UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The epistemological and metaphysical implications of dialectical materialism Edwards, James Henry 1952

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1952_A8 E2 E7.pdf [ 4.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106562.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106562-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106562-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106562-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106562-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106562-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106562-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106562-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106562.ris

Full Text

THE  EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METAPHYSICAL  IMPLICATIONS OF D I A L E C T I C A L MATERIALISM by JAMES HENRY EDWARDS A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER in  OF ARTS  the Department of  PSYCHOLOGY a n d PHILOSOPHY We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e d from c a n d i d a t e s f o r the d e g r e e o f MASTER OF ARTS.  Members o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f PSYCHOLOGY a n d PHILOSOPHY  THE  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH April,  1952  COLUMBIA  ABSTRACT The  E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l and  Metaphysical  Dialectical  The tially  the  theory  product  nov,  little  refining  theory.  In t h i s  a  postulates  B.  S. H a l d a n e have a d d e d  the  exception the  I. Lenin's has  Marxian  be  said  that they  as  attempted  Such Marxians, as  S. H a l d a n e  as  s o c i a l i s t s may they  consider  of technique tionary  a l s o be  the  i n f l u e n c e on  the  written i s primarily opposing  philosophic  schools original  t h a n as  and  considered,  by  i n the and  classified  Lenin  and to  epistemology.  many o f  the  present  as d e v i a t i o n i s t s more i n t e r m s  a highly integrated  schematism.  Dietzgen  d e v i a t i o n i s t s owing  d i a l e c t i c a l materialism  rather  in  of  of Plekhanov  are  "purists",  J . B.  very  Engels.  the m o d i f i c a t i o n s they  day  main t e n e t s  and  Plekha-  contributions or  e l a b o r a t i n g the  what he  essen-  George  a l s o a s u b s t a n t i a t i o n of the  same may  is  o f K a r l Marx  I. Lenin,  d e v i a t i o n i s t s and  o f Marx a n d  The  most o f  J.  as V.  r e s p e c t , V.  of the  t h o u g h t , and  with  and  is negligible;  criticism  of  and  efforts  e i t h e r i n terms of o r i g i n a l  terms o f  theory  joint  Such men  J . Dietzgen,  of  Materialism.  of d i a l e c t i c a l materialism  of the  Prederich Engels.  Implications  revolu-  In view o f these  divergencies  of opinion, the  w r i t e r has t r e a t e d d i a l e c t i c a l m a t e r i a l i s m the  theory  formulated  by L e n i n .  The v i e w s  by Marx a n d E n g e l s of t h e Marxian  however, a l s o c o n s i d e r e d aims a n d p o s t u l a t e s  The final the  as p r i m a r i l y  and r e i t e r a t e d  deviationists are,  wherever they  of the philosophy  throw  light  on t h e  o f ffiarx a n d E n g e l s .  schematism examined i s always g i v e n  i n the  a n a l y s i s , t h e same t e s t , n a m e l y , does i t s u b s t a n t i a t e  over a l l claim that  meaningful universe  this  i s a dynamic,  i n w h i c h man i s a b l e  completely  to actively  i n f l u e n c e h i s e n v i r o n m e n t , a n d i n w h i c h man i s , h i m s e l f , influenced  by t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . The  general  Marxian concept of any type enunciated  conclusion  o f mind as a r e f l e c t o r  of t e l e o l o g i c a l i n this  metaphysical  philosophy  i s not i m p l i c i t  and e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l t e n e t s .  t h e dynamic n a t u r e  possible  to logically  a specific  that  there  deduce f r o m a p l u r a l i t y  In other  of novelty,  i t i s not of causes  of the c o l l a p s e  words, the w r i t e r  i s no s o u n d b a s i s f o r t h e c l a i m  c e r t a i n e v e n t s must i n e v i t a b l y  i  i n i t s basic  In a d d i t i o n ,  o f terms and e n t i t i e s ,  of capitalism.  determinism  b r e a k , emergence  e f f e c t , e.g., the i n e v i t a b i l i t y  or negation maintains  and the r e j e c t i o n  f a c t o r , the a c t i v e  owing t o the concepts o f abrupt and  i s t h a t , owing t o the  occur  a t some f u t u r e  that time.  In s h o r t to postulate m e r g i n g two idealism.  an  the  theory  i s an u n s u c c e s s f u l  active deterministic philosophy  schools  attempt through  of thought, namely, m a t e r i a l i s m  and  CONTENTS  Page Introduction Part  1.  The  I Heritage  of  Dialectical  Materialism. 1.  Greek M a t e r i a l i s m .  2.  Modern M a t e r i a l i s m .  3.  V i e w s on t h e and M a t t e r . The H e g e l i a n  4.  1. 1. 14.  Nature  of  Mind 18. 24.  Dialectic.  P a r t I I . The E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l Metaphysical I m p l i c a t i o n s of Dialectical Materialism.  and  1.  The  Subject-Object  2.  The  Concept o f Mind.  38.  3.  The  Unity  53.  4.  The  Negation of  5*.  Quantity-Quality.  6.  The  III.  of  Theory of  Conclusion.  Concept.  35.  Opposites. the  Negation.  Causality.  35.  57. 59. .62.  70.  I.  Introduction  Karl Heinrich came f r o m a m i d d l e at  the  c l a s s Jewish family.  u n i v e r s i t i e s of  contact  w i t h the  of economic  at  that  the  of the  Britain  P r a n c e , were o n l y  Opportunity to background of English as  e v e r y day  observe the  new  the  political writings French  and  of these in  that  ideas  and  the  in  the  most  time. a  reaction.  concepts . which  of such c o u n t r i e s  had as  develop.  t r a d e - u n i o n i s m , as theories and  as e x e m p l i f i e d and  the  analysis.  in  new the  r a d i c a l i s m of the lived.  The  and  young  influence  period  dissatisfied  well  and  early English  problems of the and  the  industrial societies,  a background of  a l s o the  Marx becoming c r i t i c a l  came  that  political  political  Marx's y o u t h was plus  at  beginning to  against  Utilitarians,  socialists,  Hegelians,  life  English  economic i d e a s ,  of the  educated  j u s t emerging from  available f o r observation  T h u s , i t was  was  German d e v e l o p m e n t a g a i n s t  French p o s t - r e v o l u t i o n a r y  s t r u g g l e s , was  time  democratic  i n d u s t r i a l i s m and  1818,  represented  democratic  become p a r t  in  B e r l i n where he  b a c k w a r d n e s s and  i n d u s t r i a l i s m and  and  He  German i n t e l l e c t u a l s  Germany was  The  Bonn a n d  y o u n g H e g e l i a n s who  advanced s e c t i o n of  state  Marx, b o r n i n T r i e r  with  resulted the  II.  extreme  Idealism of Hegelian  philosophy.  He,  therefore,  began t o s e a r c h f o r a more p r a c t i c a l mode o f  expression  of s o c i a l  young  criticism  than  the  Idealism  of the  Hegelians. I n 1843,  Marx moved t o P a r i s where he  the e d i t o r s h i p of the Only  one  "Deutsch-franzosische  i s s u e appeared but  w r i t i n g of t h i s  political the  theory  economy, a n d ,  work was freed  a critical  both  theory  of  was  wrote Die  the  Engels  ages.  from H e g e l i a n  i.e.,  the  c e p t s have form may  i t i s two  dynamic c o n c e p t  determinism  1845,  been p a r t  t r a c e d t o the  Idealism  of This which  and  f o r m u l a t i o n of  the  most t h e o r i e s ,  been h a n d e d down f r o m  concepts  of r e a l i t y  blended and  emanating from M a t e r i a l i s m .  the  into concept  Both t h e s e  other  one, of con-  o f p h i l o s o p h i c s p e c u l a t i o n , i n some  or o t h e r , f o r over be  p u b l i s h i n g of  materialism.  o f much t h a t has  In a sense,  of  Deutsche I d e o l o g i c .  i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the  dialectical  result  study  collaboration  Dialectical materialism, like is  formulation  Later i n  the  statement  d i s c u s s i o n o f German p h i l o s o p h y  Marx a n d  consequently  Philosophle.  B r u s s e l s where, w i t h  P r e d e r i c h E n g e l s , he  The  l e d to a d e t a i l e d  i n a d d i t i o n , the  N a t i o n a l f l k o n o m i c und  Marx moved t o  of h i s t o r y .  over  Jahrbucher".  i t contained a clear  o f Marx's n e w l y f o r m e d t h e o r y and  took  two  thousand years.  Greek t h i n k e r s o f t h e  Their history fifth  century  Ill.  B.C.,  i n particular, Heraclitus  seventeenth cepts  Democritus.  and e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s A.D.  In  con-  o r t h e o r i e s were amended and e l a b o r a t e d u n t i l  they  as two  Realism.  The  guidance  o p p o s i n g f o r c e s , namely, I d e a l i s m and  later  an a t t e m p t e d  half  compromise  of the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y of these  o f Immanual K a n t .  revolt  of H e g e l .  from t h i s  The  compromise  Here, i n b r i e f ,  two  the  nineteenth century  saw  i n the extreme I d e a l i s m  i s Hegel's  metaphysical theory  state  of f l u x ,  and  that  that  the w o r l d i s i n a constant;,  i t s p a t t e r n o f change i s  tical,  i . e . , thesis-antithesis-synthesis.  if  i s t o know r e a l i t y  man  of the  dialectic;  reality  finite  finite  he  f o r i n the  are i d e n t i c a l .  reality,  must a l s o final  realize  Now,  Spirit  by  or  the c o r r e c t  which i s c o n s i s t e n t is  reason  dynamic n a t u r e  w i t h the  of  However,  then  they  which i s i n the  Cod.  process of thought  w i t h the  i t s very nature  and  "correct"  dialectic,  more a n d more o f r e a l i t y  Absolute, Idea,  t h i n k i n terms  minds o n l y g r a s p i t p a r t i a l l y .  minds a c t c o n s i s t e n t l y  dialec-  Subsequently,  analysis  Owing t o t h e  p r o c e s s o f t h i n k i n g , namely, the will  resurrec-  of M a t e r i a l i s m . Hegel maintains  if  witnessed  schools under  i n w h i c h Marx f o u n d t h e i n s t r u m e n t n e e d e d f o r t h e tion  the  t h e s e two  developed  the  and  dialectic,  dialectical.  That  i s that  f o r the u n i v e r s e i s , the u n i v e r s e  IV.  when c o n s i d e r e d i n t e r m s opposites one  of i t s p a r t s i s composed  o r c o n t r a d i c t o r i e s , w h i c h a c t and  another,  i n a concatenation  resulting  antithesis-synthesis.  E a c h one  of these  the H e g e l i a n p o i n t o f v i e w , r e s u l t s because  they are  God,  which  that  the nature  i s the  to formulate maintains  of the Whole.  of the  an A b s o l u t e  The  social  century  a rational  aspirations  democracy.  Mind  basic  of t h i s  or or  assumption i s able yet  ina l l  and  to maintain  ethical  theory  of  t h a t the  of  dialectical  State i s the  supreme I d e a  Subsequently, life,  will  i n terms  This theory  particular.  s h o u l d be  or  i f one  h i s behaviour  i s to  and  o r i e n t e d i n terms of t h e  state.  indicated earlier,  the  s o c i a l philosophy  view o f the  social  f r o n t e d the  societies  dialectic  realisation  o r Whole t h a t i s c o m p l e t e  reactionary  the  from  f o r change, and  to a s o c i e t y educated  Marx, as we  in  triads,  Spirit,  the  s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f the  live  thesis-  cosmos i s m i n d - l i k e , H e g e l  implication  l e d Hegel  U n i v e r s a l i n the  of  itself.  appear quite a l i e n  development  Idea,  Thus, w i t h  a theory that allows  respects within  twentieth  absolute  r e a c t upon  i n a higher synthesis,  a l l o r i e n t e d toward the  self-realisation  of  of Hegel  developments and of h i s e r a .  found  inadequate  problems t h a t He  in eon-  d i d , however,  method a medium w h i c h , when  see  refined,  V.  w o u l d be  invaluable  manifestations  To that  of  in relating  elaborate,  the  theory  of  of  o f i t s own  opposites  or a c t  cular  on  or c o n t r a d i c t i o n .  Instance  opposite,  the  point  of  maintains that nature  clearly  blocks,  o f man.  As  of  reality,  seeds  the  will  i t i s at  therefore,  or  contra-  any  parti-  by u n i t i n g  with  synthesis.  change p r o c e s s  that  For  i s , a point  there  is a '  stones  become an  universe.  fact,  or abrupt Its social  no  a  this  type  of  which i n essence  i n Marx's w r i t i n g s  a matter of  does  a v a l a n c h e , or a t  Engels e x p l a i n s  revolutionary  in  i s r e a c h e d where  e x a m p l e , a t what p o i n t  quantity-quality theory  illustrated  unit,  of m o t i o n i t i s , i n a s e n s e , o n l y  rolling  o f the  by  opposite  thesis or higher  i s a stream a r i v e r ?  change by h i s  the  will  l e a d t o a new  change i s a b r u p t .  collection  always  i t the  i t s a n t i t h e s i s or  i n t i m e ; and  duration  Each  within  t h e s i s o r e n t i t y as  Although within  terms o f  contains  dynamic n a t u r e  rhythm o r u n i f o r m i t y  form  L o g i c a l l y s t a t e d , each t h e s i s  or c o n t a i n s  the  highest  change i s a c c o u n t e d f o r  of nature  w h i c h , owing t o t h e  asserts  i t i s a world that i s  The  destruction.  e n t i t y implies  dict  that  change.  each m a n i f e s t a t i o n  its  d i a l e c t i c a l materialism  t h i s w o r l d i s composed o f m a t t e r , t h e  a process  various  reality.  o f w h i c h i s m i n d , and in  and . e x p l a i n i n g the  better  change  i s part  implications on  the  of are  history  application  <.: J  what  VI.  of  dialectical  fied the of  materialism  can  be  found than that  exempli-  i n h i s economic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s t o r y .  For  dynamic c o n c e p t i s c l e a r l y e n u n c i a t e d i n The  example  Poverty  Philosophy:r " A l l t h a t e x i s t s , a l l t h a t l i v e s o n l a n d and i n w a t e r , e x i s t s , l i v e s , o n l y by some movement. Thus t h e movement o f h i s t o r y p r o d u c e s r e l a t i o n s . . . Starting  siders  the  h i s t o r y o f man  the; u n d e r l y i n g things. on  that of  And,  that the  as m i n d i s c o n s i d e r e d  influence  is  things  a  force  and  c a l l y h i s t o r y , the a thing.  For  agents  social  of  these  material and  i t logically idea  act follows  t h a t man  exert  a  shape o f t h i n g s  has  considerand  in  i n t e r a c t , p r o c e e d s Marx,  p r i m a c y of t h i n g s .  i n order  i n m o l d i n g and  of  existence.  ideas the  con-  derivatives  reflect  once f o r m e d can  into  to upset  always f i r s t ,  to  itself,  i n c h a n g i n g the  T h i n g s and as  the  t h i n g i s p r i o r t o the  although, ideas  n e v e r so  of  s u b s t r a t u m . namely, mind and  material  b r i n g i n g new  f u n d a m e n t a l p o i n t , Marx  i n terms  which i s e x t e r i o r t o  i t ;  able  from t h i s  that  the  i d e a may  affecting things,  i d e a must be  The  utilized  thing become  o r more and  but  thus  " t h i n g s " , Marx m a i n t a i n s , a r e  specifibecome the  evolution.  i . Marx, K a r l , The P o v e r t y of P h i l o s o p h y , C h a r l e s H. K e r r and Co. 1910, p. 116  Chicago,  . " i  VII.  In o t h e r  w o r d s , t h e dynamics  be  found i n the conditions  in  order  prior  f o r man t o e x i s t  t o h i s existence  of h i s t o r y are t o  o f man's m a t e r i a l there  existence,i.e.,  h a d t o be p r e s e n t  o r a t t h e time  either  of h i s f i r s t  exist-  ence t h e m a t e r i a l n e c e s s i t i e s needed f o r h i s s u r v i v a l . T h u s , t h e n e c e s s i t i e s i m p o s e d upon man by n a t u r e that  the primary productive  activities  dent o f a l l forms o f s o c i e t y . activities  o f man c o n t i n u e d ,  indicate  o f man were  indepen-  However, as t h e p r o d u c t i v e new t e c h n i q u e s  were  devised  through the i n t e r a c t i o n o f the then e x i s t i n g t h i n g s human m i n d . artifacts results  The new t e c h n i q u e s  d e s i g n e d t o implement  o f the c a p i t a l i z a t i o n  embodied i n m a t e r i a l as  these  a n d t h e new  techniques  o f man's i d e a s .  t h e y i n t u r n became t h i n g s , a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y  The productive process,  ideas,  germinated  brought  about  by t h i s  determines, through the i n t e r a c t i v e  the e t h i c a l ,  cetera, ideas  These  process.  economic o r g a n i s a t i o n  activity  were t h e  f o r m s , i n f l u e n c e d t h e h i s t o r y o f man  f u r t h e r the i n t e r a c t i v e  et  i n production  and t h e  the s o c i o l o g i c a l ,  o f man.  the p o l i t i c a l ,  The c o n c e p t s a n d v a l u e s  s o c i e t y emanate f r o m t h e economic o r g a n i s a t i o n particular  s o c i e t y , plus  both i d e a s  and m a t e r i a l  of each  of that  t h a t w h i c h man h a s i n h e r i t e d , things,  from p a s t  societies.  " I n a c q u i r i n g new p r o d u c t i v e f o r c e s men change t h e i r mode o f p r o d u c t i o n , t h e i r manner o f g a i n i n g a l i v i n g , t h e y change a l l t h e i r social relations. The w i n d m i l l  VIII.  g i v e s y o u s o c i e t y w i t h the f e u d a l l o r d ; the s t e a m - m i l l s o c i e t y w i t h t h e i n d u s t r i a l capitalist." * i •  T h u s , Marx c o n c e i v e s  o f h i s t o r y as  a chain  of  c o n n e c t e d d e v e l o p m e n t s , e a c h phase o f w h i c h must be such a nature  that  d e c e s s o r ; and  s u b s e q u e n t l y men's powers i n i n f l u e n c i n g  the  course  i t can  of h i s t o r y are  a l t e r n a t i v e s which are objective  situation.  of f r e e - w i l l ,  but  men  of  form p a r t  wills  are  be  This  by  In the  i n the  Is not  to  chain  l i m i t e d only  have t o o p e r a t e .  l i m i t e d to a  possible  rather the  developed out  state of  the  ideas  istic The  which they  institutions  that  conditions  case of the  ideas  or  h o w e v e r , the  theories  and  i n t u r n , of  cultural  patterns  the  that  men  t h e i r m i n d s on  those  those  which who  c u l t u r a l and of  they  have  they counted  because material-  their  time.  were  i n t e r a c t i o n o f the of t h e i r  given  existence  within  great  opportunities  still,  then e x i s t i n g  s o c i e t y on  their  organizations  minds,  and  patterns.  Consequently, asserts the  of a  f r e e - w i l l s of  which they p o s t u l a t e d  r e s u l t o f the  organisations and  the  the  pre-  between  light  c a u s a l i t y , and  posed f i t t e d  and  choice  t o deny t h e  appeared i n h i s t o r y , i t i s argued that the  of i t s  of  political,  l e g a l and  ethical  Marx, w i t h i n  any  society  systems f o r m u l a t e d  i i . Marx, K a r l , The P o v e r t y o f P h i l o s o p h y , C h a r l e s H. K e r r and Co. 1910, p . 119  and  Chicago,  IX.  accepted  will  of  t h e power  of  production  and  also  the  laws,  in the  be t h o s e  and resources which  the class  any s o c i e t y  basic  determines  institutions  economic  on t h e s u r f a c e  assumption that  the  which  ethics,  et cetera of the society,  tend  concept  would  be t h e  However, socio-cultural employed fallacies logic  analyse The  Marx  denied  then  contradict  i t would  itself,  this  on t h e b a s i s Marx  of pro-  the  seem  that,  specific  and hence  a  static  static  and "becoming",  Is  able  t o view  it  i s , namely,  that  concept  of the  the reasoning  t o be o n e o f t h e  School  i s that  concepts  on t h e o t h e r  "being"  static  considered  and e x p l a i n a complex  dialectic,  to  moment.  resultant.  complex  uses  at that  uphold,  the ideas, the  of i n t e r a c t i o n ,  of the C l a s s i c a l  which  determines  t o perpetuate  and this  exist  to  F o r , i f t h a t mode  i s i n existence  would  serve  exists  appear  which  socio-political-economic  duction  of the principle  concepts In short,  and precepts  would  i n nature.  society  these  of society.  system which  i s dynamic  terms  I t i s t h e mode  out o f , and moreover,  complex  in  out o f the development  of production.  stratification  arise  particular  arise  basically  political  This the  which  while  which  hand,  attempting  i s dynamic  working'in  o r i n terms  of formal  by  to nature.  terms o f  of a unity of opposites,  t h e s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l - e c o n o m i ccomplex as " e x i s t i n g "  and "not-existing",  or  as "being"  and  "becoming".  existent  Hence,  although  a t any p a r t i c u l a r time  precepts,  et cetera  of  and becoming",  "being  relationship  of that  between  and therefore,  itself  Not  only  things  but, i n this  coming  into  t o which  being,  they  within  change  These  ticulars,  as, capital-labour  ruler-subject terms  things  i n terms  of matter'or  and  exemplify  and i t s e l f  the  and  complex.  new  things the  are  complex  consequently  themselves  i n terms  of p o l i t i c s ;  process  i t changes the  process  are opposites,  ethics  in a  and f i n d i n g , within  antagonistic. such  production  the ideas,  and i t s parts  i n d i v i d u a l s and i n s t i t u t i o n s  forever  emanates  of  age, i t i s i t s e l f  the  that,  t h e mode  i n par-  of economics;  and male-female i n  physics.  " T h e r e i s a c o n t i n u a l movement o f g r o w t h i n the p r o d u c t i v e forces of destruction i n the s o c i a l relations of formation i n ideas; there i s n o t h i n g immutable but the a b s t r a c t i o n of the movement. • 1  1  1  Nevertheless, a  fatalistic  only but  influence to  one; i t does  i n terms rather,  dictated  that  history  by c u r r e n t  o f human  problems.  that  history  That  of the world,  to  things  and acting! upon  are  the m a t e r i a l  but thought their  think  alone  i s , the thought  i s not i s o l a t e d from  things  can  conditions,  those that  i s not  men  economic  thoughts  stantial these  contention  not assert  o u t o f men's  the course  contemporary  makes  the Marxian  relevant that and  applying  latent  will  subitself  powers.  i i i . Marx, K a r l , The P o v e r t y o f P h i l o s o p h y C h i c a g o , C h a r l e s H. K e r r a n d C o . 1 9 1 0 , p . 1 1 9 .  XI.  To  continue,  into  existence  form  themselves,  classes, tion,  and hence  as  a s shown  petite  point  the middle  disappear  or rather  be c l e a r l y  capitalist final  existing  or  To  in  theory which  they  themselves. social  this  That  their  distribution will  and i n t e r n a t i o n a l complex and l a b o u r ,  or  i s c a p i t a l i s m i n it's the inherent  and l a b o u r  antagonism  i s epitomised  and i n  o f the c o n t r a d i c t o r y  i s exemplified.  i s , a dynamic  are determined  and also  However,  i n the proletarian  recapitulate, dialectical  that  namely,  bourgeoisie,  as c a p i t a l  of the i n c l u s i o n  entities  materialism i s  materialistic  universe,  by t h e environment  by t h e i n h e r e n t  i s , Marxism  and p o l i t i c a l  themselves  Rational  i n any e n t i t y  events  exist,  immersed  defined  capital  of produc-  three,  and  the petite  where  opposites  the  become  These-  and p r o l e t a r i a t .  of production  class,  complex  o f the economic  o f development,  of development,  the theory  and coming  classes.  i n terms  This  between  into  o u t o f t h e mode  and p r o l e t a r i a t .  stage  which  mode  The c a p i t a l i s t i c  then  existing  of c a p i t a l i s m the classes  bourgeoisie  develops,  will  arise  In the period  the c a p i t a l i s t i c  class.  above,  are c l a s s i f i e d  at the present  capitalist,  entities  the socio-political-economic  Marx m a i n t a i n s ,  organization. are,  within  these  nature  of the events  maintains  that  or events  contain  own a n t i t h e s i s w h i c h  alone  i n which  material, within  i s sufficient  XII.  to  cause  tion  to  event, the  a  new  the  opposite  there  nature  event  are  of  an  Thus, which  events  opposites, negation  are  any  inevitability  In i.e.,  the  of  the  negate  or  contradictory  external  a  present  opposites  event.  contained  which  also  on  the  basis  determined asserts  of  a  by the  inevitability  collapse  second  part  or  or  of  of  negation  this  of  work,  the  very  the  writer  will  to  show  that  the  inevitability  cannot  be  of  Marxian  matter,  Now,  of  Marxism  reflecting be  as  It  of  one  be  the  of  the  of  order this  nature  this mind  of  is  mind, then  materialism  an  view  Marxian  a  and  theory  higher to  of  active that  an  and  form  Itself.  i f the  i n what  writers,  metaphysical  examined.  introduction  is external  dialectic  by  sense  true is  revolutionary active  cannot  be  detervalidly  epistemological  materialism.  that  work  which  be  basis,  maintained.  in  that  writer's  dialectical  In part  that  true  enunciated  i n terms  tenets  is  shown  holds  dialectical  philosophy?  held  the  a l l matter  or  minism,  been  philosophy  i f this  nature  also  universally  the  capitalism.  will  try  In  the  e n t i t y , e.g.,  view  that  an  external  this  has  within  universe  i n t e r n a l and  p a r t i c u l a r event the  dynamic  of  It  addi-  qualify'  metaphysical•basis,  Moreover,  In  event.  Marxism  of  or  this  may  outlines  be some  seen of  quite  the  clearly,  cardinal  XIII.  philosophical different  schools  problems. of  problems  In  through  position  of  any  on  this  will,  The Marxian  enunciated  the  of  in this  and of  to  the the  the  of  abrupt  nature  of  of  causality  does  tenet  of  the  inevitability  owing  to  the  tenets  of  will  does  events.  of  abrupt  of  the  seen Marxian  apparent.  and  to  the  the  rejection  active  determinism  implicit  i n i t s basic  tenets.  break,  not  these  be  owing  principle  terms of  the  i s not  Marxian  interconnectedness  principle  factor,  how  philosophies  more  reflector,  also  solve  the  i s that  yeplstemological  the  of  a i l the  conclusion a  to  difficulties  philosophy  tenets  dynamic  tried  shows  materialism  become  as  and  influence  inherent  mind  Secondly, owing  have  teleologieal  and  ages,  dialectical  general  of  metaphysical  thought  perhaps,  concept type  past  a d d i t i o n , the  past, p e r i o d s  and  of  of  of  emergence not  of  justify  Moreover,  substantiate  particular break  causality,  and  novelty, the  theory  this  the  Marxian  events,  again  emergence  of  novelty. Thirdly, cannot for to  be  the say,  whole then  in  as  logically  postulate unless terms  there  of  the  maintained absolute  reality of  i s no  interconnectedness  which sound  can  be  there  i s no  of  sound  objective truth. viewed  particular criterion  as  a  events  events basis  That  is  schematic are  for asserting  related the  XIV.  absolute that  we  truth  approach ever In  attempt  of p a r t i c u l a r  Marxian  schools  idealism.  a t t e m p t has  because  theory  a u n i v e r s a l and  by m e r g i n g two The  or p o s i t i v e  objective  i s an  reality.  unsuccessful  revolutionary  philosophy  of t h o u g h t , namely m a t e r i a l i s m  and  been u n s u c c e s s f u l p r i m a r i l y  o f the n e c e s s i t y , f r o m t h e  of producing  or f o r m a i n t a i n i n g  c l o s e r to absolute  s h o r t , the  to produce  events  social point  a,deterministic philosophy  and  of  y e t an  view, active  philosophy.  i  Part THE  I  HERITAGE OP DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM I. Greek  Materialism  D i a l e c t i c a l materialism of a c u l t u r e , the  result  of the a c t i v i t i e s of a  p e r i o d coupled with the h e r i t a g e formulated respects vations  by Marx and E n g e l s ,  the  i s , l i k e most products  of t h a t p e r i o d .  the theory  and  concepts of m a t e r i a l i s m  have appeared as both m o n i s t i c In the m a t e r i a l i s m  and  and  and  idealism. and  pluralistic  idealism  concepts of  of the French R a t i o n a l i s t s  seen an epistemology comparable i n some r e s p e c t s  of i d e a l i s m . the ego,  leads  For example, D e s c a r t e s ' d i r e c t l y to the  predicament of man  The  p o s i t i o n , i n t u r n , i s the  may  to that  s t a r t i n g p o i n t , namely  r e c o g n i t i o n of the  i n attempting to p o s t u l a t e  objective philosophy.  of  inno-  t h a t have been a p p l i e d to the m e t a p h y s i c a l  Throughout t h e i r h i s t o r y , m a t e r i a l i s m  be  As  i s i n many  by-product of the m o d i f i c a t i o n s  epistemological  reality.  specific  a  ego-centric  completely  r e c o g n i t i o n of such a problem b a s i c premise f o r a  or  philosophy  idealism. On the  other hand, the r e c o g n i t i o n that ideas  capable of v e r i f i c a t i o n b y an appeal to a world independent of f i n i t e minds, and  are  existing  indeed s t i m u l a t i n g  finite  2. m i n d s , became f o r t h e  Cartesian  the  conception  of a  The  complexity  of a t t e m p t i n g  as  m i n d and  dualistic  school  justification  w o r l d o f m i n d and to  r e c o n c i l e two  for  matter.  unlikes,  m a t t e r , showed c o n c l u s i v e l y , however, t h e  adequacy of F r e n c h m a t e r i a l i s m  f r o m an  such in-  epistemological  standpoint. A3 predicament philosophy and  shown a b o v e , the o f man  i n attempting  i s a c t u a l l y the  objective  recognition  idealism.  basis  a  of  both  Subjective  idealism;  universal subjective  i d e a l i s m , however,  completely  s o - c a l l e d concrete  instead  a monistic  concept of the  idealism  ego-centric  to p o s t u l a t e  regards  subjective  o f the  reality  universe.  and In  dis-  postulates  essence,  Is  "... the d o c t r i n e t h a t r e p r e s e n t s the s u b j e c t itself and i t s s t a t e s and judgments as the s i n g l e immediate datum o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s , and a l l e l s e , w h e t h e r o b j e c t s i n an e x t e r n a l w o r l d o r p e r s o n s o t h e r t h a n t h e i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t whose s t a t e s a r e known t o i t s e l f , as h a v i n g a m e r e l y p r o b l e m a t i c e x i s t e n c e r e s t i n g upon a n a l o g y o r o t h e r p r o c e s s of i n d i r e c t i n f e r e n c e . * 1  However, s u c h a s u b j e c t i v e i n a d e q u a t e when t h e n a m e l y , do  quite  obvious m e t a p h y s i c a l problem  is  a l l e v e n t s emanate f r o m minds ,or Mind?  m a t t e r of f a c t ,  in a l l fields  of  philosophic  such a s u b j e c t i v e  p o s i t i o n seems t o  relativism  justifiable  empirical  monism seems  hardly  of  As  a  endeavour  l e a d t o an  i n terms  posited,  logic  extreme and  data.  1 " i d e a l i s m " , E n c y c l o p e d i a " B r i t a n n i c a , (A New Survey of U n i v e r s a l Knowledge), Chicago, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, E n c y c l o p e d i a B r i t a n n i c a I n c . , 1948, V o l . 12, p.66.  Objective from incomplete nises  idealism,  or  on  subjective  s o - c a l l e d "concrete  the  other  idealism  reality",  i n that  but  at  the  ego-centric  in  and  epistemology, i n p a r t i c u l a r .  Materialism monism and  has  pluralism.  substratum from which  culars  substrata  not  was  logical by  these  recognition  types of  of t h e . e g o - c e n t r i c  a completely  objective  common t o t h e  pre-Socratic  period  pre-Socratics  that  either  Their  and  of t h i n g s  universally valid  o r more  b a s e d on  synthesising i t w o u l d be  the  laws  possible  philosophy.  of  early  parti  Greek  predicament  of  their  deliberately ignored  i m p l i c a t i o n s , o r was  against  substrata  were, i n o t h e r  approach to  being  materialism.  i n formulating  analysing  nature  exemplify  of  universal  o f two  The  The  forms  from which d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s  materialists.  one  concept  p a r t i c u l a r s come i n t o b e i n g .  philosophy. naive  single  such  The  was  of a  combining of  philosophies  o f man  concept  the  time  cardinal distinction  pluralistic,  emanate; o r by  different  same  a l l p a r t i c u l a r s e m a n a t e , as  a m a t e r i a l i s t i c , yet universal  one  recog-  philosophy,  a l s o a p p e a r e d i n the  The  between a m a t e r i a l i s t i c  of  differs i t  the  recognises general  predicament  hand,  the  any  philosophy Greek words, subject epistemo-  naive  o f change  view and  to a r r i v e at  a  that the  Thus i t was such t h i n k e r s  that  of r e a l i t y  itself  through p a r t i c u l a r s  school  as a c h a n g i n g c o m p o s i t e that  con-  which m a n i f e s t e d  emanated f r o m a  material  substratum. Thales  (585  B.C.),  f o r example, c o n s i d e r e d the  universal  s u b s t r a t u m t o be w a t e r  tmanate.  A n o t h e r member o f t h e M i l e s i a n  mander, c o n s i d e r e d t h i s was  Milesian  as T h a l e s , A n a x i m a n d e r and Anaximenes  ceived  universal  i n the a n c i e n t  basically  from which  t o be f a l s e ,  the same as t h a t  a l l things  school, Anaxi-  but h i s  of Thales.  approach  That i s ,  A n a x i m a n d e r m a i n t a i n e d , t h a t a l l t h i n g s emanate f r o m single  primal  detailed appears  s u b s t a n c e , but i t i s n o t w a t e r .  e x p l a n a t i o n what t h e p r i m a l t o have b e e n a t t e m p t e d  however, d e f i n e which  i t as a n e u t r a l  third  He  i n the cosmic  strife  i m p o r t a n t member o f t h e  of  t h e o r y of cosmology  i s similar  b o t h T h a l e s and A n a x i m a n d e r .  also  sought t o e x p l a i n  c e p t , namely, a i r .  reality  As may  be  by A n a x i m a n d e r .  s c h o o l , A n a x i m e n e s , i s b e l i e v e d t o have His  No  s u b s t a n c e may  s e c o n d a r y s u b s t a n c e s Impose upon one  The  a  another.  Milesian  lived  b e f o r e 494  i n approach  That by use  does,  to  that  i s , Anaximenes of a genetic  be s e e n , he  con-  disagreed with  Both T h a l e s a n d A n a x i m a n d e r as t o the n a t u r e o f t h e substance  of the u n i v e r s e ,  g e n e r a l approach are  b u t he  d i d agree  of these p h i l o s o p h e r s ,  d e r i v e d from a u n i v e r s a l  basic  w i t h the  namely,  entities  s u b s t r a t u m whose d e g r e e s  of  B  concentration to  be  found  Bertrand  result  i n the m u l t i p l i c i t y  in particular  R u s s e l l has  entities  and  of  attributes  events.  As  stated,  "The f u n d a m e n t a l s u b s t a n c e . . . i s a i r . The s o u l i s a i r ; f i r e i s r a r e f i e d a i r ; when c o n d e n s e d , a i r becomes f i r s t w a t e r , t h e n , i f f u r t h e r c o n d e n s e d e a r t h , and f i n a l l y s t o n e . This theory has t h e m e r i t o f m a k i n g a l l t h e d i f f e r e n c e between d i f f e r e n t s u b s t a n c e s q u a n t i t a t i v e , d e p e n d i n g e n t i r e l y upon the degree o f c o n d e n sation." 2  The all  ages up  materialism thinkers.  main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o and  including  of the m a t e r i a l i s m  nineteenth century  i s e v i d e n t In t h e monisms o f t h e s e First,  an  u n d e r l y i n g substratum  o r d e r t o e x p l a i n the m a n i f o l d e n t i t i e s particular  p o i n t i n time.  between mind a n d all  t h i n g s are  e.g.,  matter  Secondly,  i s not  classified  article,  been c o n c i s e l y  "remarks on t h e  early  Greek  at  any  distinction the  contrary  i n terms o f a g e n e t i c  concept,  a i r , water, et c e t e r a .  o u t l o o k has  a basic  The  reason  s t a t e d by H.  on  dialectical  i s posited i n  existing  admitted;  of  f o r such J . Pos  M a t e r i a l i s m o f the  an  in his  Eighteenth  Century," "The m a t e r i a l i s t i c n a t u r a l i s t s of the p r e - S o c r a t i c p e r i o d saw no r e a s o n why m a t t e r s h o u l d not comprise a l l r e a l i t y , i n c l u d i n g l i v i n g beings and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , man. They i n c l i n e d the more r e a d i l y t o t h i s v i e w b e c a u s e t h e y drew no s h a r p d i s t i n c t i o n between i n e r t and l i v i n g m a t t e r . " ^  2 New  Russell, Bertrand, A H i s t o r y o f Western Y o r k , Lemon and S c h u s t e r , p . 28.  Philosophy, 1  3 S e l l a r s , Roy Wood, and o t h e r s e d . , P h i l o s o p h y f o r t h e F u t u r e , "Remarks on the M a t e r i a l i s m o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h Century," New Y o r k , The M a c m i l l a n Co., 1949, p. 11.  Thirdly,  as n o t e d i n t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f A n a x i m a n d e r a  quantitative particulars  account  o f the a t t r i b u t e s  Parmenides,  Milesians, events He  who  not  lived  Parmenides  universe  from  not  a complete  fixed  a t by way  disregard  That  m a t t e r as a f u n d a m e n t a l be o f n e c e s s i t y i t possible  of  specific  menides'  fixed  t o use  This  of extreme  f o r observed  static  universal  and  substratum.  or s t a t i c ?  a genetic  This  concept  i s the  of a u n i v e r s a l  of  substance  indeed  as an e x p l a n a t i o n  itself  cardinal  of r e a l i t y  rationa-  dilemma  F o r , how  concept  concept  concept  s u b s t r a t u m must i t  which,  succeeding philosophers, did influence  concept  t o the  phenomena.  i s , in postulating  phenomena i f the  o t h e r t h a n i t was?  by  or s t a t i c .  d o e s , h o w e v e r , c o n t a i n t h e germ o f t h e  is  Similar  the M i l e s i a n s , however, i n r e g a r d i n g the  monistic materialism. or  B.C.  of a p r i m a l u n i v e r s a l  seems t o have b e e n a r r i v e d  It  450  school,  regarded p a r t i c u l a r e n t i t i e s  as e s s e n t i a l l y  l i s i n g and  of the M i l e s i a n  around  as the d e r i v a t i v e s  differs  specific  i s undertaken.  Another monist, was  of  i s also  becoming  reason f o r Paralthough  rejected  p r o f o u n d l y the  substratum.  "What s u b s e q u e n t p h i l o s o p h y , down t o q u i t e modern t i m e s , a c c e p t e d f r o m P a r m e n i d e s , was n o t t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a l l c h a n g e , w h i c h was t o o v i o l e n t a p a r a d o x , but the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y o f s u b s t a n c e . The word substance' d i d n o t a c c u r i n h i s immediate s u c c e s s o r s , but t h e (Conception i s a l r e a d y p r e s e n t i n t h e i r  speculations.  A s u b s t a n c e was s u p p o s e d t o be the p e r s i s t a n t subject of v a r y i n g p r e d i c a t e s . As s u c h i t became and r e m a i n e d f o r more t h a n two t h o u s a n d y e a r s one o f the f u n d a m e n t a l c o n c e p t s o f philosophy, p s y c h o l o g y , p h y s i c s and theology." 4  Now, Milesians in  the  a static  case  but,  i s considered  concept culars  monisms o f  concept  o f the  postulated, it  i n both the  P a r m e n i d e s and  of r e a l i t y  i s posited.  as a  seen, i n the logical  t h i n k i n g of  conclusion  Parmenides  drawn f r o m  the  from which a l l p a r t i -  emanate.  prior  t o P a r m e n i d e s ' t i m e , the  conclusion  b a s e d upon a u n i v e r s a l s u b s t r a t u m  postulated  by  universe.  The  considered  separately  H e r a c l i t u s , namely, t h i s Heraclitean and  is a  opposite was dynamic  d o c t r i n e , however, w i l l in.connection  with  the  be  dialec-  concept. In  terms  Greek p h i l o s o p h y , concept to a belief  of  the  the  general  shift  New  from a  of m a t t e r are  analysis.  The  Ananagoras e x e m p l i f y  4  was  pattern  Russell, Bsrtrand, Y o r k , Simon and  alive  and  philosophies  this  of thought  in  "one-substance"  " m a n y - s u b s t a n c e " c o n c e p t and  that u n i t s  quantitative and  Perhaps,  Milesian thinkers, i t i s unwittingly  of a u n i v e r s a l substratum  Just  tic  the  to a  general  capable of  of  Empedocles  trend.  A History  Schuster,  p.  of Western 52.  Philosophy,  8. For  example,  a pluralistic of  materialism  h i s predecessors  Heraclitus. that the  the p h i l o s o p h y  o f Empedocles  - a synthesis  i s exclusively principle  o f t h e monisms  Thatles, A n a x i m a n d e r ,  I t does, however, c o n t a i n the b r a i n  o f Love  Empedocles,  and  child  Anaximenes  one  by two  other basic  about  440  earth, a i r ,fire  tion for  B.C.,  Strife  regarded the  elements  and water.  i n different and  opposites  These  d i s c u s s e d under  c o n c e p t s , o r as E m p e d o c l e s  e l e m e n t s o f Love  These  of  and  Strife  "Creek  considers  attrac-  t o account reality.  i n some r e s p e c t s t o H e r a c l i t u s  ( t o be  These  ( o r more s p e c i f i c a l l y  many o f t h e e v e n t s o r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s  or  proportions  Strife.  a n d r e p u l s i o n ) were u s e d by E m p e d o c l e s  They a r e s i m i l a r of  divided  e l e m e n t s , Love  c o n c e p t s o f Love and  principle  Strife.  living  elements are u n i t e d and  and .  of Empedocles, i . e .  cosmos as a c o m p o s i t e o f f o u r e v e r l a s t i n g s u b s t a n c e s , namely,  is  1  theory  Dialectics"). them, t h e  were n o t r e g a r d e d as a  causal  e x p l a n a t i o n o f a l l phenomena; f o r he  does a d m i t t h a t  p a r t i c u l a r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s a r e chance  events.  In  o t h e r words,  are  the r e s u l t s  are  d e r i v e d from the d i f f e r e n t  of  the b a s i c  o f chance  Empedocles  believes  some  that events  a n d n e c e s s i t y , and t h a t  they  combinations or proportions  elements or substances.  Around was  the  same  432  B.C.)  His  philosophy, although  the  form  of  introducing  a  dualism  Anaxagoras a  factor  tiate was  to  them  the  account from  starting  philosophical  of  a  dualism was  of  quite  Anaxagoras,  basically and  concept  of mind  bodies. for a  thought. and  This, new  That  must  B.C.  to  Athenians. took  matter.  was,  organisms as  however,  and  i s to  say,  although  be  to  shown  orientation  matter,  animistic,  the  (500  materialistic,  of mind  point  mind  Anaxagoras  philosophy to  for living  inert  of  mind  1  period,  merely  differen-  earlier, and  the the  dichotomy  introduction concept  credited.first  of  to  for  "He d i f f e r e d f r o m h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s i n r e g a r d i n g m i n d ( n o u s ) as a s u b s t a n c e w h i c h e n t e r s i n t o t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f l i v i n g t h i n g s , a n d d i s t i n g u i s h e s them f r o m dead matter."* The 420  B.C,  i s an  pluralism. founder drew  and  a  secondary  and  primary  rejection That  about  forth by  of  mediate  as  were  something  and any  he  sweetness, merely  an  concept  analysis the  to  or  the  are of  of  by  sensation,  impli-  primary  color,  he  knowledge  conclusion  bitterness,  the  distinctions  qualities  at  opinion  external  the  about  and  i s c o n s i d e r e d as  idealistic  arrived  postulated  between monism  secondary  is,' through  qualities,  qualities so  to  o f modern m a t e r i a l i s m because  reality.  such  attempt  Democritus,  G e n e r a l l y , Democritus  between  cation  m a t e r i a l i s m of  and  that  warmth  brought  individual.  5 Russell, Bertrand, A H i s t o r y of New Y o r k , S i m o n a n d S c h u s t e r , p . 6 2 .  Western, P h i l o s o p h y ,  10.  M o r e o v e r , he must  be  these the  found i n those  forces taken  c a u s e s and  f e s t e d i n the of these  effects  universe.  and  interaction  ceives  o f m a t t e r as  comprise  of  nature;  aggregate  manifold  d e f i n e d as  things for  are  aspects  mani-  substance  a t o m s , and  the  b o t h q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and t o be  of atoms.  being  causes  basic or primal  entities,  considered  action  being  The  the  o r i n the  of the  Democritus  o f the  q u a l i t a t i v e l y , he  as  forces that  singularly  the  entities  multiplicity  also  maintained, that  the  result  of  In a d d i t i o n , he  the con-  primarily indestructible,  and  constantly mobile, i . e . ,  "... e v e r y t h i n g i s composed o f a t o m s , w h i c h a r e p h y s i c a l l y , but n o t g e o m e t r i c a l l y , i n d i v i s i b l e ; . . . between t h e atoms t h e r e i s empty s p a c e . . . . atoms a r e i n d e s t r u c t i b l e ; . . . t h e y .always have b e e n , and a l w a y s w i l l be i n m o t i o n . " 6  In his  s h o r t , i n the  f o l l o w e r s most  of t h e  by m a t e r i a l i s t s o f a a l l underlying  substratum  metaphysical causality.  main t e n e t s  t h a t have been h e l d  ages are  postulated.  i s p o s t u l a t e d as  a  First,  10-gical  basis of a theory  Secondly, a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n  dualism  a particular  is tolerated.  form  and  an  and of  between  m e n t a l phenomena i s e n u n c i a t e d ,  mind i s d e f i n e d as  I n a word, no  New  of Democritus  n e c e s s i t y f o r the  m a t e r i a l and over,  materialism  of  and  more-  matter.  Thirdly, i t is  fc> R u s s e l l , B e r t r a n d , A H i s t o r y of Western Y o r k , Simon and S c h u s t e r , p . 65.  Philosophy  11. c o n s i d e r e d as p r o b a b l e , a l t h o u g h p e r h a p s that  a c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n may  e v e n t s and e n t i t i e s  that  be  In o t h e r words,  The naturalists,  possible,  found f o r the m a n i f o l d  comprise  of D e m o c r i t u s ' atomism, s i m i l a r  not always  reality.  The  essence  to a l l materialism,  is,  determinism.  p r e - S o c r a t i c s were p r e d o m i n a n t l y who  regarded r e a l i t y  complex t h a t m i g h t  as an e v e r  materialistic changing  be u n d e r s t o o d by e x p l a i n i n g  c u l a r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s i n terms as, a i r , earth, f i r e  of a genetic  and w a t e r .  thinkers  thought t h a t matter  cluding  man.  That  i t s parti-  concept,  i s , the e a r l y  such Greek  comprised a l l r e a l i t y i n -  "The m a t e r i a l i s t i c n a t u r a l i s t s o f t h e p r e - S o c r a t i c p e r i o d saw no r e a s o n why m a t t e r s h o u l d n o t c o m p r i s e a l l r e a l i t y , i n c l u d i n g l i v i n g beings and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , man. They i n c l i n e d t h e more r e a d i l y t o t h i s v i e w b e c a u s e t h e y drew no s h a r p d i s t i n c t i o n between i n e r t and l i v i n g m a t t e r . " '  After  the c u l m i n a t i o n  the p h i l o s o p h y o f D e m o c r i t u s sidered  i t s pantheistic  became a p p a r e n t and A r i s t o t l e  i n the  forms  of the  interpretation doctrines  t o what was  con-  of the u n i v e r s e  o f S o c r a t e s and  d i e d i n 399  of m a t e r i a l i s m  reality  a reaction  in  Plato,  t o a l e s s e r ext;ent.  S o c r a t e s , who all  o f Greek m a t e r i a l i s m  which  of c o n c e p t s .  He  B.C.,  disapproved of  were f o u n d e d  on a  maintained that  rejection reality  7 S e l l a r s , Roy Wood, and o t h e r s , e d . , P h i l o s o p h y f o r t h e F u t u r e . "Remarks on t h e M a t e r i a l i s m o f Ihe E i g h t e e n t h C e n t u r y , " New Y o r k , The M a c M i l l a n Company, 1949, p . 11.  12.  or  life  i s only  e x p l i c a b l e as  approach, i n other rationalism  and  a system of ends.  w o r d s , was  basically  one  of pure  i m p l i e s a r e c o g n i t i o n o f the  predicament of philosophy  i n g e n e r a l , and  His  ego-centric  knowledge  in  particular.  Plato philosophy, and as  body. an  continues  and  distinguishes sharply  i n d e s t r u c t i b l e r a t i o n a l element  tinction which  i t became a t t a c h e d  between mind a n d  rejects a genetic  i n s t e a d an  a p p r o a c h by  of h i s p h i l o s o p h y  nessed In t h i s the  between s o u l  i n the  genetic  respect  he  i n a more  organisms.  body i s t h e  basis  approach to r e a l i t y  Aristotle, the  approach  of  represents  advocates  on  one wit-  materialist.  Platonic idealism.  attempt  s a t i s f a c t o r y - form,  dis-  methods.  Greek  against the  mind  idealism,  and  represents  o f the  of  This  common s e n s e v i e w , as  i s i n revolt  o t h e r h a n d , he  Platonism,  to  (mind)  t h a t e x i s t e d some-  analytic a priori  Plato's pupil,  On  S o c r a t i c o r i e n t a t i o n to  P l a t o , f o r i n s t a n c e , sometimes t h o u g h t  where b e f o r e  side  the  to  restore  e.g.,  " H i s a c c o u n t o f the p r o c e s s o f knowledge i n h i s l o g i c a l t r e a t i s e s e x h i b i t s t h e i d e a l i s t i c bent i n his philosophy. T h i s i s as f a r removed as p o s s i b l e e i t h e r from d u a l i s m or e m p i r i c i s m . The u n i v e r s a l I s t h e r e a l ; i t i s t h a t w h i c h g i v e s c o h e r e n c e and i n d i v i d u a l i t y t o the p a r t i c u l a r . . . . " 8  8 "Idealism", Encyclopedia Britannica, (A New Survey of U n i v e r s a l Knowledge), Chicago, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1948, v o l . 12, p. 66.  The and in  real  revolt  i d e a l i s m , however, the absolute  nothing  against  was  new  who  of sensation.  t o the doctrines  but  he a n d h i s s c h o o l  d i d keep  and  deny  of the scepticism  the v a l i d i t y  scepticism  l e d by E p i c u r u s  trustworthiness  fundamentally  Platonic  alive  Greek  believed He  added  of Democritus, materialism  of Platonic  idealism. !  'The E p i c u r e a n s were t h e most c o n s i s t e n t champions of materialism i n a n t i q u i t y . T h e y were t h e most determined enemies o f t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l . They best kept a l i v e the c o n v i c t i o n o f the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a true science of nature. They d i d most t o keep a l i v e an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the achievement o f the pre-Socratics. They were t h e s u r e s t g u a r d i a n s o f t h e v i e w t h a t man h a d made h i m s e l f b y h i s c o n q u e s t o f n a t u r e , a n d t h a t h i s c i v i l i s a t i o n was t o be u n d e r s t o o d a s a human e x p e r i m e n t . " 9  9 S e l l a r s , R o y Wood, a n d o t h e r s , e d . , P h i l o s o p h y f o r the Future, Democritus, Plato and Epicurus,  wew  lorn..  The M a c m i l l a n  Company,.1949,  p. 11.  14.  11  Modern M a t e r i a l i s m  The C a r t e s i a n r a t i o n a l i s t s of the seventeenth century conceived of matter i n terms of e x t e n s i o n , but not as an e x c l u s i v e substratum;  f o r t h e i r concept of  r e a l i t y allowed f o r the e x i s t e n c e of mind as a separate entity.  The g e n e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n  a l l too apparent  of such a dualism became  from an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s t a n d p o i n t , when  a c a u s a l nexus between mind and matter was deemed n e c e s s a r y . Now, although Descartes was not an adherent of Democritus'  theory of atoms, he d i d , n e v e r t h e l e s s , i n c o r -  porate i n t o h i s dualism many of the p r i n c i p l e s materialists,  of the Greek  e.g., a p a r t i a l use of the g e n e t i c concept  of m a t e r i a l i s m f o r e x p l a i n i n g the o r i g i n of c e r t a i n of p a r t i c u l a r s . tially started  kinds  H i s s t a r t i n g p o i n t , however, was essen-  d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of Democritus,  i . e . , Descartes  by doubting e v e r y t h i n g and subsequently r e c o g n i s i n g  the e x i s t e n c e of mind.  Democritus,  s t a r t e d with the acceptance  on the o t h e r hand,  of data r e c e i v e d through the  senses and then i n f e r s the o b j e c t i v i t y of t h i s data which s t i m u l a t e s the senses, and the s u b j e c t i v i t y r e a c t i o n t o t h i s data.  T h i s approach  of the senses'  excludes the i m p l i -  c a t i o n s of the r e c o g n i t i o n of the e g o - c e n t r i c predicament  15. of p o s t u l a t i n g Cartesian a  a universally  concept  recognition  valid  of a d u a l i s t i c  of t h i s  philosophy, while  world  i s by  stratum;  k n o w l e d g e , he  objects with  He  was  to formulate  a v o i d e d , however, the  characteristics The  spiritualising  l a t t e r , he  l a c k e d e x t e n s i o n , and  was  constitutes  Thus, the exemplified  i n the  of  the  dichotomy  completely  quite different activity  The  thinking,  from  of  between m i n d and  Cartesian dualism.  between t h e s e  two  essentially  matter  and  e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p o i n t s of  Material materialists similar  elements metaphysical  o b j e c t s were c o n s i d e r e d by or f a c t o r  which D e s c a r t e s had  r a t h e r t h e y moved o n l y as  the  view.  t o have no e l e m e n t  to that  was  bifurcation  different  proved, moreover, u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . b o t h from  the  matter.  t h e o r y , f o r m u l a t e d by D e s c a r t e s , i n o r d e r t o b r i d g e gap  of  substance,  maintained,  sole  natural  those  c h a r a c t e r i s e d w h o l l y by  a mode o f f u n c t i o n i n g that  of  substance  from  d e f i n e d as e x t e n d e d  s u b s t a n c e , he  locomotion  independent  exceedingly different  but mind or s p i r i t u a l  w h i c h was  a theory  f o r c e d t o allow f o r the e x i s t e n c e of  by c o n c e i v i n g o f m i n d as an  matter.  of h i s " s y s t e m a t i c  f o r c e d t o p o s t u l a t e m i n d as an e x c l u s i v e s u b -  then, while attempting  matter.  implication  problem.  To e l a b o r a t e , D e s c a r t e s , by use d o u b t " , was  the  of  the  French  self-action  attributed  t h e y were a c t e d u p o n .  to  organisms; In  other  16.  words, the all  basic  material  assumption  of p h y s i c a l  b o d i e s were i n e r t  when t h e y were a c t e d upon by selves. of  In a d d i t i o n ,  the a c t i o n  nence.  The  o f one  that  external  was  causes  or a f i r s t  which i s not activate action  an  God  prove  Inert  cause  through  and  motion rest.  the use  That  was  the  who  these  causes  and  can  the  Descartes,  maintains  that  c r e a t e d matter  the g e n e r a l  along with  o f an  that  the  to  ontological cause  motion  unchangeable  quantity of  motion  Further, although  o f a l l motion  i n the w o r l d ,  God  there  i n as much as b o d i e s were a c t e d  "bodies" e x t e r n a l to themselves.  secondary  by t h e u n c h a n g e a b l e n e s s regularly  or p o s t u l a t e d ,  endeavours  o f c o s m o l o g i c a l and  concludes  cause  upon o r moved by  regression  body, b u t w h i c h  whose e x i s t e n c e he  i s a l s o unchanging.  were s e c o n d a r y  infinite  Consequently,  Hence, w i t h the concept  primary  theless,  bodies.  i s , he  i s God,  the w o r l d  an  must be a d m i t t e d o f an i n e r t  was,  o r p r i m a r y mover, p o s t u l a t e s t h e e x i s t e n c e  Absolute, Descartes in  explanation  body, t h e r e b y a l l o w i n g i t t o cause  o r an A b s o l u t e  arguments. of  nature  of other i n e r t  as a f i r s t of  of the  cause  promi-  n e c e s s a r y f o r the  movement o f a body t o t a k e p l a c e e i t h e r of  given great  aspect of t h i s force  t o them-  mechanical explanation  body on a n o t h e r was  i f an e x t e r n a l  that  t h e y moved o n l y  some f o r c e  a mathematical  unsatisfactory  however, t h a t  and  s c i e n c e was  causes o f God  were a l s o so t h a t  according to f i x e d  laws.  Never-  interpenetrated  t h e y must a c t This concept  of  unchangeableness on  secondary  which it  causes  considered  led  to  actions  a  of  concepts  from  the  universe not  made a  and  s h o r t , the which  which  was  of  the.philosophies  concept  of  was  century  static  both  and  of  static.  their  manner  i t s  the In  universe  addition,  explanation  relationship  of  progressed, in a  i f considered  one the  to  the  up  a  the  and  theory as  of  to  development  ended  effect  of  the  whole  and  i t s parts.  Marx-and, E n g e l s  with  Absolute concept  materialism  eighteenth  i n terms  i.e.,  the  for a  whole  particulars In  of  as  regards  mechanical-mathematical  another.  end  as  of the  nature.  the  disagreed  French  dualistic  almost  entirely  rationalists concept  and  and  the  with  materialists  mechanistic  ,111  i  V i e w s on  the N a t u r e  Running a l m o s t of  r e a l i t y was  absolute  i n every  changing. lations  the  sense,  that  but  detected aspects of t h i s  an  e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l and  As dialectic  concepts  dynamic, i . e . , c o n s t a n t l y  theory.  being  He  That  and  i t seems t h a t  f o r e v e r changing.  and  becoming t h a t  Things  of t h i s  the  of  the  the  foremost  as a whole  was that  were c o n s t a n t l y s h i f t i n g The  which  of p a r t i c u l a r s ,  underlying  "joins"  to-  which comprise  S i m i l a r to, the m a t e r i a l i s t s , p e r i o d were a l s o  the the  d e v e l o p i n g a meta  p h y s i c s w h i c h i m p l i e d o r assumed t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a stance  may both  e.g.,  Greek p h i l o s o p h e r s  w h i c h p e r m e a t e s a l l and  termed f i r e .  others,  actuality.  the  which t h e y were n o t .  g e t h e r the m u l t i t u d e  spec  i s , from  developed,  e n v i s a g e d the w o r l d  was  dialecticians  and  f a r as t h e m e t a p h y s i c a l a s p e c t s  of them amongst the  substratum  the m e t a p h y s i c a l  of p o t e n t i a l i t y  were c o n c e r n e d ,  Heraclitus.  not  m e t a p h y s i c a l p o i n t of view  o f d i a l e c t i c s was  Aristotelian  concept  u n i v e r s e was  Plato, Aristotle  be  Whole was  the  F o r example, throughout  principle  Matter <  p a r a l l e l w i t h a, s t a t i c  concept  of H e r a c l i t u s ,  exponent  of M i n d and  sub-  w h i c h made f o r a commonness between t h e v a r i o u s  19. bodies. lying in  In the case o f H e r a c l i t u s ,  s u b s t r a t u m , because  a p r o c e s s of change,  was  out of t h i s  entity  i n turn  t h i n g a t some i n s t a n t take place  dynamic f o r c e  always  Aristotle his notion  two  or of e v e r  developed.  changing  Marxian That  i n time.  In t h i s  i n successive  within  way,  also applied  itself  or  single  action  s t a g e s , and  things  concepts  i s , every  becomes a p a r t i c u l a r  of s i n g l e  instances  cohesiveness. Consequently,  a t a p a r t i c u l a r moment b a l a n c e d i n t h e i r  Thus t h e a p p e a r a n c e  in  under-  i n i t s c o n t i n o u s change has  an o p p o s i t e w h i c h  reaction  the  the H e g e l i a n and  a u n i t y o f o p p o s i t e s was  single  are  and  was  same a t any  t h e o r y of f l u x ,  and e v e r becoming t h a t of  a  never the  and y e t h a v i n g c o n t i n u i t y it  i t was  fire  and  moreover, results.  i s possible.  the p r i n c i p l e  of becoming  of m a t t e r .  " . . . we c o n c e i v e o f m a t t e r as a c o r p o r e a l t h i n g d i s t r i b u t e d u n i v e r s a l l y , s a v e where t h e r e i s vacuum, and o f an e s s e n t i a l l y uniform nature, although subject to modification." Here m a t t e r was relation it  relative;  to that  which  being actualized  was  as i t was to r e s u l t  i n form.  Thus,  matter only i n from  i t through  the p r i n c i p l e s  p o t e n t i a l i t y , whereby m a t t e r becomes a c t u a l i z e d its  manifestation  i n some f o r m , was  in principle  10 Lange, P. A., " H i s t o r y of M a t e r i a l i s m " T r u b u e r and Company, 1879, pT 193. .  of  through similar  London,  t o the  Heraclitean doctrine  entity  comes i n t o b e i n g  herent  opposite  the  or  of o p p o s i t e s ,  o r changes b e c a u s e  because  of  opposition  u n i v e r s a l substratum, f i r e .  telian  a p p l i c a t i o n of  whereby,  the  (external) i n  there  of a c o r p o r e a l substratum f o r a l l t h i n g s . regarded the  end  plete  or f i n a l  out  rather  that  realized  cause  itself  i t i s o f no  the  difficulties  l e t the  theory  o f the  i s , in. the  particular  For  Aristotle  question  matter  inherent  serve  as an  dialectic  Aristotelian  and  import,  in this  as  concept  progression,  and  a l s o the m a t e r i a l i s t i c  e l e m e n t t h a t may  principle  development implicitly  substance  dialectic  of  approaches. and  concept  emphasis  determined through  g e n e r a l i s e , i t has of  dialectical  or e x p l i c i t l y ,  a p h y s i c a l world some d e g r e e shown t h a t  was  i n terms the  consider  on  of a  the  the  being.  a form  there  of d i a l e c t i c s .  as  i n that  explained i t has  pre-Hegelian  a fixed the  was  or s t a t i c  absolute  the  implied,  Further,  o f the  regarded  was  in  of m a t e r i a l i s m  a c c o u n t e d f o r and  absolute they  been shown t h a t  thought  dialecticians  contrary,  changing  be  but  of c a u s a l i t y . To  the  b o t h the  of  to  example  materialistic  apparent  concrete  here,  theory  historical  was  On  no  i n the  matter there  not  was  i n w h i c h b e c o m i n g f i n d s i t s com-  How,  merging  That  form  Aristo-  manifestation.  point  the  the  of i t s i n -  However, i n t h e  dialectic,  an  as  era  to been did  concept. an  ever  On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e m a t e r i a l i s t metaphysics  p o s t u l a t e d an a b s o l u t e  Instead of adopting the d i a l e c t i c they in  school of  t h a t was u n c h a n g i n g . theory o f dynamics,  p o s t u l a t e d a c a u s a l u n i v e r s e w h i c h was e x p l a i n a b l e  terms o f m e c h a n i c a l In a d d i t i o n ,  essence  motion. this  determinism  i s the  o f m a t e r i a l i s m ) as e x e m p l i f i e d i n t h e p h i l o s o p h y  of D e s c a r t e s , c o n t a i n e d a dichotomy which even w i t h theory  ( f o r such  the concept  of innate  o f mind and m a t t e r  of a Primary  Mover a n d a  i d e a s d i d n o t q u i t e b r i d g e t h e gap.  F o r e x a m p l e , D a v i d Hume o b j e c t e d t o t h e C a r t e s i a n concept  o f m i n d a n d i n n a t e i d e a s on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t  was no e v i d e n c e  t o support  Hume, i s e x c l u s i v e l y fill is  the i n d i v i d u a l  i t . Any i n d i v i d u a l m i n d , s t a t e d  t h e sum t o t a l life.  there  That  o f the experiences  i s , each i n d i v i d u a l  that  mind  f o r Hume, " . . . a bundle o r c o l l e c t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s , which succeed each other w i t h an i n c o n c e i v a b l e r a p i d i t y , and a r e i n a p e r p e t u a l f l u x a n d movement." • 1  Kant  continues  m i n d n o t as a b u n d l e ization  o r agent  line  of experiences  of experiences  principle  this  1  of thought,  but c o n s i d e r s  b u t r a t h e r as an o r g a n -  made p o s s i b l e by an a c t u a l l y  o f ^-Organization.  existing  The e m p h a s i s was upon  11 Cunningham, G. W., " P r o b l e m s o f P h i l o s o p h y , " New Y o r k , H e n r y H o l t a n d Company, p . 256.  the  necessary  experience  e x i s t e n c e o f some p r i n c i p l e  - a n e c e s s i t y w h i c h Hume d e n i e d .  conception of this  principle  o f i t as a s t a t i c The  mind cannot only a world  or changeless  r e c e i v e d from  F u r t h e r , as man  data arranged get  and r e l a t e d  the world  theory  of complete  i n a logical  possible  experience  goes beyond t h i s itself, lieu  outside  That  fall  upon t h e r e f u t a t i o n  t h a t no frame  experience.  that  t o the f i e l d of  rationalizing of  i s not j u s t i f i e d . i twill  of the  i s , Kant m a i n t a i n e d  That  be l i k e l y  and t o pose pseudo problems  of the f a c t  with  i s somewhat o f t h e  The e m p h a s i s  and t h a t pure  field  p a t t e r n by t h e  This i s the i d e a l i s t i c  be and was r e s t r i c t e d  experience,  and a r e  i t follows that f o r a l l p r a c t i -  does i n a s e n s e  possible  data are  by t h e m i n d , f o r he c a n n e v e r  i s mind-like.  rationalism.  knowledge must  as s u c h , b u t  by t h e o r g a n i s m  o r c h a r a c t e r o f our mind.  Kantian  doctrine i s that  i s , sense  argument w h i c h a s s e r t s t h a t t h e w o r l d nature  or thing.  "must" a c t i n a c c o r d a n c e  outside of experience,  c a l purposes  That  the a c t u a l world  t h e n a c t e d upon o r a r r a n g e d mind.  entity  o r know t h e a c t u a l w o r l d ,  of experiences.  organizing  Platonic-Aristotelean  basic tenet of the Kantian  grasp  Moreover, the  was a s an a c t i v e  a g e n c y as a g a i n s t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l view  o f u n i t y among  i s , i f reason  t o argue  against  or propositions i n  of r e f e r e n c e i s p o s s i b l e  23. In begins  s h o r t , Kant m a i n t a i n e d  with experience,  experience.  but  i t i s not  This i s a l o g i c a l  epistemology.  and  concept  relationship set  of  inferred  from the  F o r example, p e r c e i v i n g  implies self,  by t h e m i n d f r o m  the  not-self, nature  of  and  a  this  circumstances.  This  b a s i c concept  theory  of c a u s a l i t y ,  attempt  to formulate  He  a l l derived  c o n c l u s i o n drawn f r o m  v e r y b a s i s of K a n t i a n c o n c e i v i n g o f any  t h a t a l l knowledge  insists,  i s also  a p p l i e d i n the  i . e . , Kant r e j e c t s , a metaphysical  i n essence,  theory of  instead, that f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l  so-called  laws  of nature  resultant  of t h e  inferred  t h e v a r i o u s phenomena o f h i s  by man  experience.  any  causality.  purposes  a r e man-made, i . e . , c a u s e  relations  Kantian  the  i s the  i n respect  to  24.  IT  The  Hegelian  Hegelianism rationalistic  doctrines  also to eliminate ist.  the  attempt t o  o f Kant and  dichotomy  I t i s a monism, t h e (  b o t h i n terms and  i s an  Dialectic  of a p p r o a c h and  anti-  his followers,  of the  essence  r e f u t e the  Cartesian  and  rational-  of w h i c h i s a f u s i o n ,  content,  of  metaphysics  epistemology. "The p r e v i o u s method o f p h i l o s o p h y , s t a t e s H e g e l , r e f e r r i n g t o t h e K a n t i a n s c h o o l , has been t o p r e f a c e m e t a p h y s i c s w i t h an i n q u i r y i n t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f knowledge i n the hope o f f i n d i n g t h e a d d i t i o n s and s u b t r a c t i o n s made t o and f r o m i t s o b j e c t of k n o w l e d g e , so t h a t by d i s c o u n t i n g t h e s e f a c t o r s we may g e t a t t h e p r i m i t i v e t r u t h and s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e o b j e c t i t s e l f . This goal i s f a l l a c i o u s f o r conceding that i t i s p o s s i b l e t o c a r r y i t o u t , we a r r i v e a t a s t a g e where we have s u b t r a c t e d a l l knov?ledge f r o m the p r i m i t i v e o b j e c t , and a r e b a c k a g a i n where we started." 1  2  T h i s a p p r o a c h and with all  Hegel's view that diversification  a n a l y s i s , become  and  life  m e t h o d o l o g y was i s an  organic  antagonism w i l l ,  subservient  t o one  consistent  u n i t y i n which i n the  final  cardinal principle  12 M y e r s , H. A. "The S p i n o z a - H e g e l P a r a d o x " New Y o r k , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944, p.  Ithaca, 24.  25.  which and  i s the v e r y essence  antagonisms,  acquiescence  to higher particulars,  logic not  logic  which  at this  thinking the that  position  i s abstract,  logic  dealing  between t e r m s .  i s , dialectical logic,  The  as w e l l  state.  which  does For  only w i t h the r e l a t i o n -  I t i s , indeed, o f the f a l l a c y  subjective contained i n  o f e p i s t e m o l o g y and m e t a p h y s i c s .  mind, o b j e c t  their  by way o f h i s  o f the c o n t r a d i c t o r y .  a n d hence t h e b a s i s  divorce  or to a f i n a l  traditional  allow f o r the i n c l u s i o n  ship e x i s t i n g  about  he c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e " t r u e "  as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m  formal.logic  diversifications  and which a l l o w s o r b r i n g s  Hegel a r r i v e d dialectic  of p a r t i c u l a r  "True"  logic,  d e a l s w i t h m a t t e r as w e l l as  as s u b j e c t .  traditional  fallacy  o f both the r a t i o n a l i s t  and a n t i - r a t i o n a l i s t , m a i n t a i n e d H e g e l , was t o c o n s i d e r the  basic  alien  concepts or categories  t o matter.  That  of thought  the r e s u l t a n t  something  i s , as a p r o d u c t o f mind  on m a t t e r a n d hence i n no way a b s o l u t e . and  as  This  imposed  i s fallacious,  of the m i s c o n c e p t i o n s and o f the t r u e  n a t u r e o f human e x p e r i e n c e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y o f t h e t r u e n a t u r e o f the c a t e g o r i e s .  True  categories,  states  Hegel  " . . . s p r i n g by i n w a r d n e c e s s i t y f r o m t h e t r u e nature o f mind and from the t r u e ' n a t u r e of o b j e c t s . The whole w o r l d i s m e a n i n g f u l and t o be m e a n i n g f u l i s t o be l o g i c a l . The r a t i o n a l i s t h e a c t u a l , a n d r e a l i t y makes e v i d e n t i t s own c a t e g o r i e s a n d i t s own p r o c e s s . " ^ 13 M y e r s , H . A . "The S p i n o z a - H e g e l _ P a r a d o x " Ithaca, New Y o r k , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944, p..18.  This above,  is  general,  the and  aspects  entities, place. of  the  of  subject  outcome  of  Hegelian  of  The or  fusion  the  dialectical  dialectical  through which  The  which  are  triad  is  as  That  object  there  a  priori  object  and  manner  i n which  ditional Where  that  which an  demand t h a t entity  implies  It  i s , in  other  the  opposite: cally  an  yet,  Hegel has  terms  logic,  is  or  of "A";  the  plus  entity  from  also  which  "A"  i t s opposite  objective  "A".  of f r  the  Man  circumstances,  self is  In  the  not-self.  his  legitimate  of  cannot,  any  separate,  and  the  and  concept  concept or  entity.  from  i t s opposite,  in  a  sense,  To  "A"  and  which and  "A" gives  and  its  metaphysi-  finds  in  not  or  that "A". be  turn  realize  by  so  In separated  objective  postulated  however,  i.e.,  this  cannot  in  of  the  illustrate  is  i t s actual  which  namely,  tra-  "not-A" in  an  is  epistemologically  abstract  not-A",  identifying  This  i t s opposite.  "A"  analysis  known.  exclusive,  implies  careful  only  to  that  takes  i s the  not  term  of  This  impossible  the  cognizing  a  i s , in  of  entity  stages  knowledge,  perceiving  is  postulated  consequently  resultant  or  in  object.  tradition  logically,  postulates  d o i n g he  from  words,  inseparable  point,  from  that  the  concept  o b j e c t i v i t y , the  entity is  a  becomes  .postulation  or  of  entity  departs the  of  i s not  epistemological  Hegel  point  set  logic,  three  and  r e s u l t of  identity.  exists  of  actual  p r i n c i p l e of  mentioned  in particular.  consists  the  as  dialectical  perceiving  considered  itself  object,  triad,  triad the  and  the  concrete this  form mind,  27.  complete  synthesis  process"  has  not  or  objectivity  because  yet  completely  realized  be  considered  as n o t  his  knowledge  but  r a t h e r c o r r e c t i n t e r m s o f the  o f the  can  s y s t e m t h a t he  the  "world  itself.  Hence  " t r u e " knowledge  partial  manifestation  perceives.  "The t r u t h i s t h e w h o l e , however, i s m e r e l y the e s s e n t i a l n a t u r e r e a c h i n g i t s completeness t h r o u g h the p r o c e s s of i t s own d e v e l o p m e n t . " ^  In  s h o r t , owing t o t h e  dynamics o f t h e  process  and  t o the  finiteness  o f human m i n d s , o u r  is  relatively  true, that  i s to  only  o f the  partial  process  system  realizes  a development  self-realization  and  t o w h i c h the  The  realization  Synthesis  leads  man  of t h e  t o the  or f i n a l  considered  as  at  cosmos i s the  or m a n i f e s t a t i o n  whose v e r y  possesses  ultimate  d i a l e c t i c a l world  s y n t h e s i s can  would e x i s t absolute  However, t h e  toward a f i n a l  i t s completeness i n the  the  final  comprehended.  liquidation be  conceived  being  synthesis. different  really  of  Thus, the  t r u e ; f o r the  end  or  con-  That i s ,  f o r which  Idea  dialectic;  limited  cannot  absolute  or for  antithesis  knowledge  of time  Is  i s orientated.  w h e r e i n an  qualified  points  Idea.  absolute  the  world  synthesis,  process  of the  knowledge  c o r r e c t i n terms  ( d i a l e c t i c a l ) whereby e a c h ne?* s y n t h e s i s  s i d e r e d t o be  no  say,  world  the that be  criteria,  14 llyersP, • H p A. "The S p i n o z a - H e g e l Paradox',' I t h a c a , New Y o r k , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944, p. 20  28. i.e.,  the "system" In  a d d i t i o n , man's t h o u g h t  different  stages  process.  These  object  has not y e t reached  owing t o t h e n a t u r e  maturity.  develops  of the thought  stages are the r e s u l t a n t s  relationship  that e x i s t s ,  through  of the s u b j e c t -  f o r consciousness, i n  p e r c e i v i n g a n d c o n c e i v i n g o f any e n t i t y . "The t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f ( a n d u n d e r thing i s embraced e v e n m i n d . a n d God) e x p r e s s e s , the o b j e c t when we l e a v e o u t of s i g h t a l l t h a t c o n s c i o u s n e s s makes o f i t , a l l i t s e m o t i o n a l a s p e c t s , and a l l s p e c i f i c t h o u g h t s o f i t . . . what i s l e f t , - - u t t e r a b s t r a c t i o n , t o t a l e m p t i n e s s , o n l y d e s c r i b e d s t i l l as an ' o t h e r w o r l d ' -- t h e n e g a t i v e o f e v e r y i m a g e , f e e l i n g and d e f i n i t e thought . . . . " 1 5  The  distinction  between a c t u a l  phenomena c o n c e i v e d by f i n i t e abstraction ness. idea,  undertaken  the g o a l toward  factors  minds i s t h e r e s u l t  n o t by t h e s e n s e s  The g r o u n d f o r t h e s e  are ever  i.e., dialectical This  conceives  self-integrating  and s e I f - d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g  the  relationship  t a k e s t h e form  any  sense-data  relation-  o f as a  whole.  of s e l f - i d e n t i t y ,  That i s , because  o r a p p e a r a n c e when p e r c e i v e d a n d c o g n i z e d  t h e s u b j e c t c a l l s up t h e t o t a l s y s t e m  reference.  b u t by c o n s c i o u s -  striving.  s h i p between s u b j e c t and o b j e c t H e g e l  by  of the  phenomena i s i n t h e a b s o l u t e  which the r a t i o n a l ,  of consciousness  r e a l i t y a n d the,  If this  be v a l i d , t h e n  sense  as a frame o f data o r p a r t i a l  15 Myers ,. „H.'CA. "The S p i n o z a - H e g e l Paradox'] I t h a c a , New Y o r k , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944, p. 20  29.  reality  i s part  o f the  same commonness as  reference  t h r o u g h w h i c h i t was  can  i t be  unlike  the  system, f o r ,  and  still  be  the  identified,  frame  indeed  of how  d i g e s t e d or i d e n t i f i e d  by  "A s y s t e m i s t h a t . . . w h i c h can f r e e l y d i g e s t i t s p a r t s and w h i c h i s a c t e d upon by n o t h i n g c o n c e i v e d o f as o u t s i d e i t s e l f . . . . e v e r y s t e p on the l o n g r o a d l e a d i n g up t o t h e n o t i o n and t o the a b s o l u t e i d e a i s f o u n d t o be u l t i m a t e l y a p a r t s e l f - i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e n o t i o n and the a b s o l u t e i d e a . " i f  To  elaborate,  presentation  of sense  mind c o n s i d e r s as  isolated  itself. called  from  This the  or  starting  data  first  thesis.  phenomena and  as  existing  i n the  I t i s an  for  thought  i s what i t i s j  o f an is  entity  qualified  ceived i.e.,  of  real  in relation  I t i s being.  considerably,  and  of t h e  "not-self".  data  pure  entity  entities. conceiving  abstraction i s now  con-  entities,  I t i s , i n other  o n l y when c o n c e i v e d  " n o t - s e l f " , i . e . , i t i s and  16 New  to other  However, i n  the  sense  "thing-in-itseIf"; .  i n terms of i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o . o t h e r  meaningful to consciousness plus  a b s t r a c t i o n o f the the  for  "knowledge-process" i s  i n m e a n i n g f u l t e r m s , the  i n terms  the  itself, i.e.,  stage  the  organs,  of  t h e r e f o r e not  It  immediate  data  o r e n t i t y and i t i s not  an  t h r o u g h sense  conceives other  with  e  i t i s not,  as  i t is  words, "self" "not-being".  M y e r s , H. A. "The S p i n o z a - H e g e 1 P a r a d o x " , I t h a c a , Y o r k , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944 p. 25.  30.  This  concept  of the e n t i t y  "not-self" or, i n Hegelian is the  ness. thesis,  i s conceived  and i t s a n t i -  and n o t as a r e l a t i o n s h i p o r  and a n t i t h e s i s ,  known as c o n c r e t e ,  concretely  f o r conscious-  as a w h o l e , i . e . , as a c o m p o s i t e  of thesis  or consciousness  only the r e l a t i o n of  the o b j e c t , t h e s i s  and a n t i t h e s i s ,  distinction  and a n t i t h e s i s ,  i . e . , o n l y i t s meaning  I t i s not u n t i l  of t h e s i s  and  terms, t h e s i s  also abstract f o r i t considers t h i n g to another,  as " s e l f " a n d  rational  i s considered  r a t h e r than  that i t i s conceived  reality.  T h e n , t h e mind  by H e g e l t o t h i n k o r f u n c t i o n  abstractly.  " S i n c e we have s e t up t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n - b e t w e e n t h e o b j e c t p e r se a n d t h e o b j e c t f o r a n o t h e r , f o r c o n s c i o u s n e s s i t b e h o o v e s us t o c a r r y on the d i a l e c t i c t o such a p o i n t t h a t b e i n g f o r s e l f ( p e r se) and being f o r another w i l l p u l l together i n a f i n a l synthesis that w i l l c o n s t i t u t e t h e a b s o l u t e n e s s o f knowledge a n d t h e t r u t h of concrete r e a l i t y . " ^  The b a s i s o f the d i a l e c t i c a l distinction and  between  abstract understanding Now,  t h e main t e n e t s in  concrete  t h e above  actuality  or merely  triad  or concrete  subjective  summary o f H e g e l l a n i s m  of d i a l e c t i c a l  logic  and t h e i r  t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f an " o b j e c t i v e " t h e o r y  As no d i s t i n c t i o n  i s allowed  17 M y e r s , H. A. New Y o r k , C o r n e l l  i s , then, the thought,  thought. h a s shown extensions  o f knowledge.  between m e t a p h y s i c s a n d  "The S p i n o z a - H e g e l P a r a d o x " I t h a c a , u n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944, p . 25  31. epistemology, as  the  dialectic  p r o c e s s must  covering a l l subjects included  separation  of metaphysics  be u n d e r t a k e n  As  f o r the  was  sake  shown, t h e  Is  the  distinction  of  concrete a c t u a l i t y  or  merely  basis  of the  or  or t h a t  might  emphasis.  dialectical  triad  formal "subjective" categories  or thought, thought.  considered  "artificial"  epistemology,  of s i m p l i c i t y  between t h e  subjective  H e g e l , are  and  i n any  be  and  The  abstract  understanding  categories,  maintained  introduced to consciousness piecemeal  and,  therefore, " . . . a r e m u t a b l e and m u t u a l l y c o n f u s i n g , and t h u s y i e l d t o m i n d o n l y a p i e c e m e a l and i n s e c u r e a c t u a l i t y . " 18 In  essence, Hegel's  or  interpretation  accounted but on  f o r as  r a t h e r as sense  criticism  of the arising  o f the  subjective  categories i s that from  innate concepts  concepts  they are  the t r u e n a t u r e  of  not  things,  o f the mind which are  imposed  duty. H.  A.  Myers  i n h i s The  d i s p e n s e s w i t h the m i s c o n c e p t i o n s Hegelian epistemology  Spinoza-Hegel that  have  Paradox  plagued  thus:  " . . . Hegel's, i s n o t t h e s u b j e c t i v e i d e a l i s m w h i c h he a t t r i b u t e s t o Kant a n d o t h e r s . I t i s i n a s e n s e , as much n a t u r a l i s m as i t i s i d e a l i s m , f o r the c a t e g o r i e s a r e n o t i m p o s e d by m i n d on s o m e t h i n g w i t h o u t but a r e a l w a y s c o m i n g f r o m w i t h i n a n d from w i t h o u t . " "  18 M y e r s , H. A. "The S p i n o z a - H e g e l Paradox',' I t h a c a New'- York i C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944, p. 29 r  !  19  ::  Ibid  p.  32.  x  Again, "His i d e a i s something t h a t transcends the e a r l i e r mind a n d m a t t e r , s o m e t h i n g w h i c h g i v e s us a s i n g l e w o r l d t o work w i t h , a world with c o n d i t i o n s of s e l f - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and s e I f - i n t e g r a t i o n . " 2  Indeed, well is  founded  both  o f t h e above  even i f the t r e a t i s e  f o r a moment r e j e c t e d ;  basis  on t h e n a t u r e  f o r consciousness  t h e laws o f l o g i c ,  itself  i t to say, therefore, that  of gradual rise  through  the vegetable  reaches  itself,  the l e v e l  consciousness by a  the i n o r g a n i c ,  et cetera,  of conscious thought.  essentially  That thing  on t h e d i a l e c t i c  i s , evolution  The  until  evolution  triad.  a n d change a r e one a n d t h e  owing t o the c a u s a l c o n t i n u u m i m p l i c i t  concept.  diversity  In a d d i t i o n ,  of q u a l i t i e s  change b r i n g s f o r t h cannot  forms,  metaphysics  h a s been shown  and development from  and animal  concept.  i s , o f c o u r s e , e x p l a i n e d i n terms o f a c a u s a l  nexus, b a s e d  dialect  and  i s c o n s i d e r e d t o have e v o l v e d o u t o f n a t u r e  process  same  of c a t e g o r i e s  seems t o be t h e  epistemology  one, f o r H e g e l , n a m e l y , t h e d i a l e c t i c ,  above; s u f f i c e  it  q u o t a t i o n s a p p e a r as  o f the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l - m e t a p h y s i c a l H e g e l i a n  That are  0  that  change i s c o n c e i v e d as a  come a n d go.  a qualitative  be a n d y e t c h a n g e .  i n the  A  quantitative  c h a n g e ; t h u s , an o b j e c t  H e n c e , i n o r d e r f o r an o b j e c t  20 Myers , H. /-A.. "The S p i n o z a - H e g e l P a r a d o x " , I t h a c a , New Y o r k , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944, p. 33, ;  33  to  change , i t must  it  i s not,  a  will  i n a state  i n the  object  must  lead  q u a l i t a t i v e c h a n g e , whereby t h e  object  becomes  t h a n what i t was. are  this  also  That  that  p r i n c i p l e of  unity,  as  well  "  as  b e h o l d e r of  Professor  metaphysical f o r the  noumena and  c  other  becoming of  object  being apply  singleness  multiplicity.  and the  or  But  in  Puller,  a b o v e , how  categories  postulate  that  one  the  and  another  Kantian  their that  can  are  actual  they p o s s i b l y these  and  objective,  e x i s t without  characteristics.  21 P u l l e r , B. A. G . , Y o r k , Henry H o l t and  In  logical another  dichotomy  phenomena i s f a l s e i s a r r i v e d a t .  possesses  New  these  r e l a t i o n s h i p to  such c a t e g o r i e s  that  an  to  . . . we a r e t h i n k i n g o f a u n i t o r o f the b a s i s of a l l q u a n t i t a t i v e measurements. I n o t h e r words we p a s s f r o m the c a t e g o r y of q u a l i t y t o t h a t of q u a n t i t y . . But we f i n d a t once t h a t the i d e a o f q u a n t i t y gives r i s e i n i t s t u r n t o t h a t of q u a l i t y , s i n c e i t i s a p p l i c a b l e not o n l y t o s p a t i a l magnit u d e s but t o d e g r e e s o f i n t e n s i t y . But i n t e n s i t y and d e g r e e are m e a n i n g l e s s t o quality. H e n c e , the two c o n c e p t s a l t h o u g h a n t i t h e t i c a l , a r e s y n t h e s i s e d i n the c o n c e p t o f measure o r o f the amount of q u a n t i t y a t h i n g c o n t a i n s . . . . " ^1  "proof"  if  and  of  concept  i d e n t i t y , i . e . , of  ' I t i s through and  static  difference  states  not  i s , in thinking  i n the  the  static  doing t h i s ,  change  involved  requires  will  which  implies  a quantitative  and  becoming t h a t This  we  be  of  be.  that  but  be  of  That i s , as  shovra  something addition,  the  "A H i s t o r y o f P h i l o s o p h y " . Company, 1938, p. 314  above argument i s a l s o  c o n s i d e r e d as  the  laws o f  o b j e c t i v i t y of  n a m e l y , the  was  stated  philosophy  dialectical  the  quantity-quality  and  also  the  basic  Hegelianism of t h a t  actuality  analytic a priori  technique  pitfalls  i s , he  static  of  starting point,  split.  his  of  of  reasoning.  "conversity", of  the  the  that  e.g.,  becoming, e t  rationalism  rejected  views  developed.  outcome o f  epistemological-metaphysical  and  theory  empiricist  N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i s from t h i s p o i n t also  and  of  i n t h i s work, H e g e l ' s  concept, concept  H e g e l a v o i d e d the That  His  r e s u l t of  owing t o the  piricism.  earlier  i s f u n d a m e n t a l l y the  logic.  c o n c e p t s are Yet,  thought  proof  dialectic.  As entire  the  a further  of  a split  M a r x i s m i s the  of  pure  em-  Innate  of h i s  technique, in  cetera,  ideas  time. and  left-wing  major r e s u l t  35.  The  Part  11.  Epistemological  and  Implications  Metaphysical  of D i a l e c t i c a l  Materialism  1. The  •  Subject-Object  Concept  D i a l e c t i c a l materialism  i s considered  a d h e r e n t s t o be t h e outcome o f a s c i e n t i f i c coordination endeavour. logy  I t does, n e v e r t h e l e s s ,  written  of d i a l e c t i c a l materialism  by t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e  that  are undertaken by i t s authors the s u p e r i o r i t y  from that last and  of c r i t i c i s m  o f Marxism  starting point  o f Marx a n d E n g e l s ;  s e c t i o n , Hegel  metaphysical  Starting centric  Hegelianism.  was, o f c o u r s e ,  derived h i s categories  theory. with  t o substan-  f o r , a s was n o t e d  then proceeded t o formulate  of t h i s  and d i s t i n c t i o n s  i n order  over  of Hegel.  to substantiate the  is.indicative  fact  Hegel's  owe most o f i t s t e r m i n o -  t o the p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s  I n d e e d , much o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e  tiate  s y n t h e s i s and  o f t h e f i n d i n g s o f man i n h i s many f i e l d s o f  and concepts  tenets  by i t s  different i n the  from h i s l o g i c  an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l .  t h e acknowledgment  p r e d i c a m e n t o f man i n f o r m u l a t i n g  o f t h e egoan o b j e c t i v e  philosophical of  logic  tion to  schematism, the j u s t i f i c a t i o n  first  seems q u i t e  apparent.  o f the H e g e l i a n , a p p r o a c h  an a b s o l u t i s m f r o m  ethical  concepts  that  f o r an  However, t h e i m p l i c a -  d i d l e a d , i n the f i n a l  substantiated a status-quo  c o n t e x t , the d i a l e c t i c a l  and in  essence,  triad  a predetermined  E n g e l s m a i n t a i n e d , was  outlook.  a result  stated  implied  This,  Marx  of the f a l l a c y i n h e r e n t  point  of Hegelianism.  D i a l e c t i c a l materialism's starting of Hegelianism,  i n this  p o s t u l a t e d by H e g e l  order of e v e n t s .  t h e methodology and s t a r t i n g  opposite  analysis,  w h i c h c o u l d be d e d u c e d s o c i a l a n d  M o r e o v e r , a n d what i s more t o t h e p o i n t  in  analysis  point  i s the  Marx:  " i n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o German p h i l o s o p h y w h i c h d e s c e n d s f r o m h e a v e n t o e a r t h , h e r e we a s c e n d from e a r t h t o h e a v e n . T h a t i s t o s a y , we do n o t s e t o u t f r o m what men s a y , i m a g i n e , c o n c e i v e , n o r f r o m men a s n a r r a t e d , t h o u g h t o f , i m a g i n e d , c o n c e i v e d , i n o r d e r t o a r r i v e a t men i n t h e f l e s h . We s e t o u t f r o m r e a l a c t i v e men, a n d on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r r e a l l i f e p r o c e s s we d e m o n s t r a t e t h e i d e o l o g i c a l r e f l e x e s and echoes o f t h i s l i f e - p r o c e s s . "  Now, dialectic  triad  i n denouncing by way  the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the  o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s , Marx a n d E n g e l s  aimed a t the r e f u t a t i o n  of predeterminism Subsequently,  and the e s t a b -  lishment  of determinism.  validity  o f d e t e r m i n i s m h a d t o be f o u g h t n o t on  22 Marx, K. a n d E n g e l s , F. L o n d o n . The M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t Weshart, 1942, p . 14  the c l a i m  f o r the  merely  The German I d e o l o g y , L i b r a r y , Lawrence a n d  2  37.  logical  g r o u n d s but a l s o m e t a p h y s i c a l a n d e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l  grounds.  . H e g e l , as was shown, r e c o g n i s e d t h e o b j e c t i v i t y  of  the concept  metaphysics  and epistemology  speculation. the to  negate  as one f i e l d  of Cartesian  i t s emphasis  both these  an a b s o l u t i s m does e x i s t  objective  are i n accord.  idealism  That  i s , both  matter  i n terms  same.  The b a s i s  from  o f a monism  attempted  t o negate  was  "nature  and the  of epistemology  c o n c e i v e d o f mind and  t h a t was that  s u b s t a n t i a l l y the the i m p l i c a t i o n s of  M a r x i s m demanded a n d  a n d i n t e r m s o f i t s "own" t e n e t s ,  Hegelianism.  the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f three b a s i c "thing-in-itself",  m i n d and m a t t e r  a point  H e g e l i a n i s m meant p r e d e t e r m i n i s m . determinism,  dialectical  I t i s , i n o t h e r words, the  basically  of r e v o l t  i n terms  and Marx's  between t h e M a r x i a n s  c l a i m e d t h e same; b o t h  postulated  a n d phenomena,  r e s p e c t s , i . e . , the " t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f " i s  caused the s p l i t  Hegelians.  and  of knowledge.  method o f s u b s t a n t i a t i n g t h e c o n c e p t s that  of analysis  dualism, but, i n a d d i t i o n ,  on t h e r e l a t i v e n e s s  t r u t h , Hegel's  materialism  of t r e a t i n g  not only t o e l i m i n a t e  t h e K a n t i a n d u a l i s m o f noumena  apprehended and t h a t of  by way  I n so d o i n g , he a t t e m p t e d  implications  with In  of the t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f  Marxism c e n t r e s  c o n c e p t s , namely, the  " t h e knowledge p r o c e s s " a n d t h e  of c a u s a l i t y " .  around  II  The  Here Hegelianism. day  i s the f i r s t  of M i n d  major p o i n t o f departure  I t i s a p o i n t b a s e d on t h e p r a c t i c a l  significance  o f man's a c t i o n .  approach t o philosophy realism.  Concept  That  that of naive  the Marxian  approach  implies  t h a t man i s as he i s s e e n by " h i m s e l f " .  problem  o f t h e degree  synthesis undertaken, tion for  i s alsotfthe pragmatic  analysis  of o b j e c t i v i t y  reasons.  observa-  i s either ignored or discarded  of logic  i s r e j e c t e d quite openly  materialists  of a n a l y s i s or  Thus, the j u s t i f i c a t i o n  o f the p r i n c i p l e s  of thought  The  when one o f t h e t e r m s u n d e r  observer,  every  I t i m p l i e s , i n d e e d , an  that i s b a s i c a l l y  i s , essentially,  from  of the nineteenth  For example, L e n i n  and t h e i r  f o r an  categories  by t h e d i a l e c t i c a l  and t w e n t i e t h  i n his criticism  centuries  of i d e a l i s m  states : " A l l knowledge comes f r o m e x p e r i e n c e , f r o m s e n s a t i o n , from p e r c e p t i o n . That i s t r u e . But t h e q u e s t i o n a r i s e s , does o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y belong t o p e r c e p t i o n ; i . e . , i s i t the source of perception? I f y o u answer y e s , y o u a r e a m a t e r i a l i s t . . I f y o u answer n o , y o u a r e i n c o n s i s t a n t and w i l l i n e v i t a b l y a r r i v e a t s u b j e c t i vism or a g n o s t i c i s m , i r r e s p e c t i v e o f whether y o u deny t h e k n o w a b i l i t y o f t h e t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f ,  o r t h e o b j e c t i v i t y o f t i m e , gpace a n d c a u s a l i t y ( w i t h K a n t ) o r w h e t h e r you do n o t even p e r m i t the thought of a t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f ( w i t h Hume)." 2  The is  n o t one  objective active rests  case t h a t  exclusively idealism,  essentially  Lenin i s a d r o i t l y against  but a l s o  determinism.  Thus, i f matter  is  a h i g h e r form manifesting, dialectic  reacting  itself  through  contains within that  be,  because  m i n d may  then mind can  This  be  process  and  particular  the  to  containing concept,  i s postulated  as  p r o c e s s , but • dialectic  final  synthesis.  every m a n i f e s t a t i o n w i l l  of i t s v e r y n a t u r e , d i a l e c t i c a l . t o and  c o n c e i v e d as  In the Marxian  t o the e x t e n t t h a t  i s maintained i s that  react  essence  reflecting  in a dialectical  i t i t s own  or  the  is in contradistinction  synthesis.  and  as  a c t i n g on, i t s m a t e r i a l i s t i c  b o t h m i n d and m a t t e r ,  predetermined  All  c a n be e s t a b l i s h e d  of a d i a l e c t i c a l  i t s own  the u n i v e r s a l ,  not  thing-in-itself.  t o and  environment.  progressing  epistemological-  of p a r t i c u l a r i z e d matter  the H e g e l i a n c o n c e p t within  the  of  f o r determinism  s u b s t r a t a , whose n a t u r e  a manifested d i a l e c t i c ,  of  f o r the r e c o g n i t i o n  on d e s t r o y i n g of the  a r g u i n g here  the e p i s t e m o l o g y  However, the c a s e  metaphysical concept  primary universal  3  a c t on i t s e n v i r o n m e n t  Hence, and  thus  23 L e n i n , V. I . S e l e c t e d Works (The T h e o r e t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s o f M a r x i s m ) , New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , V i o l . 11, p . 190  m. be a determinant, but i t cannot a c t o t h e r than i n a dialectical  fashion.  The H e g e l i a n concept of mind and o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y i s s i m i l a r except i t maintains t h a t i n order to achieve u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y mind must a c t a c c o r d i n g t o the d i a l e c t i c "Man conquers  laws and p a t t e r n o f n a t u r e .  nature by obeying h e r . " ^4  Thus determinism  i s the crux of the matter.  In both t h e o r i e s a monism, behaving i n terms o f the dialectic  t r i a d , i s enunciated.  The t h e o r y of p r e -  determinism i s e s t a b l i s h e d by Hegel through h i s d i a l e c t i c a l l o g i c , h i s concept of a world p r o c e s s , and h i s concept of the t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f .  The Marxian monism, on the other  hand, enunciates a l s o a d i a l e c t i c a l  t r i a d and a world  p r o c e s s , but i t i n t e r p r e t s the " t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f "  i n an  e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t f a s h i o n to that o f H e g e l i a n i s m . Hegel, as was shown, conceived o f phenomena and noumena as being u n i t e d when complete  objectivity  was a t t a i n e d by way of the d i a l e c t i c a l p r o c e s s .  He  maintained, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t "The t h i n g - i n - i t s l e f . . . expresses the o b j e c t when we leave out of s i g h t a l l that consciousness makes of i t , a l l i t s emotional a s p e c t s , and a l l s p e c i f i c thoughts of i t . " ^5  24 P u l l e r , B. A. G., A H i s t o r y o f Philosophy New York, Henry H o l t and Company, 1938, p. 303 2 5 Myers, H. A. The Spinoza-Hegel Paradox , I t h a c a , New York, Cornwall U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944, p. 20  41.  The  t h i n g - l n - i t s e l f may be e i t h e r a c o n c r e t e o r a b s t r a c t  entity,  b u t t o be c o n c e i v e d o r a p p r e h e n d e d i n i t s c o m p l e t e  objective called  reality  forth  No a c t i v i t y and  still  itself)  and r e a d i n t o whatsoever  the complete  reality  i t by t h e s u b j e c t  on t h e o b j e c t c a n be reality  be m a i n t a i n e d .  objective except  no c o n n o t a t i o n s o r r e l a t i o n s must be  o f the term  For, i n point  calls  (mind). undertaken  (thing-in-  of f a c t ,  complete  f o r t h e n e g a t i o n o f a l l terms  one, n a m e l y , t h e t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f I  However, i n  terms o f a t h e o r y o f knowledge a r e l a t i v e  absolute  is  of a  possible  synthesis.  owing t o t h e H e g e l i a n c o n c e p t That  i s , a relative  knowledge o r o b j e c t i v e thus Hegel  reality,  Materialists'  concepts  the t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f . Conrad  both  implies  an a b s o l u t e ;  s y n t h e s i s o r Idea  concept.  the I d e a l i s t s ' a n d .  of objective  reality,  namely,  F o r example, E n g e l s , w r i t i n g t o  S c h m i d t . i n 1891, s t a t e d t h e d i a l e c t i c a l  rejection  final  a b s o l u t e , i n terms o f  conceives of h i s f i n a l  Marxism r e j e c t s  criteria  o f the H e g e l i a n concept  of o b j e c t i v e  materialist's reality  " H e g e l ' s d i a l e c t i c i s u p s i d e down b e c a u s e i t i s s u p p o s e d t o be t h e ' s e l f - d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h o u g h t ' o f which t h e d i a l e c t i c o f f a c t s t h e r e o f i s o n l y a r e f l e c t i o n , whereas r e a l l y t h e d i a l e c t i c i n our heads i s o n l y the r e f l e c t i o n o f the a c t u a l development which i s f u l f i l l e d i n the w o r l d o f n a t u r e a n d o f human h i s t o r y i n o b e d i e n c e t o d i a l e c t i c a l forms." 6 2  26 Marx, K. and E n g e l s , F . , K a r l Marx a n d F r i e d r i c h E n g e l s C o r r e s p o n d e n c e 1846-1895, London, Lawrence a n d W i s h a r t L t d . 1936, p . 495  thus:  This, deterministic The  aspect  "self-development  with  determinism.  in Hegelian is  of c o u r s e , h i t s  conceived  cation tion  of the  I t i s the  realising  away f r o m o b j e c t i v e  materialist,  i s quite  the  itself,  in  keeping  w h e r e b y the  so t h a t any  object  dialectic  diversifias  a  devia-  reality.  dichotomy  i . e . , between s u b j e c t and  r e j e c t e d on  the  grounds o f the  mechanistic  characteristics. the  d i a l e c t i c a l materialism  philosophy.  object i s regarded  o t h e r h a n d , the  F e u e r b a c h , p o i n t s out  pre-  f u s i o n o f s u b j e c t and  epistemology-metaphysic, as  a t the  t e n e t s of Hegel's  of t h o u g h t "  between s u b j e c t a n d  On  again  of the  o b j e c t , was  a n t i - o r g a n i c and  o f both  these  from  also  pro-  Marx, i n h i s t h e s i s  deficiencies  French  the  on  view  of  schools:  "The c h i e f d e f e c t o f a l l m a t e r i a l i s m up t o now ( i n c l u d i n g F e u e r b a c h ' s ) i s t h a t the o b j e c t r e a l i t y , what we a p p r e h e n d t h r o u g h o u r s e n s e s , I s u n d e r s t o o d o n l y i n the f o r m o f the o b j e c t o r c o n t e m p l a t i o n ; but n o t as s e n s u o u s human a c t i v i t y as p r a c t i c e ; n o t s u b j e c t i v e l y . Hence i n o p p o s i t i o n t o m a t e r i a l i s m t h e a c t i v e s i d e was developed a b s t r a c t l y -- by i d e a l i s m -- w h i c h o f c o u r s e does n o t know r e a l s e n s u o u s a c t i v i t y as s u c h . " 2  I n o t h e r w o r d s , the reality of the  27 The and  was  accepted  dialectic  was  by  the  dynamic a s p e c t  Marxists  but  the  7  of o b j e c t i v e "motivation"  rejected.  Marx, K. a n d E n g e l s , F. The German I d e o l o g y M a r x i s t s - L e n i n i s t L i b r a r y , L o n d o n , Lawrence W i s h a r t , 1942, p. 197.  43.  "My own d i a l e c t i c a l m e t h o d i s n o t o n l y f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e H e g e l i a n dialectical method, b u t i s i t s d i r e c t o p p o s i t e . For Hegel, t h e t h o u g h t p r o c e s s (which he a c t u a l l y transforms i n t o an independent subject, giving to i t the name o f ' i d e a ' ) i s t h e d e m i u r g e o f t h e r e a l : and f o rh i m t h e r e a l i s o n l y t h e outward manif e s t a t i o n of the idea. I n my v i e w o n t h e o t h e r hand, the i d e a l i s nothing other than t h e m a t e r i a l , when i t h a s b e e n t r a n s p o s e d a n d t r a n s l a t e d i n s i d e t h e human h e a d . " 2  On as  the other hand,  t o the nature  and  o b j e c t was  the  basis,  of  8  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p  accepted  with  Feuerbach's  certain  by Marx  declaration  between  and Engels  subject  a n d made  modifications, of their  theory  development. " . . . the t r u e r e l a t i o n between thought and b e i n g may be e x p r e s s e d a s f o l l o w s : b e i n g i s the s u b j e c t and thought t h e p r e d i c a t e , thought i s c o n d i t i o n e d by b e i n g , n o t b e i n g by thought. B e i n g i s c o n d i t i o n e d by i t s e l f , h a s i t s b a s i s in i t s e l f . " ^  The one  main  point  of emphasising  George  Plekhanov,  Problems "  of difference  the d e t e r m i n i s t i c the Russian  o f Marxism  states  aspect  Marxian,  that  what  was, once of  again,  life.  i n h i s Fundamental  was a t i s s u e  f o r Marx:  . . . was n o t t h e u n d e n i a b l e f a c t t h a t s e n s a t i o n p r e c e d e s t h o u g h t b u t t h e f a c t t h a t Man i s l e d t o t h o u g h t m a i n l y by t h e s e n s a t i o n s w h i c h he e x p e r i e n c e s i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s own a c t i o n o n t h e o u t e r w o r l d . " 3 0  28  Plekhanov,  London, 29 ed. 30  John  G. V.., E s s a y s  Lane,  The  Bodley  i n the H i s t o r y Head  Ltd.,  of Materialism,  1934, p. 194  Plekhanov, G. V . , Fundamental Problems o f Marxism, b y D. R y a z a n o v , New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1929, p . 7 I b i d , p . 12  This with, for  and r i g h t l y  they  counter  concepts  back t o p r e d e t e r m i n i s m  of Empiricism.  century Marxism.  of r e a l i t y ,  a n d hence  Lenin, quoting  Philosophy  runs  o f n i n e t e e n t h and  The e s s e n c e  o f the concept  of the t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f from A l b e r t Levy's  and h i s I n f l u e n c e  or to the  This, of course,  t o the r e v o l u t i o n a r y nature  twentieth  disagreed  so when t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s a r e r e a l i z e d  lead either  relative  states  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, L e n i n  on German  i s this,  Feuerbach's  Literature.  " . . . Marx e x p r e s s e s r e g r e t t h a t m a t e r i a l i s m had l e f t i t t o i d e a l i s m t o a p p r e c i a t e the i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e a c t i v e f o r c e s i . e . , human p r a c t i c e w h i c h a c c o r d i n g t o Marx, must be wrested from i d e a l i s m i n o r d e r t o i n t e g r a t e them i n t o t h e m a t e r i a l i s t s y s t e m . But i t w i l l o f c o u r s e be n e c e s s a r y t o g i v e t h e s e a c t i v e f o r c e s the r e a l and s e n s i b l e c h a r a c t e r which i d e a l i s m c a n n o t g r a n t them. Marx's i d e a , t h e n , i s the f o l l o w i n g : j u s t as t o our i d e a s t h e r e c o r r e s p o n d r e a l o b j e c t s o u t s i d e u s , so t o o u r phenomenal a c t i v i t y o f t h e s e c o r r e s p o n d s a r e a l a c t i v i t y of things. I n t h i s sense h u m a n i t y partakes of the a b s o l u t e , not o n l y through t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge b u t a l s o t h r o u g h p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t y : t h u s a l l human a c t i v i t y r e q u i r e s a d i g n i t y , a n o b i l i t y , t h a t p e r m i t s i t t o advance hand i n hand w i t h t h e o r y . Revolutionary a c t i v i t y henceforth acquires a metaphysical significance...."31  I n o t h e r words d i a l e c t i c a l  materialism,  s i m i l a r t o o b j e c t i v e i d e a l i s m , attempts  t o fuse  meta-  p h y s i c a l and e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t s .  The i d e a s and  images which t h e mind a p p r e h e n d s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be  31 L e n i n , V . I . , S e l e c t e d Works (The T h e o r e t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s o f Marxism),-- I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s . New Y o r k , V o l . 11, p . 169.  the  resultants  of  that  which  is  realized  of  mental  concrete ceived of  of  in this  activity activity  then  higher  as  basically a  a  of  mind to  as  data  point form  seems  materialist's  the  interacting  but on  a  wise  uniqueness a l l that  is  concerned.  to  the  spirit  postulate for  the  and  also  a  terms  i n the  at  object the  and  considered is  con-  tenets  i n matter,  one  and  of  active one  the  being as  the  of  granted. concept on  with  and  of reacts  dialecti-  determinism.  That i s ,  another  i s from  the  point  :and m e t a p h y s i c a l l y  sound,  ;  sense,  f a r as  metaphysical  be  relies  the  Is  believe  tenets  of  of  of  man  course,  Hence,  aspects  other-  Hegelian  destiny  i s , of  they  implicitly  namely, mind:  postulated  active  appears  the  terms,  that  acting  another  acts  of Marxism.  of mind  the  underlying thesis  which  predeterminism  or  on  inconsistent  on  of  letter  concept  realitydivorce  the  of view,  momentarily  Marxian  least  Pure  with  exemplified  of matter  is really  f o r the  i s commonly  epistemology,  highly  revolutionary  materialism.  and  of  i n one  predeterminism;  "artificial"  Objective reality  both';..-, e m p i r i c a l l y  determinism,  interaction,  mind.  concept  of  determinism,  the  and  Objective  i s consistent  u n i v e r s e may  a  mind.  which  consequently,  cal  of  which  subject  a higher  sense  that  action  metaphysical point  sound,  from  and  m a t e r i a l i s m as  deterministic  However,  the  i s avoided.  particular,  reacting  to  manner, from  that  Prom and  reflection,  i s external  dialectical  its  the  the  alien Marxists  will  their  allow  determinism,  dialectical  46.  - Engels in  functional  in his  Anti-Duhring,  conceives  and  B.  qualifies  dialectical  mind  terms:  " . . . thought and c o n s c i o u s n e s s . . . are p r o d u c t s o f t h e human b r a i n a n d t h a t man h i m s e l f i s a product of Nature, which has been developed i n and a l o n g w i t h i t s environment; whence i t i s s e l f - e v i d e n t t h a t t h e p r o d u c t s o f t h e human b r a i n , b e i n g i n l a s t a n a l y s i s a l s o products of Nature are correspondence w i t h i t . " 32  J.  of  S.  Haldane  develops  i t i n a manner  materialistic  that  theory  this  might of  the in  concept  further  substantiate  the  determinism.  "The m i n d i s a p a r t o f n a t u r e , a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r i t m o d i f i e s the r e s t of n a t u r e , as w e l l as b e i n g m o d i f i e d by i t . J u s t b e c a u s e t h e m i n d I s a p a r t o f n a t u r e , t h e p r o c e s s e s w h i c h go on i n i t c a n be a n d a r e l i k e t h e p r o c e s s e s w h i c h go on i n o t h e r p a r t s o f n a t u r e , a n d t h e y do a c t u a l l y m i r r o r , a l t h o u g h more o r l e s s i n c o m p l e t e l y . " 33  To  elaborate, there  materialists  two  knowledge  and  adherents  of  The  second  dialectical mind of  in a  schools  of mind. the  of The  original  are  among  thought first  as  doctrines  of  who  accept  materialism,  but  conceive  i n keeping  to  school  s c h o o l , those  f a s h i o n more  the  with  the  and  basic  of  nature  contains  Marx  the  dialectical  the  Engels.  tenets  knowledge  the  of  of  and  epistemology  objective idealism.  32 E n g e l s , P., Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution i n S c i e n c e , New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1939, p .  43.  3 3 H a l d a n e , J . B. S., The M a r x i s t s P h i l o s o p h y a n d the S c i e n c e s , New York, Random H o u s e , I n c . 1 9 3 9 , p . 160".  47.  That the  concept  that  which  tain  that  the  that  mind  first  the  i s an  physics  and  to  of  the  attempt,  epistemology,  a metaphysical  thesis  on  Feuerbach  nature  of  both  In  but  point.  or  the  For  addition, or  example, active  reflecting they  main-  apprehended  subject. to  approach  the  accept  of matter  to Hegel's,  emphasises  s u b j e c t and  purists,  i s known  beholder  similar  the  form  itself.  "thing-in-itself"  nature  course,  'group,  i s a higher  i s external  active  from  i s , the  is  Marx and  This, fuse  by  of  meta-  actually in his sensuous  object.  " C e r t a i n l y Feuerbach has a g r e a t advantage over t h e ' p u r e ' m a t e r i a l i s t s i n t h a t he realizes how man t o o i s a n ' o b j e c t o f t h e s e n s e s ' . Igut a p a r t f r o m the f a c t t h a t he o n l y c o n c e i v e s h i m as a 'sensuous o b j e c t ' , n o t as a 'sensuous a c t i v i t y ' , b e c a u s e he s t i l l r e m a i n s i n t h e r e a l m o f t h e o r y a n d c o n c e i v e s o f men n o t i n t h e i r given s o c i a l connection, not under t h e i r ; e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n o f l i f e , w h i c h h a v e made t h e m w h a t t h e y a r e , he n e v e r a r r i v e s a t t h e a b s t r a c t i o n 'man' a n d g e t s no f u r t h e r t h a n r e c o g n i s i n g ' t h e t r u e ' , ' i n d i v i d u a l c o r p o r e a l man' emotionally, i . e . , h e k n o w s n o o t h e r 'human r e l a t i o n s h i p ' . " 34  Marx's materialism, view,  but  quite  aware  i.e.,  self  criticism  quite  i t was that and  justified  not  the  not-self,  interaction  of  these  did  not  was  the  also  as two  i n terms  from  essence  Feuerbach  the  develop  was,  dialectical  a metaphysical of  dynamic  point  h i s argument.  regarded  dynamic.  reality  Feuerbach terms,  interrelationship  3 4 M a r x , K. a n d E n g e l s , F . , The M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t L i b r a r y , W i s h a r t , 1942. p . 37.  of  of  but  He and  of was man,  recognized what  these  he  terms.  The German I d e o l o g y London, Lawrence and  48.  Marx, the  dialectical  substratum, (the two of  i n s h o r t , was process,  inheres  distinction  deterministic  a  component  any  of nature.  o f knowledge  organism?  nature,  was  f o rexposition),  namely,  also  How,  reality  and as the  mind  expresses  one  the e f f e c t  on i t s e l f  of  seems  be a c c e p t e d  characteristic  other  can a  Yet this  concept  accepted  by E n g e l s :  this  inherent  o f mind  than  as  correspondence  by a m a t e r i a l i s t being  aspect  to allow f o r  on n a t u r e  indeed,  that  i n the m a t e r i a l  and o b j e c t i v e  i n f l u e n c e o f man  teleological  human  i n mind  T h i s , however, h a r d l y  a  theory  both  i n showing  i s manifest  on one a n o t h e r ,  the i n t e r a c t i o n ,  interaction.  which  i s merely  a c t and react  interested  who  rejects  w i t h i n the  as a m i r r o r o f  "Thought and c o n s c i o u s n e s s . . . a r e p r o d u c t s o f t h e h u m a n b r a i n a n d . . . . man h i m s e l f i s a p r o d u c t o f N a t u r e , w h i c h h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d i n °- "j and a l o n g w i t h i t s e n v i r o n m e n t ; whence, i t i s s e l f - e v i d e n t t h a t t h e p r o d u c t s o f t h e human b r a i n , b e i n g i n t h e l a s t a n a l y s i s a l s o procTucts o f N a t u r e , do n o t c o n t r a d i c t t h e r e s t o f N a t u r e but a r e i n correspondence w i t h i t . " $5  The are  quite  implications  apparent.  external  to itself,  products  o f both  aspect  o f Marxism  inevitability  35  I f the brain and i f those  mind  reflects  then  nothing  and nature  theory  the  other  behaving  o f knowledge  that  reflections  and nature,  i s really  o f man  of Engels'  which i s  are the  deterministic  than the i n a manner r  ( I t a l i c s are mine.) E n g e l s , P., H e r r E u g e n D u h r i n g ' s Revolution'in S c i e n c e , New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h i n g , 1 9 3 9 , p . 4 3 .  49.  dictated in  by  the  dialectical  nature  terras o f p a r t i c u l a r s , by  terms s e l f The  and  n o t - s e l f impose  dynamic n a t u r e  resultant  of the  However, t o in  the  of  the  one  change and  is  the  the  implicit  subject  thought  of mind r a t h e r  d i f f e r e n t to  the  two  terms.  is  really,  what e x i s t s i s  object.  one  i t , causing  Yet,  This,  Engels  seems t o s u g g e s t a that  two  priori.  the  t h a n what i t was.  and  process  that  Marxists,  within  and,  i s merely  antithesis existing within  become o t h e r  f u s i o n of  universe,  another a  process  analysis^ fallacious;  to  o f the  on  speak o f . t e r m s , s t a t e  final  the  qualification  thought  term w i t h a c o n t r a d i c t o r y  tion  the  of  o f a mere  i t  indeed,  descrip- -  concept  reflector.  "... t h o u g h t c o n s i s t s j u s t as much i n t h e a n a l y s i s of o b j e c t s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n t o t h e i r e l e m e n t s as i n the s y n t h e s i s o f r e l a t e d elements i n t o a u n i t y . W i t h o u t a n a l y s i s , no synthesis. Secondly, without committing blunders . t h o u g h t can o n l y b r i n g t o g e t h e r i n t o a u n i t y those elements of c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n which or i n whose r e a l p r o t o t y p e s t h i s u n i t y a l r e a d y e x i s t s . " If ing  sense  thought  mind p o s t u l a t e d  That  anything  by  o f the  process  nature  is implied  analysing  and  The  Engels  of i n n a t e  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  whereby u n i v e r s a l s  exactly  concept  does not  idea  or  the  6  synthesis-  wholes, then i n  realised?  b o t h Marx and  i s , a nominalist  process  of  data i n t o i n t e l l i g i b l e  what manner i s t h i s  for  consists  3  of  allow  categories. thought  f o r the  classifying  36 Ehge' 1 sj;. Fv9. H e r r Bugen D u h r i n g ' s R e v o l u t i o n i n Science", New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h i n g , 1939, p.  49  50.  of  sense  data  particulars  are  containing  however,  involves  obtained  by  being  realized  a  resemblance  similar  concept  empirical  related.  that  Pap  a  synthesis  of  characteristics.  technique  Professor  theory  through  does  not  alone,  has  seem  to  namely,  shown  the  thus:  This, be  that  of  paradox  of  >  " i f a a n d b a r e r e l a t e d i n a c e r t a i n way, and b a n d c a r e r e l a t e d i n a c e r t a i n way, i t may i n d e e d be d o u b t e d w h e t h e r t h e y a r e r e l a t e d i n q u i t e t h e same way. B u t how c o u l d i t be doubted t h a t t h e y are both r e l a t e d ? But being r e l a t e d i s a u n i v e r s a l , even though an e x t r e m e l y empty o r a b s t r a c t one." ^"  In cannot  be  existing  the  of its to  B an  the  category  a  or  universal syntheis these  of  of  related  similarities  similarities  r e a l l y not  universal  being  being  related  what  characteristic  have  common u n l e s s  they  are  in  alphabetic right  as  classified  schematism?  A  an  completely  entity  is  taken  when  similarities  example,  is A  terms  exclusively  in  dissimilar  entity.B.  However, maintaining entities,  37 New  by  individually'are  For  in  own  for  the  among e n t i t i e s ; f o r ,  applied. and  words,  accounted  considered until  other  that  whereby  a  this  dilemma  causal i t is  might  continuum  possible  for  be  avoided  exists the  by  between a l l  mind,  Pap, A., Elements of A n a l y t i c Philosophy Y o r k , t h e M a c m i l l a n Company, 1949, p. 79  as  the  reflector and  of  nature,  relationships  nature.  The  accepted  as  to  express  e x i s t i n g amonst  concept  of  being  a r i s i n g out  relationships  existing  But,  the  the  of in  inherent  entities,  related  the  ramifications  of  whereby  the  terms  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p and  the  relationship  the  terms,  smaller  For  each  entities,  be  completely  could  be  asserted,  the be  would  basis  of  negated  be  of  entity  and  never  itself  form  then  of  of  the  view  are  would  internal  any  final  divorced i.e.,  the  Marxian  be  of  in  turn  analysis be  a  in  order  impossible,  influence  influences  would  composite and  that  knowability  a  of  and  epistemological  also  relations  composite  their relationships,  virtually  the  theory  this  is  possible.  i s , i f a  any  could  in  nature.  That  then  i.e.,  internality  idealistic. accepted,  similarities  be  im-  of  other  thus  final the  could analysis  thing-in-  consequently concept  would,  for:  " . . . the ' o b j e c t i v e t r u t h ' of t h i n k i n g means n o t h i n g e l s e t h a n t h e e x i s t e n c e of objects CiTeT, ' t h i n g s - i n - t h e ' m s e l v e s ' ) t r u l y r e f l e c t e d by t h i n k i n g . " 3  In internal any in  the  r e l a t i o n would  ultimate the  short,  social  term  in  acceptance eliminate  the  realm,: a l s o  knowledge the  8  of the  the  doctrine  possibility  process,  absolute  and  '  of of  indeed  objectivity  that  38 L e n i n , V. T. S e l e c t e d Works,, ( T h e Theoretical P r i n c i p l e s o f M a r x i s m ) , New York, I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1935, p. 168  52.  is  i m p l i e d w o u l d be c o m p l e t e l y  mergence  of  the  consider  then i s whether or not  "thing-in-itself".  materialism,  i.e.,  the  opposites,  unity  of  n e g a t e d owing t o  the  the  dialectical implies  The q u e s t i o n basis  of  triad,  as  a theory  of  sub-, to  dialectical expressed internal  by  relations  The  Now, materialism, culars  in  the  the  the  concept  of  the  influence  and  in  an  of  addition very  Plekhanov  which  out  also  behaves  in  of  and  that  the  of  i t is  pattern  accordance  of  with  partiaccounted  opposites.  That i s ,  other  This  and  of  are  external  i t i s .  matter  dialectical  universe  i t becomes  i s what  points  unity  internal  nature  but  the  of  manifestation  materialistic  e n t i t y has  i.e.,  which  dynamic  each  entities  Opposites  a  is  the  of  c a r d i n a l tenet  through  for,  is  Unity  opposite than  through  what  apparent motion  itself.  not  merely  the  the  that  law  of  was,  contradiction  of  motion  i t  is  George  nature  of  dialectical,  contradiction.  " T r e n d e l e n b u r g d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e law o f contrad i c t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e not t o m o t i o n , but only t o the o b j e c t s c r e a t e d t h e r e b y . That i s sound. But m o t i o n d o e s n o t m e r e l y c r e a t e o b j e c t s . That i s why t h e l o g i c o f movement ( t h e ' l o g i c o f contrad i c t i o n ' ) n e v e r f o r f e i t s i t s r i g h t over the objects, c r e a t e d by m o t i o n " . 3 9  The contain will  within  result  in  entities them the  themselves,  their  own  negation  of  as  opposite the  stated which  original  39 P l e k h a n o v , G., Fundamental Problems e d . D. R y a z o n o v , New York, International 1929, p. 116  gbove, in  time  entity  and  of Marxism, Publishers,  the  manifestation  of  within  i t , i t s own  of  internal  the  a  new  opposite.  nature  of  relationship  between  its  opposites,  inherent  doubtedly when too  the  a  case  i f entities  they  are  to  one  by.their  behave another  own  opposites.  cause;  prime  a  organic  the  dynamic  implicit  within  state  flux,  not,then change  the  by  must  that  must  be  to  In  un-  i.e., i f  opposites be  motion  in  i t  relations.  and  compelled  itself,  postulated  the  and  addition,  another,  lead,  the  i s analyzed,  either  of  would  Marxism  point  thesis  internal  dynamic  as  Engels  to  or  unite  terms  postulating  pointed  postulating universe,  the  of  of of  the  the a  first  the  concept  i.e., in  quite  of  a  of  state  not  out  in  his  dynamic p a r t i c u l a r s ,  i s not  explanation  dilemma  becomes  of  of  cause  of  entities  i n terras  and  the  mover.  unless  of  relations.  they  course,  antithesis is  one  This,however,  Anti-jDuhring, of  i . e . , the  on  then  However,  even  e n t i t y , i . e . , the  doctrine to  from  of  particular entity,  act  nature  concept a  a  are  extemporaneous  organic  any  internal  asserts  For,  an  of  the  Considered  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  tacitly  negate  entity containing,  of a  philosophically the  dynamism  universe of  being  in  becoming. able  to  is  a.  constant  If  account  apparent.  " I f the w o r l d had e v e r been i n a s t a t e i n w h i c h no c h a n g e w h a t e v e r was taking place, how c o u l d i t pass from t h i s s t a t e to a changing state? The a b s o l u t e l y u n c h a n g i n g ,  i t is for  e s p e c i a l l y when . i t h a s b e e n i n t h i s s t a t e from e t e r n i t y , cannot p o s s i b l y g e t out o f s u c h a s t a t e by i t s e l f a n d p a s s o v e r into a s t a t e o f motion a n d change. A joint i m p u l s e m u s t t h e r e f o r e h a v e come i n f r o m o u t s i d e , from o u t s i d e t h e u n i v e r s e and an i m p u l s e w h i c h s e t i t i n m o t i o n . " 40  In of  as being  short, both  the underlying  materialistic  substrata  i s  conceived  and d i a l e c t i c a l l y  dynamic, i . e  " M o t i o n i s t h e mode o f e x i s t e n c e o f m a t t e r . Never anywhere has t h e r e been m a t t e r without m o t i o n , n o r c a n t h e r e b e . " 41  The causality It  founded  of opposites  an i n e v i t a b i l i t y  of the universe,  result  of a  through  i . e . , not only  dialectically  definition  dynamic  the necessary  a given  i s then  e x c l u s i v e l y on i n t e r n a l  implies, moreover,  tions  by  unity  a theory  relations.  i n the  manifesta-  are entities,the  universe,  results  of  but they are  i n a given  motion  or  matter.  "Every s i n g u l a r Is connected by thousands o f t r a n s i t i o n s with other kinds o f singulars ( t h i n g s , phenomena, p r o c e s s e s ) e t c . Here a l r e a d y we h a v e t h e e l e m e n t s , t h e g e r m s , the c o n c e p t s of necessity, of objective c o n n e c t i o n i n n a t u r e , e t c . Here a l r e a d y we h a v e t h e c o n t i n g e n t a n d t h e n e c e s s a r y , the appearance and the essence . . . . " 4 2  40 New 41  E n g e l s , P. H e r r E u g e n D u h r i n g ' s York, I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , Ibid,  p.  Revolution i n Science, 1 9 3 9 , p . BI  68  42 L e n i n , V. I . , S e l e c t e d Works (The T h e o r e t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s o f Marxism) International Publishers, New Y o r k , V o l . 11 p . 1 6 9  56.  C o n s i d e r e d from the and i n t e r a c t i o n of  opposites  However,  it  connection  between e n t i t i e s ,  suffices is  in  point  not the  as  the  the  basis  sufficient dynamism of  to  of  of  view  of  concept a  causal  explain  the  the of  the  causal  single  entity,  the  causal  continuum  it  is  possible  for  progress  after  external  opposite  entities  have  unity  theory.  a  show how  action  or  to to  synthesised.  57.  IV  The  As an  antithesis  synthesis, if  was  the  and  as  it  theory  For  process  germinates  each  eventually a were of  i s o f t e n the  life  of  negates  manifestations  repetitious. the  shown,  which  g r e s s i o n - the but,  Negation  the  thesis  case,  thesis  new  thesis.  the  a  grain  i t ceases  to  of  and  in a  opposites  contains  leads  definite might  takes  barley;  to  a  Consequently,  as  pro-  suffice,  manifestations  example, Engels of  (entity)  the  always  the  Negation  may  an  from  be  illustration  the  moment  exist,  ". . . i t i s - n e g a t e d , a n d i n i t s p l a c e appears the p l a n t w h i c h has a r i s e n from i t , the n e g a t i o n of the g r a i n . . . i t grows, f l o w e r s , i s f e r t i l i s e d a n d f i n a l l y o n c e more p r o d u c e s g r a i n s o f b a r l e y , a n d as s o o n as t h e s e h a v e r i p e n e d the s t a l k d i e s , i s i n i t s t u r n negated. As a r e s u l t o f t h e n e g a t i o n o f t h e n e g a t i o n we have once a g a i n the o r i g i n a l g r a i n of b a r l e y . " 4 3  In of  the  other  negation  words,  i s the  the  causal  antithesis,  concept nexus  synthesis,  and  the  both  externally  are  e x p l a i n e d i n terms  of  of  the  whereby  negation the  internally their-own  new and nature, i . e . ,  43 E n g e l s , F., Herr Eugen, Duhring's Revolution i n Science, New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1939, p.  149  "Each c l a s s of t h i n g s . . . has i t s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r m o f b e i n g n e g a t e d i n s u c h a way t h a t i t g i v e s r i s e ' t o a development and i t i s j u s t t h e same w i t h e a c h c l a s s o f c o n c e p t i o n s and ideas. 4 , , 4  or  i n other  words,  " L o n g ago S p i n o z a s a i d : Omnis D e t e r m i n a t i o es n e g a t i o - e v e r y l i m i t a t i o n or d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s a t t h e same t i m e a n e g a t i o n . . . t h e k i n d of n e g a t i o n i s here d e t e r m i n e d i n the first p l a c e by t h e g e n e r a l a n d s e c o n d l y p a r t i c u l a r nature of the p r o c e s s . I must not o n l y negate, but a l s o i n t u r n s u b l a t e the n e g a t i o n . . . so c o n s t r u c t t h e f i r s t n e g a t i o n t h a t t h e second r e m a i n s o r becomes p o s s i b l e . • •  The unity  of  opposites  immediate former new  accounts  opposites  of  causes  synthesis.  after new  negation  a l l ,  of  in that  within a f o r the It  the the  mediate  i s thus  metaphysical  a n t i t h e s e s or  latter  differs only  from  the  accounts  for  given'synthesis, while  i n e x p l a i n i n g the the  negation  causes  distinct unique outcome  of  from or of  the the  novel the  the  old  and  unity  of  which i s , production  negations.  44 E n g e l s , P., Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution i n Science, New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1939, 45  Ibid.,  p.  59.  V  Quantity-Quality  The manifest) and  not  in  achieve  things really  ever  syntheses  of gradualism.  entities a process  do e x i s t  o f becoming  may  considered  be  dialectic event  time.  gradual,  examined.  when  a causal  Hegel  i t i s accepted  what  they  but from  a point  continuum  case;  are and t h e change  of  Marxian o f any  Thus, the  at every cannot  moment i n be p o s t u l a t e d  of any d u r a t i o n i s  the case  by t h e R u s s i a n  they are  time a r e  and c o m p l e x i t y  gradualness  That i s ,  dynamic  i s not the  of a negation.  has s t a t e d  in a  i s concerned,  i s manifested  In short, actual  valid  than  the inter-connectedness  of novelty  then  a n d a t t h e same  f a r as t h e i n d i v i d u a l  implies a negation  emergence  other  this  changes  i s applied.  are merely  However, as s u c h ,  abrupt  o f becoming  They  when  g r a d u a l l y and a b r u p t l y ,  f o rexplaining  i n a state  realised.  As  and  e x p r e s s i o n both  are always  were.  as  ( o r new  the postulate of quantity-quality  process for  negations  i t i s as a c a u s a l t e n e t  that if  new  against  Marxist,  gradualism  George  "To e x p l a i n t h e a p p e a r a n c e o r d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f a g i v e n phenomenon by g r a d u a l n e s s o f t h e . transformation i s absurdly tautological, f o r i t i m p l i e s t h a t we c o n s i d e r a s h a v i n g  Plekhanov:  60.  appeared or disappeared that which i s a c t u a l l y i n course of appearing or d i s a p p e a r i n g . " 4  Engels, this  states  Professor Haldane,  reasoning  scientific  and a p p l i e d  and Marx  i t i n their  6  also,  social  accepted  and  doctrines.  "Here, as i n n a t u r a l s c i e n c e i s v e r i f i e d the c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e law d i s c o v e r e d by H e g e l i n h i s ' l o g i c ' that merely quantitative changes beyond a c e r t a i n p o i n t pass into qualitative differences." 4  and  7  again, ". . . I t i s w o r t h w h i l e p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t l a w s h o l d i n g r i g h t t h r o u g h one s t a t e o f s o c i e t y may b e c o m e m e a n i n g l e s s i n another. S o c i a l c h a n g e may be d i s c o n t i n u o u s a s i n the case o f water t o steam a t a t m o s p h e r i c p r e s s u r e , or c o n t i n u o u s , as i n the case o f the passage from water t o steam a t p r e s s u r e h i g h e r than the c r i t i c a l p r e s s u r e . " ^ 4  Abrupt an  increase  entity,  or decrease  o r on t h e o t h e r  decrease, of  i n terms  any e n t i t y .  abrupt  contradiction  then  may  be  accounted  i n the q u a n t i t a t i v e hand,  through  f o r through  aspect  are always  gradualness because  part  of course,  change,  This,  indeed  aspect  i t follows  of the n a t u r a l  i s not.  o f any  an i n c r e a s e o r  of d e n s i t y , of the q u a l i t a t i v e  Theoretically,  changes  consequently  a  change,  order,  however,  movement  that and  i s a  itself,  i s  contradiction.  46 P l e k h a n o v G., F u n d a m e n t a l P r o b l e m s o f M a r x i s m ed. D. R y a z a n o v , New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 2 9 , p . 1 0 5 47 H a l d a n e , J . B. S., The M a r x i s t P h i l o s o p h y a n d t h e S c i e n c e s , New Y o r k , Random H o u s e , I n c . 1 9 3 9 , p . 2 7 48 I b i d  p.  28  "The m o v e m e n t o f m a t t e r u n d e r l i e s a l l phenomena o f n a t u r e . But what i s movement? I t i s an o b v i o u s c o n t r a d i c t i o n . Should anyone a s k you whether a body i n m o t i o n i s at a p a r t i c u l a r spot a t a p a r t i c u l a r time, y o u w i l l be u n a b l e . . . t o answer i n accordance w i t h Ueberweg's r u l e , t h a t i s to say i n accordance with the formula 'Yes i s Y e s , a n d No i s No'. A body i n . motion i s at a g i v e n p o i n t , and at the same t i m e i t i s n o t t h e r e . We c a n o n l y c o n s i d e r i t i n accordance w i t h the f o r m u l a , 'Yes i s n o , a n d no i s y e s ' . T h i s moving body t h u s p r e s e n t s i t s e l f as an i r r e f u t a b l e argument i n f a v o u r of the ' l o g i c o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n ' , a n d o n e who i s u n w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t t h i s l o g i c w i l l be f o r c e d t o p r o c l a i m , w i t h Zeno, t h a t motion i s m e r e l y an i l l u s i o n o f the senses." 4  9  49 P l e k h a n o v , G., F u n d a m e n t a l P r o b l e m s o f M a r x i s m , e d . D. R y a z a n o v , New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s 1929. p . 113  VI  The  , As of  contain  opposites,  the  quality.  These  this  dynamic  is a  aspects lar  one  are  by  three  three  of  and  s e c t i o n , the  of  tenets, the  of  based  are,in  upon  the  and  the  unity  quantity-  premise  effeet,merely  c a u s a l i t y , namely,  the  dialectical  namely,  negation  theory  different  that  particu-  universal manifestation  exemplifications  of  the  that  contradictory  of nature  reality.  that  formal  festations problem ceptions of  last  formulators  major  universe,  Consequently, out  the  tenets,  concept  Causality  the  negation  manifestations,  motion, of  of  of  outlined in  causality postulated  materialism of  was  Theory  of  i t s opposite.  any  entity,  But  s u r e l y , from  possible  to  and  around  anything In  that  the  other  state  point that  A  the  fact  involve  either abstract a  are  i s inadequate  nature,  centres of  logic  Marxians  to  words,  explain  entire  that  the  or  continually pointing  conceptions  there  Is  concrete,  of  semantics  is  only  and  or  or  per-  perception  implicit  an  and  mani-  epistemological  conception  A,  the  in  opposite.  logic  i t is  i t s contradictory  63.  not-A  i s not-A,  i . e . , they  The  only  the  relationship  A  reason  that  are both  "A" i m p l i e s  established  individual  "not-A"  volves  Epistemologically,  the  that  a unity  o f o p p o s i t e s was  o f the a c t o f i d e n t i t y ,  self-not-self  relationship,  orthodox,  recognising  namely,  t o the  the a  view  but, i n addition,  would  be t a n t a m o u n t  of t h e K a n t i a n  of course,  Marxians  their  e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l concept  based  on t h e c o n c e p t  whose  nature  would  priori  their  the v a l i d i t y  be n o t to  "thing-in-itself"',  r e f u s e t o r e c o g n i s e , and hence  of mind  Is' e s s e n t i a l l y  states  owing  then  This,  example,  o f Marxism  forthcoming i n  of any e n t i t y  circumstances  identifying  relationship  i f the adherents  perception or conception  only  of  of  immediately i n -  a subject-object or self-not-self  maintained  i s because  i n the process  a s A, i . e . , p e r c e p t i o n o r c o n c e p t i o n  entities.  of a unity  of opposites i s  as a r e f l e c t o r  of a  one o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n .  reality For  Engels,  "Motion i t s e l f i s a c o n t r a d i c t i o n ; even simple m e c h a n i c a l c h a n g e o f p l a c e c a n o n l y come a b o u t t h r o u g h a "body a t o n e a n d t h e same moment o f t i m e b e i n g i n one p l a c e a n d i n a n o t h e r p l a c e , b e i n g i n o n e a n d t h e same p l a c e a n d a l s o n o t i n I it.. And the continuous a s s e r t i o n and simultaneous s o l u t i o n o f t h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s p r e c i s e l y what motion i s . " This,  of course,  Zeno's f a m o u s p a r a d o x  Is merely  a n d may  a restatement  subsequently  be  of  answered  50 E n g e l s , F . , H e r r Eugen Duhring's Revolution i n S c i e n c e , New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 3 9 , p . 1 3 2  64.  i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n : namely, a body i n m o t i o n i s not a t a c e r t a i n p o i n t a t a c e r t a i n time owing t o the  fact  t h a t i t i s i n m o t i o n ; r a t h e r i t passes t h r o u g h o r by a certain point.  I n s h o r t , the i l l u s t r a t i o n t h a t  gives to substantiate  d i a l e c t i c a l logic is  Engels  extremely  m i s l e a d i n g , i n as much as he uses terms t h a t negate h i s b a s i c i d e a of m o t i o n as f l u x or becoming or a c t i v i t y . Thus, t h e r e i s r e a l l y no reason f o r s p e a k i n g of an object  as b e i n g and n o t - b e i n g because i t i s always i n a  s t a t e of becoming; f o r what i s s u g g e s t e d i s t h a t as p e r c e i v e d at a c e r t a i n p o i n t i n time  the o b j e c t had c e r t a i n  a t t r i b u t e s which by the v e r y p r i n c i p l e of the n e g a t i o n of the n e g a t i o n were n e c e s s a r y o r pass i n t o i t s next  i n o r d e r t h a t i t might  develop  phase.  However, t o m a i n t a i n from the o t h e r  extreme  t h a t t h e r e i s never a p o i n t i n time when an o b j e c t  is  e i t h e r A o r not-A i s a l s o f a l a c i o u s ; f o r t h i s a g a i n can be e x p l a i n e d by the p r i n c i p l e of i n d e t e r m i n a c y ,  i.e.,  no d e f i n i t e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n under the e x i s t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s p o s s i b l e owing t o the l a c k of e i t h e r or necessary  c o n d i t i o n s to a c t i v a t e  sufficient  the continuum p o s i t i v e l y .  " i n any concrete c o n t i n u u m , whether t e m p o r a l o r n o n - t e m p o r a l , t h e r e i s a m i d d l e ground between any two c o n t i g u o u s o p p o s i t e q u a l i t i e s A and -A, i . e . , a c e r t a i n s t r e t c h S of the continuum where i t i s not t r u e t h a t e v e r y t h i n g  65. i s e i t h e r A o r -A. Thus the law o f i n c l u d e d middle,which s t a t e s t h a t S i s always e i t h e r A o r -A i s r e s t r i c t e d . " ° x  However, to  activate  subjective pirical  the s u f f i c i e n t  a causal  continuum  or o b j e c t i v e ,  data,  caused  instruments,  the  of a specific  cause  could all  be c o n s i d e r e d  elements  effect and  may  owing  realized either  to limitations  plus  the o r i g i n a l  the concept  sufficient at  unless  however,  of mind  immediately  of the Kantian  would have  o f a frame t o be  ding  granted.  of  of subject  an s i c h ,  The  effect.  The a d m i s s i o n  of reference  considered  opposites  and concepts  i n v o l v e s the Marxians  only  51 M c G i l l , V. J . a n d P a r r y , W. T . , O p p o s i t e s " , S c i e n c e a n d S o c i e t y , New V o l . X I I , p . 428  of  f o r the  are  arrived  this, theory, recog-  t o the.  a priori  reason  i s not  and object,.  i n a  o r owing  some  hand,  n o t be  of nature  to allow  effect  specific'  may  o f the u n i t y  relationship  would have  a  or  experiment,  or the d e s i r e d  i s granted/  the  c o u l d n o t be  percepts  em-  ascertain,  the other  the e f f e c t  as a r e f l e c t o r  of  to  t o produce  did exist  the concept  an a p r i o r i  necessity  i n time  elements  i n theories . that  nition  i s unable  Gn  either  of s k i l l  as i n a c h e m i c a l  t o e x p l a i n how  s e l f and n o t - s e l f  or  what  be  Consequently,  necessary  such  may  deficiency  effect.  conditions  t o the l a c k  as not r e a l i s e d .  be k n o w n ,  Briefly,  a  the observer  or factors  and hence  positively,  i . e . , owing  by e i t h e r  necessary  and necessary  categories  f o r not granting  "The U n i t y o f Y o r k , 1948,  a  subject-object relationship  on  the  realization  objective through  truth  use  causality, of  the  may  which  valid  negation  of  contiguous the  as  thesis  tion  of  the  a  the  of  of  may  be  the  of  that  each  cause  each  antithesis antithesis  application,  the is  i t is  by  each  as of  the  the  is  of  opposites  event  is a  synThe  condithe  i t s f u n c t i o n , namely,  the  or  the  a  definitions  sufficient  new  antithesis  entity.  and  of  the  determined  by  a  entity From  speaking,  prior is  implies i.e.,  determined  impossible  to  condi-  the  cause,  point  desig-  arbitrary.  negation  a  The  necessary  logically  ontologically  logically  and  as  cases,  negation.  materialism,  relationship.  the  sufficient  every  of  explanation  materialism  unity  negation  within or  the  negation,  i n most  an  theory  opposites  For,  activity  Nevertheless, tenet  of  namely,  of  Absolute  realizable  dialectical  dialectical  synthesis  classifying  i s , however,  Marxian  unity  realise  insistence  theory.  considered  c o n d i t i o n to  the  as  as  thesisr-antithesis  f o r the  of  of  causality.  the  be  materialists'  inadequate  negation,  priori  cause or  of  concepts,  necessary  nating  prior  considered  metaphysical  theory  thesis  primary  a  negation  necessary  tions  although  to  objective truth.  dialectical  terms  causal  the  prior  the  course  epistemological tenets  be  and  absolute  i s of  of  In  of  of  appears  of  by  a  practical  state  which  67  is and  t h e m a j o r cause antithesis  or event. bility point  of a s p e c i f i c  are determinants  On t h e s e  of c e r t a i n  events  thesis  of the proceeding s y n t h e s i s  events  i s questionable merely the s u f f i c i e n t  needed f o r t h e r e a l i z a t i o n  synthesis".  as b o t h  grounds a l o n e , the t h e o r y o f i n e v i t a -  of distinguishing  conditions  event  and necessary of the " h y p o t h e t i c a l  The c a u s a l judgments i n t e r m s  of future  a r e , however, r e f e r r e d t o the u n i v e r s a l  o r , f o r the d i a l e c t i c a l m a t e r i a l i s t s ,  from the  concept,  t o t h e law o f  causality. That correct  i s t o s a y . t h e above a n a l y s i s  as f a r as a n y s p e c i f i c  the i n e v i t a b i l i t y universal valid.  of events  entity  i s considered  i s i n v o l v e d , but  a r e c o n s i d e r e d , owing t o t h e  c a u s a l law o f d i a l e c t i c a l m a t e r i a l i s m t o be  F o r example, •  " I t i s j u s t t h e same w i t h cause a n d , e f f e c t ; t h e y a r e c o n c e p t i o n s w h i c h o n l y have v a l i d i t y i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r case as s u c h , b u t when we c o n s i d e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e i n i t s g e n e r a l c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e w o r l d as a whole t h e y merge a n d d i s s o l v e i n t h e c o n c e p t i o n of u n i v e r s a l a c t i o n and i n t e r a c t i o n , i n which causes and e f f e c t s are c o n s t a n t l y c h a n g i n g p l a c e s , a n d what i s now o r h e r e an e f f e c t becomes t h e r e o r t h e n a c a u s e . . . . " 52  In o t h e r words, the t h e o r y i s c o n t i g u o u s i n terms o f a s p e c i f i c is  not i n t e r n a l  c o n t e n t , i . e . , the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n  i n t h e sense  that  i t i s implicit  i n the  52 E n g e l s , F. H e r r Eugen D u h r i n g ' s R e v o l u t i o n i n S c i e n c e , New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1939, p . 29  68.  nature  of  physical  its.terms. postulates,  connectedness events, on and  of  the  grounds,  similar  theory This  and  i t s meta-  enunciates  could only an  appeal  i n terms  causes This  of  the  inter-  interconnectedness  i . e . , by  probability  events  i n terms  above,  conditions.  metaphysical ".  the  events.  mathematical  particular  are  justified  to  of  statistics  the  number  forthcoming  technique  p o s t u l a t e s i s , however,  be  of  of  under  for arriving  unsound  at  because  .. . o n l y e n t i r e c l a s s e s o f c a s e s c o u l d c o u n t as n e g a t i v e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t them, b u t n o t a s i n g l e c a s e . " . 53  whereas its  of  i n terms  pragmatic  times  However,  a  universal  particulars.  tinuum  cannot can  explain  abrupt  decreases factors entity  time  of  an  53 New  explain  applicable a  unless  abrupt  changes  by  the  change. way  of  at  However,  a  certain  different this  then to  the  break. the  subjective  con-  concept  of  or  does  that  qualitative  activity,  to  an  from  that  which  in itself,  when  the  subjectivity  the  postulating  I f abrupt  entire  causal  enunciating  period  of a l l  quantity-quality This  i s considered, hardly leads  abrupt  i n terms  universal  increases i n quantitative  exclusively  of  owing  granted  do.lead,  before.  period  or  be  Subsequently,  be  concept  must  concept or  to  i s to  suggest  i s of  no  relative  real  nature  of  existed  a  time  significance time.  Pap, A., E l e m e n t s of A n a l y t i c P h i l o s o p h y , Y o r k , The M a c m i l l a n Company, 1949, p . 227  69.  The always  linked  subsequently In  what  used  concept  used  short,  similar  connectedness contiguous  in  any  of  or  even  opposites product  and  or  indeed,  could  the  be  --cd then  cannot  the  such  by  some  a  be  events  means  of  predicted  or  time?  the  inter-  i n terms  the  negation no  causal  then  there  the  is s t i l l  as  be  suggesting a e,  For,  of the  there  could  or  continuum.  novelty  explained  causality.  negation  short,  be  is  relative  are  is  and  causal word  or  Marxians  --  of  that  this  In  subjective  I f the  resultant,  analytically  relation,  in a  as  however,  novelty,  break  preceding steps  assuming  of  a  t o : - ab  theory  change,  emergence  of events  the  abrupt  to imply  becoming  In  a  the  other sense,  without  change  with  of  of  i s not  factor unity  implied  "e",  of  "e"  is  the  manner  by  which  determined.  t h e o r y based  on  internal  as,  "A r e l a t i o n i s i n t e r n a l i f i t f o l l o w s f r o m the n a t u r e of i t s terms a l o n e t h a t i t e i t h e r h o l d s o r d o e s n o t ' h o l d b e t w e e n t h e m . " ^4 is  not  sufficient  connectedness i.e.,  two  tenet  of  54 New  owing  terms abrupt  distinguish  to  only  are  substantiate to the  break  needed  to  break  and  one  term,  Bap;: .Ap, E l e m e n t s Y o r k , The M a c m i l l a n  the  doctrine  i n the  form  a  inter-  continuum,  relationship.  the emergence namely,  causal  of  the  of  novelty  effect  or  of A n a l y t i c P h i l o s o p h y , C o m p a n y , 1949, p. 20?'.  The can  entity.  70.  CONCLUSION  The  theory  of dialectical  sidered  by i t s a d v o c a t e s  man  may  act,in  The  nature  in  terms  that and  of  major  consequently  himself,  concepts  of  i s , however,  influences  i t s environment. of mind,  of r e a l i t y  n o n - t e l e o l o g i c a l , are considered,  is  respects  Hegelianism  that  has upon h i s environment  degree. and  which,  i s .  hardly  In other  as such,  T h i s , however, i n keeping  "active"  However, as a  reflector  and as the  being  theory  as p r e d e t e r m i n i s t i c as the Marxians  maintain  environment  theory,  but a l s o  completely  man  i s explained  Hegel.  "sensuous"  manifestations  just  which  r e j e c t e d on t h e b a s i s .  the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the concept  i n many  by  i m p l i c a t i o n of the Hegelian  i s not merely  the d i a l e c t i c a l  theory  i s con-  on h i s e n v i r o n m e n t .  i n c l u d i n g man  predeterminism  the subject  when  fashion  of the d i a l e c t i c a l  The namely,  as a p r a c t i c a l  a positive  of reality,  materialism  words,  i s as a f a c t o r  qualifies  i tto a  i s a completely  with  the only  t h e aims  of  passive  influence  of the  limited activity  dialectical,  materialism. Secondly, of  the universe  owing  the theory  does  t o the tenet  as a c a u s a l  not account  of abrupt  explanation  f o r a l l manifestations  break  and the emergence  of  novelty. all of  Yet  events view  in  are  such  spite  of  this,  Marxists  interconnected.  statements  as  the  Indeed,  maintain from  following  that  this  appear  point  as  pure  dogma : " . . . the l i m i t s of a p p r o x i m a t i o n of our knowledge to the o b j e c t i v e , absolute t r u t h are historically c o n d i t i o n a l , but the e x i s t e n c e of such t r u t h i s u n c o n d i t i o n a l , a n d t h e f a c t t h a t we a r e approaching nearer to i t i s also u n c o n d i t i o n a l . " 55  In sophical  short,  doctrine  but  a  group  of  the  absolutistic  dialectical  i s not  loosely claims  materialism  a highly  connected of  the  as  integrated concepts.  "pure  a  philo-  schematism Consequently,  Marxians"  appear  entirely.unwarranted.  If,  on  the  other  hand, Marxism  is  considered  "not c o m p l e t e , not a s y s t e m , and o n l y i n s e c o n d place t h e o r e t i c a l . . . because i t i s a l i v e a n d g r o w i n g , a n d above, a l l b e c a u s e i t l a y s no c l a i m t o f i n a l i t y . 56 it  does,  i n essence,  philosophical  lose  a l l import  as  a  revolutionary  doctrine.  55 L e n i n , V . T., S e l e c t e d W o r k s ( T h e Theoretical P r i n c i p l e s o f M a r x i s m ) , New Tork, I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1955, p. 198. 56 New  H a l d a n e , J . B. S., Y o r k , Random H o u s e  The M a r x i s t s Philosophy, Inc. 1939, p . 8. 1  as  BIBLIOGRAPHY  (This i s a p a r t i a l r e p r e s e n t i n g books and  b i b l i o g r a p h y of the s u b j e c t , , a r t i c l e s c o n s u l t e d by t h e w r i t e r . )  BOOKS.  Bake.we 1 1 , C h a r l e s M . , S o u r c e Book C h a r l e s S c r i b n e r ' s S o n s , New York,  i n Ancient 1907.  Philosophy,  Bowne, B. P., Metaphysics a Study i n F i r s t Principles, L o n d o n , S a m p s o n Low, M a r s t o n , S e a r l e a n d R i v i n g t o n . , I8"82. Burnet, Charles Cohen, 1938.  John, Black, C,  C o l e , GV Gollancz  Early 1908.  Greek  Materialism  D. H., Ltd.,  Philosophy,  What 193T1  Re-stated,  Marx  Really  Cunningham, G. W a t t s , Problems H e n r y H o l t and Company, 1935. E n g e l s , F., Publishers,  Ludwig 1941.  L o n d o n , Adam  and  :  Feuerbach,  London,  Meant,  of  New  Pioneer  London,  Philosophy, ~ York,  F u l l e r , B. Henry H o l t  New  Philosophy,  ;  H a l d a n e , J . B. S.,. The M a r x i s t New York, Random H o u s e , I n c . ,  Science,  York,  :  Fundamentals  1W50~.  York,  International  in  Gamertsfelder, W. S. Prentice -Hall Inc.,  Victor  New  E n g e l s , .F. , Herr Eugen Duhring's R e v o l u t i o n New York., International Publishers, 1939. A . G., A H i s t o r y of a n d Company, 1938.  Press,  of  Philosophy,  New  '  Philosophy 1939.  and  the  York,  Sciences,  Holt, E . B., M a r v i n , W. T., M o n t a g u e , W. P., P e r r y , P. P i t k i n , W. B., a n d S p a u l d i n g , . E . G., The New Realism, (Co-operative Studies i n Philosophy), New York, The Macmillan Company, 1912. Hook, Ltd.,  S.,From 1936.  Hegel  to  Marx,  I n e r a c h , James, Descartes, Edinburgh, T. a n d T . C l a r k ,  London,  Spinoza 1904 .  and  Victor  the  New  B.  Gollancz,  Philosophy, ~  II  L a n g e , P. A . , and Kegan P a u l  The H i s t o r y o f M a t e r i a l i s m , L o n d o n , L t d . , 1950.  Laski,  J.,  and  Harold  Unwin  Karl  Marx,  The F a b i a n  Routledg  Society,  Allen  L t d . , 1922.  L e n i n , V. I . , S e l e c t e d Works, (The T h e o r e t i c a l Practices of Marxism), I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , , Mew Y o r k , 1 9 3 5 . M a r x , K., a n d E n g e l s , F . , K a r l Marx and F r i e d r i c h E n g e l s C o r r e s p o n d e n c e 1846 - 1 8 9 5 , ( t r a n s l a t e d b y Dona T o r r ) , ~ London, Lawrence a n d W i s h a r t L t d . , 1936. M a r x , K., Chicago,  Capital Charles  ( A c r i t i q u e o f P o l i t i c a l Economy),H. K e r r a n d C o m p a n y , 1 9 0 8 , v o l . I .  M a r x , K., a n d E n g e l s , F . , The German L e n i n i s t L i b r a r y , London, 1942. Marx, K a r l , The P o v e r t y K e r r a n d Company, 1910.  Ideology,  of Philosophy,  The M a r x i s t  Chicage,  M a r v i n , W. T . , A First Book i n M e t a p h y s i c s , The M a c m i l l a n C o m p a n y , 1 9 1 2 . ~  Charles  New  H.  York,  :  M u r e , G. R. G., An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o H e g e l , The C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , . 1 9 4 0 . M y e r s , H. A . , The S p i n o z a - H e g e l C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1949. Pap, A., Elements o f A n a l y t i c t h e M a c m i l l a n Company, 1 9 4 9 .  Paradox,  Oxford,  Ithaca, .  Philosophy,  New  New  York,  P l e k h a n o v , G., E s s a y s i n t h e H i s t o r y o f M a t e r i a l i s m , L o n d o n , J o h n L a n e , The B o d l e y H e a d L t d . , 1 9 3 4 . P l e k h a n o v , G., F u n d a m e n t a l P r o b l e m s o f M a r x i s m , e d . D. R y a z a n o v , New Y o r k , I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1929. R o s e n f i e l d , L . C , F r o m . B e a s t - m a c h i n e t o Man-ma c h i n e , New Y o r k , O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 4 1 . Russell, Bertrand, A H i s t o r y o f Western New Y o r k , Simon a n d S c h u s t e r .  Philosophy,  S e l l a r s , Roy Wood, a n d o t h e r s , e d . , P h i l o s o p h y f o r t h e F u t u r e , New Y o r k , T h e M a c m i l l a n C o m p a n y , 1 9 4 9 .  York,  Ill S i n c l a i r , May, T h e New Company, L t d . , 1922.  Idealism,  London,  T h i l l y , P., A H i s t o r y o f P h i l o s o p h y , a n d Company, 1914.  New  Macmillan  York,  and  Henry  Holt  PERIODICALS. H a l d a n e , J . B. S., " D i a l e c t i c a l M a t e r i a l i s m a n d M o d e r n Science," Labour M o n t h l y , v o l . 23, pp. 266-268, J u n e , 1941. H a r r i s , A. L . "The S o c i a l P h i l o s o p h y (An I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l , P h i l o s o p h y ) , v o l . 58, A p r i l , 1948.  o f K a r l Marx", P o l i t i c a l , and  Ethics Legal  " i d e a l i s m " , E n c y c l o p e d i a B r i t a n n i c a (A New S u r v e y o f U n i v e r s a l Knowledge), Chicago, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, E n c y c l o p e d i a B r i t a n n i c a , I n c . , 1948, v o l . 12. K i n n e y , L . P. " H y p o t h e s i s a n d D i a l e c t i c " , P h i l o s o p h y , v o l . 34, pp. 354-359, 1937. McG-ill, U. J . , a n d P a r r y , a Dialectical Principle," No. 4, p p . 4 1 8 - 4 4 4 / P a l l ,  Journal of  W. T . , "The U n i t y o f O p p o s i t e s : S c i e n c e a n d S o c i e t y , v o l . 12, iVW. .  P o p p e r , K a r l R. , "What i s D i a l e c t i c " - , M i n d , A Q u a r t e r l y R e v i e w o f P s y c h o l o g y a n d P h i l o s o p h y ) G. E . M o o r e , e d . , L o n d o n , M a c m i l l a n a n d Company, L t d . , v o l " . 4 9 , p p . 4 0 3 - 4 2 6 , 1 9 4 0 . R a d e r , M., " P o l a r i t y a n d P r o g r e s s " , v o l . 4 2 , No. 2 5 , p p . 6 7 3 - 6 8 3 , 1 9 4 5 .  Journal of  Philosophy,  R u b i n s t e i n , S. L . , " C o n s c i o u s n e s s Materialism, Science and'Society, S e l s a m , H., a n d W e l l s , i t s Opposite", Science pp. 154 - 160, 1949.  i n the Light of D i a l e c t i c a l v o l . 1 0 , No. 3, p p . 2 5 2 - 2 6 1 , 1946. H. K., " D i a l e c t i c s t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o a n d S o c i e t y , v o l . 13, No. 2,  S l o c h o w e r , H., " T h e M a r x i s t I d e a o f C h a n g e a n d Law", S c i e n c e a n d S o c i e t y , v o l . 8.,. N o . 4, p p . 3 4 5 - 3 5 3 , 1 9 4 4 . S o m e r v i l l e , J . M. " O n t o l o g i c a l P r o b l e m s o f C o n t e m p o r a r y D i a l e c t i c a l Materialism", Journal of Philosophy, v o l .35, pp. 232 - 236, 1938. S o m e r v i l l e , J . M . " S o v i e t Science and D i a l e c t i c a l M a t e r i a l i a m " , P h i l o s o p h y o f S c i e n c e , v o l . I I , N o . 4, p p . 2 3 - 2 9 , 1 9 4 4 .  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106562/manifest

Comment

Related Items