Lenin (as an observer of Marxist philosophical science) regarded materialist dialectics as learning concerned with the principles of development of the objective world and the principles of the development of knowledge (in which the objective world is reflected within the various categories of dialectics). He said: “Logic is not learning concerned with the external form of thought, but learning concerned with the principles of development of all material, natural and spiritual things; namely, learning concerned with the principles of development of all of the concrete content of the world and knowledge of it. In other words, logic is concerned with the sum total and conclusion of the history of the world’s knowledge”.[2-195] Lenin emphasised the significance of materialist dialectics as a general scientific methodology, and this was because of the conclusions [p. 198] arrived at by the system of dialectics from the history of world knowledge, (p. 277) It was because of this that he said: “Dialectics is the history of knowledge”.
The meaning of the definition, given above, which Lenin gave to scientific materialist dialectics and its object is as follows: firstly, materialist dialectics, as with any other science, has its object of study, and this object is the most general principles of development of nature, history and human thought. Moreover, the task of materialist dialectics when studying is not to arrive, through thought within the brain, at the relationship which exists between various phenomena, but to arrive at that relationship through investigation of the phenomena themselves. There exists a fundamental distinction between this view of Lenin’s and that of the Menshevik idealists (who in fact depart from concrete science and concrete knowledge) over the categories of study which function as the object of materialist dialectics. Because the Menshevik idealists have attempted to establish a philosophical system whose various categories have become dissociated from the actual developments of the history of knowledge, social science and natural science, they have in fact abandoned materialist dialectics. Secondly, all of the various sciences (mathematics, mechanics, chemistry and physics, biology, economics and other natural sciences and the social sciences) study the various aspects of the development of the material world and its knowledge. Because of this, the principles of the various sciences are restricted in a narrow and one-sided way[2-196] by concrete realms of study. Materialist dialectics is however quite different; it is the universalisation, the totality, the conclusions and the finished product of all the general content of value from all of the concrete sciences and all of humankind’s other scientific knowledge. In this way, the concepts, judgements, and principles of materialist dialectics constitute exceedingly extensive laws and formulations (incorporating the most general principles of all of the sciences, and consequently incorporating the essence of the material world). This is one side of the picture and from this perspective, materialist dialectics is a world view. From the other perspective, materialist dialectics is the logical and epistemological foundation for genuine scientific knowledge liberated from all idle speculation, fideism[2-197] and metaphysics; hence it is at the same time the only true, objectively reliable methodology for the study of concrete science. This further adds to our comprehension of what we mean when we speak of materialist dialectics or dialectical materialism as a unified system of world view and methodology. In this way can also be understood the errors of the vulgarisers and distorters of Marxist philosophy who deny its philosophical right of existence.
(p. 278) [p. 199] In relation to the problem of the object of philosophy, Marx, Engels, and Lenin all opposed the separation of philosophy from concrete reality and allowing philosophy to be transformed into various independent entities. They pointed out the necessity of a philosophy which grew out of analysis founded on real life and real relations, and opposed the approach of formal logic[2-198] and Menshevik idealism in which logical concepts and a natural world of logical concepts are the object of study.[2-199] The so-called philosophy which grew out of analysis founded on real life and real relations is none other than the theory of development[2-200] of materialist dialectics. Marx, Engels, and Lenin all explained that materialist dialectics was a theory of development. Engels described materialist dialectics as the theory “of the general principles of development of nature, society and thought”.[2-201] Lenin regarded materialist dialectics as “the theory of development which is most profound, multifaceted and richest in content”. They all consider that[2-202] “the forms of all principles of development stated by all other philosophical theories beside this theory, in their narrowness and lack of content cut in two the actual process of development of nature and society”. (Lenin) And the reason why materialist dialectics has been described as the theory of development which is most profound, multi-faceted, and richest in content, lies in the fact that materialist dialectics reflects, in a manner which is most profound, multi-faceted, and rich in content, the contradictoriness and leaps within the process of change of nature and society; there is no other reason.
One further problem must be resolved in this question of the object of philosophy, and that is the problem of the unity of dialectics, logic, and epistemology.
Lenin emphatically pointed out the identity of dialectics, logic, and epistemology, stating this is “an extremely important question” and that “the three terms are superfluous, they are one and the same thing”. He fundamentally opposed those Marxist revisionists whose approach involves treating the three terms as completely distinct and independent theories.
Materialist dialectics is the only scientific epistemology and it is also the only scientific logic. Materialist dialectics studies the emergence and development of our knowledge of the external world, studies how we move from a state of ignorance to one of knowledge and the transformation of incomplete knowledge to more complete knowledge; it studies the increasingly profound and extensive reflection of the principles of development of nature and society in the mind [p. 200] of humankind. This is the unity of materialist dialectics and epistemology. Materialist dialectics studies the most general principles of (p. 279) development of the objective world, and studies the form reflected in thought of the most developed behaviour and characteristics of the objective world. In so doing, materialist dialectics studies the principles of emergence, development, passing away and mutual transformation of each process and phenomenon of material reality; at the same time, it studies the forms in which the principles of development of the objective world are reflected in human thought. This is the unity of materialist dialectics and logic.
To gain a thorough understanding of the reasons why dialectics, logic, and epistemology constitute a single entity, we will turn now to an examination of how materialist dialectics resolves the problem of the mutual relations between the logical and the historical.
Engels said: “In relation to the method of thought of the various philosophers,[2-203] the strong point of the Hegelian method of thought resides in the extremely rich historical sensitivity which permeates its foundations. Although its form is abstract idealist, the development of its thought nevertheless frequently parallels the development of world history. Moreover, history was actually taken as the verification of thought. History frequently progresses through leaps and in a confused manner. Consequently, if history is to be complied with, not only must a mass of insignificant data be given attention, but thought must be allowed to pursue a discontinuous path. At such a moment, the only appropriate method was the logical method. However, this logical method was basically still an historical method, but one which had abandoned its historical form and accidental character”. Marx, Engels, and Lenin paid ample attention to this concept of “the unity of the development of logic and history”. “The categories of Logic are abbreviations for the ‘endless multitude’ of ‘particulars of external existence and of action’”. “Categories constitute divided compartments which help us comprehend the dividing line between classes of things”. “The practical activity of man had to lead his consciousness to the repetition of the various logical figures thousands of millions of times in order that these figures could obtain the significance of axioms”. “Man’s practice, repeating itself a thousand million times, becomes consolidated in man’s consciousness by figures of logic. Precisely (and only) on account of this thousand-million-fold repetition, these figures have the stability [p. 201] of a prejudice, an axiomatic character”.[2-204] These words of Lenin’s demonstrate clearly the distinguishing characteristic of materialist dialectical logic which is dissimilar to formal logic which regards (p. 280) its principles and categories as empty, divorced from content and autonomous, and whose form is unconcerned with content. It is also unlike Hegel, who regarded logic as estranged from the material world, an independently developing conceptual essence, reflected and transplanted in our minds; moreover, he perceived the manifestation of the movement of matter as being dealt with via a process of creation in the mind. Basing himself on the identity of existence and thought, Hegel saw the identity of idealism in the identity of dialectics, logic, and epistemology. In contrast, the identity of dialectics, logic, and epistemology within Marxist philosophy is founded on a materialist basis. Only when materialism is employed to resolve the question of the relationship of existence and thought, and only when one adopts the position of reflection theory, can the problems of dialectics, logic, and epistemology be completely resolved.
2-199
“… natural world of logical concepts
2-200
2-201
See Frederick Engels,
2-202
According to the editors of
2-204
These quotes are from Lenin’s “Conspectus of Hegel’s