious expression “materialist understanding of history,” thereby implying that we are not talking about philosophical system , but about a certain theoretical and methodological position or attitude. The essence of this understanding is expressed in Marx’s famous preface to the work “A Critique of Political Economy”: “In the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, necessary, relations independent of their will - relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces. The totality of these production relations constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond. The method of production of material life determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness.” At the same time, the materialist understanding of history contained the most important position for social science that societies and groups cannot be explained by the ideas they have about themselves create that behind various kinds of ideologies it is necessary to strive to discover the deep foundations of social reality. Reducing this reality to the economic subsystem was certainly erroneous. But the inclusion of this subsystem in the social system, the analysis of its relationships with other subsystems of society were undoubtedly fruitful. An idealistic understanding of history is an understanding of the historical process based on the recognition of the primacy of social consciousness in comparison with social being, absolutizing and mystifying subjective factors in history. I.p.i. has epistemological roots, which lie in the difficulty of distinguishing between the objective factors of history hidden in the depths of the processes of material production, and the role of ideas and the conscious activity of outstanding individuals appearing on the surface of historical events. The reason for the class roots of i.: p. i. - class interests that encourage the creation of theories beneficial to the exploiters, justifying their goals and policies. From ancient times From time to time, the prevailing view was that historical events were directly determined by the will of the gods, divine providence, fate, and fate. In contrast to these theological views of Fr. Enlighteners and materialists put forward statements about the conscious activity of people who, of their own free will, establish social orders (Social Contract theory), while noting the social consciousness of the people of a given era (“opinion rules the world”) as the determining force of history. IN Lately in I.p.i. the leading place is occupied by technocratic ideas, the absolutization of the role of technology in historical development (theories of industrial society, stages of economic growth, “post-industrial society” theory).
Question 3. Materialism and idealism, their epistemological and social roots, role in philosophizing.
The question of the relationship between matter and consciousness, i.e. in fact, the relationship between the world and man is the main question of philosophy. The main question has 2 sides. 1. What comes first, consciousness or matter? 2. How do our thoughts about the world relate to this world itself, i.e. do we know the world?
From the point of view of revealing the 1st side of the main question of philosophy in the system of general philosophical knowledge, the following directions are distinguished: a) materialism; b) idealism; c) dualism.
Materialism is a philosophical movement that asserts the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness. Idealism is a philosophical movement that asserts the opposite of materialism. Dualism is a philosophical trend that asserts that matter and consciousness develop independently of each other and run in parallel. (Dualism did not stand up to the criticism of time)
Variations of Materialism and Idealism: 1. Naive materialism of the ancients(Heraclitus, Thales, Anaximenes, Democritus) Essence: Matter is primary. This matter meant material states and physical phenomena that, upon simple observation, were discovered to be global, without attempts at scientific justification, simply as a result of ordinary observation of the environment at the level of naive explanation. They argued that what exists en masse around people is the origin of everything. (Heraclitus - fire, Thales - water, Anaximenes - air, Democritus - atoms and emptiness.) 2. Metaphysical- matter is primary to consciousness. The specifics of consciousness were ignored. The extreme version of metaphysical materialism is vulgar. “The human brain secretes thoughts the same way the liver secretes bile.” Metaphysical materialists of the late 18th century - Diderot, La Mettrie, Helvetsky. 3. Dialectical materialism(Marx and Engels) Essence: Matter is primary, consciousness is secondary, but the primacy of matter in relation to consciousness is limited by the framework of the main philosophical question. Consciousness is derived from matter, but, having arisen in matter, it in turn can significantly influence and transform it, i.e. There is a dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness. Varieties of Idealism: 1. Objective– proclaims the independence of the idea, God, spirit, the ideal principle in general, not only from matter, but also from human consciousness (Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Hegel) 2. Subjective idealism: asserts the dependence of the external world, its properties and relationships on human consciousness. (J. Berkeley). the extreme form of subjective idealism is solipsism, according to which we can only speak with certainty about the existence of my own “I” and my feelings.
Within the framework of these forms of idealism, there are various varieties of it. Let us note, in particular, rationalism and irrationalism. AND dealistic rationalism: the basis of all existence and its knowledge is the mind. One of its most important directions is panlogism, according to which everything real is the embodiment of reason, and the laws of being are determined by the laws of logic (Hegel). AND rationalism: consists in denying the possibility of rational and logical knowledge of reality. The main type of knowledge is instinct, faith, revelation, etc., and existence itself is considered irrational.
The division between materialism and idealism existed from the very beginning of the development of philosophy. The German philosopher G. W. Leibniz (1646-1716) called Epicurus the greatest materialist, and Plato the greatest idealist. The classical definition of both directions was first given by the prominent German philosopher F. Schlegel (1772-1829). “Materialism,” he wrote, “explains everything from matter, accepts matter as something first, primordial, as the source of all things. Idealism deduces everything from one spirit, explains the emergence of matter from spirit, or subordinates matter to it.”
To adequately understand the specifics of philosophical knowledge, it is also necessary to raise the question of the relationship and nature of the interaction between materialism and idealism. In particular, two extreme views should be avoided here. One of them is that there is a constant “struggle” between materialism and idealism, the “line of Democritus” and the “line of Plato” throughout the history of philosophy. According to another, “the history of philosophy, in essence, was not at all the history of the struggle of materialism against idealism...”. The question of the origins of being is also related to the question of monism, dualism and pluralism. Monism- a philosophical concept according to which the world has one beginning. Such a beginning is a material or spiritual substance. Monism can be of two types - materialistic and idealistic. The first derives the ideal from the material. His conclusions are based on natural science data. According to the second, the material is conditioned by the ideal, the spiritual. He is faced with the problem of proving the creation of the world by spirit (consciousness, idea, God), which cannot be positively resolved within the framework of modern science. Dualism - philosophical doctrine, affirming the equality of two principles: matter and consciousness, physical and mental. So, for example, R. Descartes believed that the basis of existence are two equal substances: thinking (spirit) and extended (matter). Pluralism involves several or many initial bases. It is based on the statement about the plurality of foundations and principles of being. Example: the theories of ancient thinkers who put forward such diverse principles as earth, water, air, fire, etc. as the basis of all things. Related to the question of the origins of all things is the question of the knowability of the world or the identity of thinking and being. Some thinkers believed that the question of the truth of knowledge cannot be finally resolved and, moreover, the world is fundamentally unknowable. They are called agnostics (Protagoras, Kant), and the philosophical position they represent is agnosticism. A negative answer to this question was also given by representatives of a direction related to agnosticism - skepticism, who denied the possibility of reliable knowledge. It found its highest manifestation in some representatives of ancient Greek philosophy (Pyrrho and others)
Social and epistemological roots of materialism and idealism
Materialism and idealism and their varieties have their own social and epistemological roots (from the Greek gnosis - knowledge, logos teaching).
The emergence and development of materialist philosophy is closely connected with the labor and production activities of people. “A person in his practical activity,” emphasized V.I. Lenin, “has before him objective world, depends on him, determines his activities by him" *.
* V.I. Lenin. Full collection soch., vol. 29, pp. 169 - 170.
In the process of labor, people actively influence nature, change it and obtain the necessary consumer goods.
People's work activities and their whole lives are closely connected with each other. For this reason, in everyday life, every person does not think about whether objects and things exist or do not exist outside of his consciousness, just as he does not think about whether other people exist or do not exist. “The same experience,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “...which created in us the unshakable conviction that other people exist independently of us, this very experience creates our conviction that things, the world, the environment exist independently of us" **.
** V. I. Lenin. Full collection soch., vol. 18, pp. 65 - 66.
Materialist philosophy consciously bases its epistemology on the conclusion that directly follows from all human practice, namely: objects, things, bodies exist outside of us and independently of us; our sensations, ideas, concepts are images of the external world***.
*** See: V.I. Lenin. Full collection soch., vol. 48, pp. 102, 197 - 198.
The development of materialist philosophy is closely connected not only with the production and labor activity of people, but also with the development of scientific knowledge. This connection is expressed in the fact that the materialistic worldview discards religious-idealistic fabrications about supernatural, divine, spiritual forces that create the material world, and is based on the results of scientific research. By generalizing and processing the knowledge accumulated by practice and specific sciences, materialist philosophy contributes to a deeper understanding of the world as a whole and a comprehensive study of its component parts - inanimate nature, flora and fauna, human society, the characteristics of consciousness, its emergence and development. It is no coincidence that in this regard, the majority of the largest natural scientists stood and stand in the positions of materialism, explaining the development of nature based on itself.
On the other hand, the connection between materialist philosophy and the development of specific sciences is expressed in the fact that the correctness of the provisions of materialism is proven not with the help of a few magic phrases, but through the long and slow development of philosophy and natural science ****. The development of natural science also leaves its mark on changes in the forms of materialism *****. It is no coincidence that in the 17th - 18th centuries, when mechanics reached its highest development among all natural sciences, materialism was predominantly mechanistic, and in the mid-19th century, when great discoveries took place in the field of physics, chemistry, and biology , dialectical materialism arises.
**** See: K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 20, p. 43.
***** See: K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 21, p. 286.
Materialist philosophy was developed, as a rule, by representatives of advanced classes and social groups and was the ideology of the ascending, progressive strata of society interested in changing social relations, in the development of productive forces and the promotion of a scientific worldview. Thus, materialism of the 16th - 18th centuries. was the ideology of the bourgeoisie, in Russia XIX V. - the ideology of peasant democracy. Dialectical materialism is the ideology of the revolutionary working class, communist and workers' parties.
In contrast to materialism, idealism is associated not with science, but with religion, and, as a rule, expresses the ideology of reactionary classes and social groups rather than progressive ones. Like religion, idealism has social and epistemological roots, without clarification of which it is impossible to understand either the emergence of idealistic theories or their essence.
The idealistic idea of the world arose in the early stages of the development of society. The main reason for its appearance was the poor development of the productive forces and knowledge of people. The low level of economic development did not give people confidence as to whether they would get their own food or not. People were not yet able to explain the causes of diseases and natural disasters. The powerlessness of people in the fight against nature and the fear of its elemental forces gave rise to false ideas in their minds about supernatural forces - gods, demons, devils, etc., on whose will and desire supposedly human fate, the appearance and disappearance of animals, the movement of the sun depend and the moon, thunder and lightning, etc. Ignorance of the causes of dreams, birth and death gave them the idea of the soul as a special force ruling over the body. These various false ideas about nature, about the essence of man himself, about spirits, magical forces, etc., wrote F. Engels, have for the most part only a negative economic basis; the low economic development of the prehistoric period had as its addition, and sometimes even as its condition and even as a cause, false ideas about nature.
With the emergence of classes, mental labor is separated from physical labor. There are special groups of people from representatives of the ruling class who are engaged only in mental work and consider this work privileged in relation to physical labor. All this was the social basis for the further development of the idealistic worldview. Consciousness begins to be viewed as an independent force, rising above matter and determining its existence.
Various objective and subjective idealistic systems and systems are being created and developed.
In a class society, religious idealistic ideas become a powerful ideological weapon in the hands of the ruling classes to oppress the masses.
In addition to social roots, idealism also has epistemological roots. The process of cognition is complex and dialectically contradictory. “...Philosophical idealism,” emphasized V.I. Lenin, “is a one-sided, exaggerated, uberschwengliches (Dietzgen) development (inflating, swelling) of one of the features, sides, facets of knowledge into an absolute, divorced from matter, from nature, deified "*.
* V.I. Lenin. Full collection cit., vol. 29, p. 322.
Cognition begins with the perception of objects and phenomena by the senses. Meaning sensory knowledge huge. He who does not feel anything cannot know anything about the world around him. Subjective idealists distort this aspect of the process of cognition.
They separate sensations from an objective source - objects and phenomena, consider them not as the result of the interaction of objects and phenomena with human senses, but only as a result of the creative activity of the subject, they declare sensations to be elements, the basis of the world of things.
In the process of cognition, people connect individual objects, things, phenomena, establish common features and properties between them and express this in concepts. Idealists tear these concepts, created in the process of abstraction from concrete, sensory objects, from the material basis, declaring them either the result of the creative activity of human consciousness, supposedly not connected with the world of things ( subjective idealism), or the result of the world mind, pure thought (objective idealism).
Development scientific knowledge is unthinkable without the formation of general concepts, but it conceals within itself the possibility of thoughts flying away from reality. If behind general concepts, judgments and conclusions people do not see the real reality, features, connections and relationships reflected in these forms of logical knowledge, then they slide into the position of idealism.
The possibility of the emergence of idealism in the process of cognition turns into reality only in a class society, because here idealism and clericalism “reinforces the class interest of the ruling classes” **.
**. Ibid., p. 322.
In most cases, idealistic philosophy was defended and developed by ideologists of reactionary classes, parties and groups, who slowed down the course of history and were not interested in scientific propaganda and radical changes in social relations. Nowadays, idealism is the dominant ideology of the imperialist bourgeoisie and all its minions.
Idealism is closely related to religion. The foundations of idealism, V.I. Lenin pointed out, are essentially identical to the foundations of religion. Arguing that the world is based on spirit, idea, will, consciousness, idealism essentially provides a theoretical justification for religious dogmas about the creation of the world by a supernatural spiritual being *.
* See: V.I. Lenin. Full collection soch., vol. 18, pp. 6, 14, 19 - 25, 72 - 73, 75 - 77, 86, 179, 222, 229 - 230, 238 - 243, etc.
Idealism is a refined form of clericalism, and religion is a crude form of idealism**. “All idealists, both philosophical and religious, both old and new,” wrote K. Marx and F. Engels, “believe in inspirations, in revelations, in saviors, in miracle workers, and only according to the degree of their education it depends whether this faith takes a crude, religious form or an enlightened, philosophical form..." ***.
** See: V.I. Lenin. Full collection cit., vol. 29, p. 322.
*** K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 3, p. 536.
One of the characteristic features of modern bourgeois philosophy is the tendency to merge philosophy with theology.
However, one should also keep in mind the differences between idealistic philosophy and religion. Philosophy, including idealistic philosophy, strives to prove and substantiate its positions and appeals to reason. Religion operates with provisions designed for faith and blind perception. Further. Some idealists played a significant role in the development of problems of dialectics and forms of thinking.
Religion, as K. Marx said, was and remains the opium of the people, although many of its representatives, especially nowadays, strive to adapt to the progress of science.
Materialism and idealism and their varieties have their own social and epistemological roots (from the Greek gnosis - knowledge, logos teaching).
The emergence and development of materialist philosophy is closely connected with the labor and production activities of people. “A person in his practical activity,” emphasized V.I. Lenin, “has an objective world in front of him, depends on it, and determines his activity by it” *.
* V.I. Lenin. Full collection soch., vol. 29, pp. 169 - 170.
In the process of labor, people actively influence nature, change it and obtain the necessary consumer goods.
People's work activities and their whole lives are closely connected with each other. Therefore in Everyday life Every person does not think about whether objects and things exist or do not exist outside of his consciousness, just as he does not think about whether other people exist or do not exist. “The same experience,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “...which created in us the unshakable conviction that other people exist independently of us, this same experience creates our conviction that things, the world, the environment exist independently of us" **.
** V. I. Lenin. Full collection soch., vol. 18, pp. 65 - 66.
Materialist philosophy consciously bases its epistemology on the conclusion that directly follows from all human practice, namely: objects, things, bodies exist outside of us and independently of us; our sensations, ideas, concepts are images of the external world***.
*** See: V.I. Lenin. Full collection soch., vol. 48, pp. 102, 197 - 198.
The development of materialist philosophy is closely connected not only with the production and labor activity of people, but also with the development of scientific knowledge. This connection is expressed in the fact that the materialistic worldview discards religious-idealistic fabrications about supernatural, divine, spiritual forces that create the material world, and is based on the results of scientific research. By generalizing and processing the knowledge accumulated by practice and specific sciences, materialist philosophy contributes to a deeper understanding of the world as a whole and a comprehensive study of its component parts - inanimate nature, flora and fauna, human society, the characteristics of consciousness, its emergence and development. It is no coincidence that most of the greatest natural scientists stood and stand on the position of materialism, explaining the development of nature based on itself.
On the other hand, the connection between materialist philosophy and the development of specific sciences is expressed in the fact that the correctness of the provisions of materialism is proven not with the help of a few magic phrases, but through the long and slow development of philosophy and natural science ****. The development of natural science also leaves its mark on changes in the forms of materialism *****. It is no coincidence that in the 17th - 18th centuries, when mechanics reached its highest development among all natural sciences, materialism was predominantly mechanistic, and in the middle of the 19th century, when great discoveries took place in the field of physics, chemistry, and biology, dialectical materialism arose.
**** See: K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 20, p. 43.
***** See: K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 21, p. 286.
Materialist philosophy was developed, as a rule, by representatives of advanced classes and social groups and was the ideology of the ascending, progressive strata of society interested in changing social relations, in the development of productive forces and the promotion of a scientific worldview. Thus, materialism of the 16th - 18th centuries. was the ideology of the bourgeoisie, in Russia in the 19th century. - the ideology of peasant democracy. Dialectical materialism is the ideology of the revolutionary working class, communist and workers' parties.
In contrast to materialism, idealism is associated not with science, but with religion, and, as a rule, expresses the ideology of reactionary classes and social groups rather than progressive ones. Like religion, idealism has social and epistemological roots, without elucidating which it is impossible to understand either the emergence of idealistic theories or their essence.
The idealistic idea of the world arose in the early stages of the development of society. The main reason for its appearance was the poor development of the productive forces and knowledge of people. The low level of economic development did not give people confidence as to whether they would get their own food or not. People were not yet able to explain the causes of diseases and natural disasters. The powerlessness of people in the fight against nature and the fear of its elemental forces gave rise to false ideas in their minds about supernatural forces - gods, demons, devils, etc., on whose will and desire supposedly human fate, the appearance and disappearance of animals, the movement of the sun depend and the moon, thunder and lightning, etc. Ignorance of the causes of dreams, birth and death gave them the idea of the soul as a special force ruling over the body. These various false ideas about nature, about the essence of man himself, about spirits, magical forces, etc., wrote F. Engels, have for the most part only a negative economic basis; the low economic development of the prehistoric period had as its addition, and sometimes even as its condition and even as a cause, false ideas about nature.
With the emergence of classes, mental labor is separated from physical labor. There are special groups of people from representatives of the ruling class who are engaged only in mental labor and consider this work privileged in relation to physical labor. All this was the social basis for the further development of the idealistic worldview. Consciousness begins to be viewed as an independent force, rising above matter and determining its existence.
Various objective and subjective idealistic systems and systems are being created and developed.
In a class society, religious idealistic ideas become a powerful ideological weapon in the hands of the ruling classes to oppress the masses.
In addition to social roots, idealism also has epistemological roots. The process of cognition is complex and dialectically contradictory. “...Philosophical idealism,” emphasized V.I. Lenin, “is a one-sided, exaggerated, uberschwengliches (Dietzgen) development (inflating, swelling) of one of the features, sides, facets of knowledge into an absolute, divorced from matter, from nature, deified "*.
* V.I. Lenin. Full collection cit., vol. 29, p. 322.
Cognition begins with the perception of objects and phenomena by the senses. The significance of sensory knowledge is enormous. He who does not feel anything cannot know anything about the world around him. Subjective idealists distort this aspect of the process of cognition.
They separate sensations from an objective source - objects and phenomena, consider them not as the result of the interaction of objects and phenomena with human senses, but only as a result of the creative activity of the subject, declare sensations to be elements, the basis of the world of things.
In the process of cognition, people connect individual objects, things, phenomena, establish common features and properties between them and express this in concepts. Idealists tear these concepts, created in the process of abstraction from concrete, sensory objects, from the material basis, declaring them either the result of the creative activity of human consciousness, which is supposedly not connected with the world of things (subjective idealism), or the result of the world mind, pure thought (objective idealism ) .
The development of scientific knowledge is unthinkable without the formation of general concepts, but it conceals within itself the possibility of thought departing from reality. If behind general concepts, judgments and conclusions people do not see the real reality, features, connections and relationships reflected in these forms of logical knowledge, then they slide into the position of idealism.
The possibility of the emergence of idealism in the process of cognition turns into reality only in a class society, because here idealism and clericalism “reinforces the class interest of the ruling classes” **.
**. Ibid., p. 322.
In most cases, idealistic philosophy was defended and developed by ideologists of reactionary classes, parties and groups, who slowed down the course of history and were not interested in scientific propaganda and radical changes in social relations. Nowadays, idealism is the dominant ideology of the imperialist bourgeoisie and all its minions.
Idealism is closely related to religion. The foundations of idealism, noted V.I. Lenin, are essentially identical to the foundations of religion. Arguing that the world is based on spirit, idea, will, consciousness, idealism essentially provides a theoretical justification for religious dogmas about the creation of the world by a supernatural spiritual being *.
* See: V.I. Lenin. Full collection soch., vol. 18, pp. 6, 14, 19 - 25, 72 - 73, 75 - 77, 86, 179, 222, 229 - 230, 238 - 243, etc.
Idealism is a refined form of clericalism, and religion is a crude form of idealism**. “All idealists, both philosophical and religious, both old and new,” wrote K. Marx and F. Engels, “believe in inspirations, in revelations, in saviors, in miracle workers, and it depends only on the degree of their education whether this faith takes a crude, religious form or an enlightened, philosophical form..." ***.
** See: V.I. Lenin. Full collection cit., vol. 29, p. 322.
*** K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 3, p. 536.
One of the characteristic features of modern bourgeois philosophy is the tendency to merge philosophy with theology.
However, one should also keep in mind the differences between idealistic philosophy and religion. Philosophy, including idealistic philosophy, strives to prove and substantiate its positions and appeals to reason. Religion operates with provisions designed for faith and blind perception. Further. Some idealists played a significant role in the development of problems of dialectics and forms of thinking.
Religion, as K. Marx said, was and remains the opium of the people, although many of its representatives, especially nowadays, strive to adapt to the progress of science.