Accueil
"It is true that every science gives knowledge but the nature of this knowledge differs. Each science gives us knowledge only of a particular sphere of reality: astronomy, of celestial bodies; biology, of plants, animals and man; history, of events in society. These sciences cannot give us knowledge of the whole of nature, of the world as a whole. Yet such knowledge is vitally necessary.
For instance, we often encounter general questions about the world. Was it "created", or has it existed eternally ? Can nature' develop naturally, i.e., without any intervention of mysterious, supernatural forces ? The physicist knows, of course, that there is nothing supernatural in the field of his investigations. But this knowledge applies primarily to his own sphere of research. What is required, however, is knowledge that covers all natural phenomena without exception, and this the so-called definite sciences cannot give us. Such knowledge is given by philosophy. It alone poses the most general questions of the development of nature and society and attempts to solve them. That defines the subject matter of philosophy, i.e., the range of questions that it studies.
The subject matter of philosophy differs therefore from that of the definite sciences which deal with patticular spheres of reality. What is this difference ? Physics, mathematics, biology and other sciences study definite laws, those governing the development of part of the phenomena of nature. Philosophy, however, studies the most general laws, those which govern not some part, but all the phenomena of nature, society and thought. Hence philosophy can be defined as the science of the most general laws of development of nature, society and thought." (pp.7-8 )
"The first way of looking at the world is to regard it as something immutable, ossified. This. is called the "metaphysical* method". The second method regards objects and phenomena as developing and changing. This is the dialectical method. Which of these two methods is scientific ? The metaphysical method assumes that the sun, mountains, rivers and seas at the present time are exactly as they were millions of years ago. It looks on phenomena in isolation, as unconnected with one another. This is the essence of the metaphysical method. Materialism in the past, which adhered to this method, came to be known as "metaphysical materialism".
The development of science in the nineteenth century increasingly contradicted this idea of the world. The first breach was due to the cosmological hypothesis of the German philosopher Kant and the French astronomer Laplace. They showed that the Earth and the solar system resulted from a long process of development of matter. Subsequently, geology, too, confirme-d the idea of the evolution of the Earth. The view of the world as a connected whole that had arisen as the result of historical development was particularly brought into prominence by three great discoveries. The great English naturalist Charles Darwin showed that the species of animals and plants existing in the world today had not always looked as they do now. They came into being as the result of a long process of · evolution. Secondly, scientists discovered that all animal and plant organisms are made up of the smallest units-cells-in which the complicated vital processes take place. In this way the basis was laid for a correct understanding of the evolution of organisms. Thirdly, scientists discovered the law of the conservation and transformation of energy. It was established that motion cannot arise out of nothing, just as it cannot disappear into nothing. The forms of motion pass into one another. Thus it was shown that matter in motion is eternal and indestructible. This was a great triumph for the theory of development. [...] The dialectical view of the world scored a succession of triumphs. It became increasingly difficult for metaphysics to deny the principle of development, an outward "recognition" of which became a characteristic feature of metaphysics in the nineteenth century. Basically, however, metaphysics always denies the principle of development, for it understands development as a process of simple repetition, without the emergence of anything new. It denies the internal source of development or sees it somewhere outside the developing things or phenomena-in a god, spirit, or idea. Dialectics and metaphysics are therefore incompatible.
Dialectics regards development as a process that results in real changes, where the old dies out and the new comes into being, where the course of events is not cyclical, but where new qualities of phenomena arise.
Metaphysics regards the world as an accumulation of accidental things and processes. Dialectics, on the other hand, regards the world as a single connected whole, and it studies these connections, separating those that are essential from those that are inessential, those that are fundamental from those that are accidental." (pp.11-12)
"The idealists say that the world came into being when it was created by the idea, by thought. That the world did not exist until it was created by God is the view of religion.
Obviously these two views are basically the same. Idealism has merely substituted the word "idea" for the word "God". Of course, idealism and religion are not identical ; there is a certain difference between them. What they have in common is that both of them introduce an ideal, spiritual principle as the basis of everything that exists." (p.13)
"Materialism, on the other hand, teaches that matter, nature, has existed eternally. It has not had a creator. Such a conception of the world's development has no room for a supreme heavenly power, for God. There is no need for God ; the development of the world has proceeded without his intervention. Thus materialism involves denial of any God and is inevitably bound up with atheism. A materialist is necessarily an atheist." (p.13)
"At first glance, it might seem that these idealist philosophers stand aside from the struggle of classes and parties. But it is easy to see that this is only a cover for their real intentions. In reality, when these idealists talk of "impartiality" and of being "above parties", they are in effect saying to the working people: "Keep away from the struggle against capitalism, against poverty." And whom does that benefit if not the capitalists and exploiters ? It turns out that idealism supports everything that is reactionary and obsolete, beginning with exploitation and ending with religion, clericalism.
In contrast to idealism, materialism expresses the interests of the revolutionary, progressive classes and opposes the reactionary obsolete classes. If idealism is the banner of the reactionary classes, materialism is the banner of the progressive, advanced classes. It should be borne in mind, however, that .this proposition must not be oversimplified so as to imply that under all conditions idealists defend everything reactionary and obsolete, while materialists always express the interests of the progressive classes. Heraclitus, for instance, a materialist philosopher of the ancient world, defended the interests of the slave-owners, opposed Athenian democracy, and was even in favour of war. On the other hand, the contemporary English philosopher Bertrand Russell, despite the idealist nature of his philosophy, is an active peace supporter." (p.14)
-O. Yakhot, What is Dialectical Materialism, Moscou, Progress Publishers, 1965, 223 pages.
