On Lenin's Development of Engels' Theory on Basic Philosophical Issues
Engels first clearly put forward in his article "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy": "The great fundamental problem of all philosophy, especially modern philosophy, is the problem of the relationship between thinking and existence."
Engels divided this relationship into two aspects: on the one hand, which is primary, thinking or existence, which is the criterion for distinguishing materialism from idealism. "Those who assert that spirit is primary to nature and thus ultimately accept a certain kind of inheritance theory... form the idealist camp. Those who believe that nature is primary belong to various schools of materialism." The other aspect is "the problem of the identity of thinking and existence", which is the criterion for distinguishing agnosticism from agnosticism. Engels pointed out: "The vast majority of philosophers have given a positive answer to this question." So, is there an internal connection between the first and second basic aspects of philosophy? Is the division between materialism and idealism limited to the scope of ontology? Is there a third line in philosophy other than materialism and idealism? Based on Engels's relevant thoughts, Lenin further answered the above questions and made many-sided developments in the theory of basic philosophical issues.
I. Materialism and Idealism in the Epistemological Line
From the citation, we know that Engels mainly divided materialism and idealism from the perspective of ontology. Lenin did not understand Engels' theory of basic philosophical issues dogmatically, but extended it to related issues of epistemology.
First, Lenin believed that there was also a conflict between the two lines on the issue of the route and source of knowledge. "From things to sensations and thoughts? Or from thoughts and sensations to things?" "Materialism and idealism are distinguished according to how to answer the question of the source of our knowledge, that is, the relationship between knowledge (and general "psychological things") and the physical world." In other words, "all knowledge comes from experience, sensation, and perception" can be accepted by materialism, especially the old materialism of empiricism; it can also be accepted by idealism, especially subjective idealism. But if we ask further: "'Belonging to perception', that is, is it objective reality that is the source of perception?" The two different answers to this question lead to two opposing lines. "If you answer yes, then you are a materialist. If you answer no, then you are incomplete, and you will inevitably fall into subjectivism and agnosticism." Materialism believes that sensation is the subjective reflection of objective reality in the human brain, and thus indirectly insists on the primacy of matter; although idealism believes that sensation is the source of knowledge, it is unwilling to further acknowledge that sensation has objective reality, indirectly denying the objective reality of the external world and moving towards agnosticism and subjective idealism.
Secondly, Lenin pointed out more clearly that all materialists believe that thinking and existence are identical, that is, people can understand the world. In answering the question of whether thinking and existence are identical, Engels only said: "The vast majority of philosophers have given a positive answer to this question," without breaking down the respective attitudes of materialism and idealism on this issue. Lenin clearly pointed out on the basis of Engels that all materialists believe that thinking and existence are identical, which undoubtedly made Engels's conclusion clearer.
Then why do all materialists believe that thinking and existence are identical? This is because thinking and consciousness "are ultimately products of the human brain, products of nature, and do not contradict other relations in nature, but are adapted to each other." In other words, human consciousness is the product of the long-term development of the objective material world, and "ideas are nothing more than material things that have been transferred into and transformed in the human mind." This is the basic view that all materialists adhere to. Therefore, it goes without saying that all materialists believe that thinking and existence are identical. Lenin also believed that thorough idealists such as Hegel also believed that thinking and existence are identical. Because contrary to materialism, thorough idealists insist that matter is derived from consciousness. For them, "existence is thinking" and "the objective world is the idea." Therefore, it is not surprising that "thinking can recognize the content that is already the content of thought from the beginning." But if "completely naturalistically regards 'consciousness' and 'thinking' as something ready-made, as something that is opposed to existence and nature from the beginning... then it is very strange that consciousness and nature, thinking and existence, and the laws of thinking and the laws of nature are so closely adapted to each other." This is precisely the theoretical root of why some dualists and eclectics such as Kant fell into agnosticism.
II. Materialism and Idealism in the Views of Cause and Effect, Space and Time, and Truth
Lenin believed that there was also a contradiction between materialism and idealism on the issue of causality, the concept of time and space, and the concept of truth.
First, materialism and idealism on the issue of causality. Materialism believes that causality, regularity, and necessity are inherent in nature itself, rather than imposed by human beings and supernatural forces. But people can grasp the causality and necessity of nature through thinking. The subjective line on the issue of causality "does not derive the order and necessity of nature from the external objective world, but from consciousness, reason, logic, etc., not only separating human reason from nature, not only opposing the former to the latter, but also regarding nature as part of reason, rather than regarding reason as part of nature." "The subjective line on the issue of causality is idealism, that is, a more or less weakened and diluted faith."
Secondly, materialism and idealism in the view of truth. Is truth a "form of thought", "organizational form of human experience" or "reflection of external objective reality", and does truth have objective reality content that is not subject to the will of the cognitive subject? This is also the difference between materialism and idealism, especially subjective idealism. If "theory is recognized as a copy, an approximately correct copy of objective reality, this is materialism". It can be seen from this that Lenin did not generally believe that recognizing objective truth is a materialistic view of truth, because some objective idealists do not deny the existence of objective truth. On this issue, Lenin mainly judged from the negative meaning. He said: "Bogdanov's denial of objective truth is agnosticism and subjectivism." In summary, recognizing objective truth is not necessarily materialistic, but denying objective truth is definitely idealism.
Lenin also pointed out that the reason why the Machists fell into subjectivism, which denied objective truth, was inseparable from their ontological view of the world as a complex of "sensations" and "elements". "Starting from sensations, one can follow the line of subjectivism to solipsism ('objects are complexes or combinations of sensations'), or follow the line of objectivism to materialism (sensations are images of objects, the external world). From the first point of view (agnosticism, or more precisely, subjective idealism), there is no objective truth. From the second point of view (materialism), it is of utmost importance to recognize objective truth." Why is it said that "recognizing objective truth is of utmost importance" for materialists? This is because, on the premise of recognizing that "truth is an approximately correct reflection of objective reality", if materialists do not recognize objective truth, they are denying the objective content contained in truth and the existence of the objective material world, that is, they are denying their own philosophical premise of materialism.
Thirdly, materialism and idealism in the view of time and space. Lenin inherited Engels' critical spirit of Dühring's view of time and space, and clearly stated that there are also two lines in the view of time and space. Materialism believes that time and space are the basic forms of existence of moving matter. Although people's concept of time and space is relative, approximate, and variable, the time and space it reflects is objective and real, which is absolute. On the contrary, it is idealism to cover up or deny the objective reality of time and space by using the variability of people's understanding of time and space and the relativity of time and space concepts. For example, Mach regarded time and space as "a system of adjustment of the sensory series". Obviously, this conclusion was determined by his idealist premise that he regarded the material world as "a collection of sensations".
According to the above discussion, we know that ontological problems are closely related to epistemological problems. Epistemological problems require "ontological commitment", and whether ontology is thorough or not directly affects a series of epistemological problems. Lenin correctly placed epistemological problems in the ontological perspective and developed Engels' theory of basic philosophical problems in the field of epistemology.
3. “Philosophy is a science with a party character”
As pointed out above, the existence of two basic factions in philosophy, materialism and idealism, is a major aspect of Engels' theory of basic philosophical issues. Later, Joseph Dietzgen further clarified the opposition between the two basic factions, believing that "of all parties, the most despicable are the middle parties, the numerous middle elements and conciliatory swindlers, such as spiritualists, sensationalists, realists, etc., who are involved in this trend and that trend on their way. We demand firmness and clarity." On the basis of inheriting the basic spirit of his predecessors, Lenin clearly stated that philosophy is a science with party spirit, "the latest philosophy, like 2,000 years ago, is also party-oriented." Party spirit itself is a concept in social and political life. Lenin introduced it into the field of philosophy to illustrate the opposition between materialism and idealism. It is very targeted and emphasizes the division and opposition between materialism and idealism in philosophy, which has been made vague by those eclectics. On the basis of affirming the existence of party spirit in philosophy, Lenin also made many expositions:
First, materialism and idealism are two basic parties in philosophy. Lenin said: "Through many novel sophistry and pedantic cumbersome sentences, we always see without exception that there are two basic lines and two basic factions in solving philosophical problems. Whether to regard nature, matter, physical things, and the external world as primary things, and consciousness, spirit, feelings, psychological things, etc. as secondary things, this is a fundamental question that actually still divides philosophers into two major camps." "Materialism and idealism are two fighting parties in essence."
Secondly, Lenin believed that in class society, the struggle between materialism and idealism "ultimately expresses the tendencies and ideological systems of the hostile classes in modern society." It further clarified the class tendency of philosophy as an ideology.
Thirdly, Lenin believed that adhering to the party nature of philosophy is to inherit the valuable tradition of Marxist philosophy. He said, "Marx and Engels were always partisan in philosophy. They were good at discovering the betrayal of materialism and the indulgence of idealism and fideism in all the 'latest schools'."
Finally, Lenin believed that the two completely different criticisms of dualists such as Kant also showed that the opposition between materialism and idealism in philosophy was irreconcilable. He said, "Kant's incompleteness was mercilessly fought against by both thorough materialists and thorough idealists." Thorough materialists criticized Kant and Dühring for their "insufficient" materialism, while idealists criticized them for making unforgivable concessions to materialism.
Lenin's emphasis on the principle of philosophical party spirit was clearly targeted. As we all know, Lenin's book "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" was mainly intended to stop the spread of Machism in Russia and criticize eclectics such as Bogdanov. One of the main characteristics of eclectics is that they flaunt "neutrality" and vigorously promote "super-partisanship" in philosophy, attempting to transcend the opposition between materialism and idealism. Therefore, Lenin emphasized that materialism and idealism, in essence, are two struggling parties, two basic lines, and two basic factions. Philosophical eclecticism is a faction that vacillates between the two, a "mixture" of materialism and idealism, not a third thing different from the two, not a "compound". For this mushy "mixture", if you carefully distinguish it, you can still distinguish which are the materialistic components and which are the idealistic components, although they will have various different proportions, "sometimes emphasizing this factor of the mixture, sometimes mainly emphasizing its other factor". Therefore, Lenin fundamentally denied the existence of the "third line". Affirming the principle of party nature in philosophy does not mean equating philosophy with or attaching it to politics. As a manifestation of ideology, philosophy is not as class-based as political economy and law. At the same time, the root of the opposition between materialism and idealism is extremely complex, and it is far from enough to explain it only from the political and class levels. It is in this sense that Lenin said: The struggle of philosophical parties "in the final analysis expresses the tendencies and ideological systems of the hostile classes in modern society." Since it is "in the final analysis" (Lenin did not affirm more than this), philosophy should not be explained directly in terms of politics, and the terms and systems of philosophy should not be directly equated with the class structure of society. Otherwise, it would be a vulgar understanding of Lenin's theory of party nature in philosophy, just like vulgarizing the Marxist materialist conception of history into "economic determinism."
In fact, in the book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin also analyzed specific issues in specific ways, never taking a one-size-fits-all approach, but making necessary distinctions between theoretical and political positions. As we all know, Plekhanov was politically inclined to opportunism at the time, but philosophically he adhered to the basic materialist position and criticized Machism. Lenin regarded Plekhanov as an opponent in politics, but philosophically as an ally in criticizing common enemies, although some of Plekhanov's philosophical views were criticized in the book. On the contrary, some people in Russia at that time who "wanted to be Marxists" in politics, such as Bogdanov, became prisoners of Machism in philosophy. In order to clarify the negative influence of Machism among the working masses, Lenin fought ruthlessly against their idealist philosophical line and launched a merciless criticism. Moreover, Lenin's criticism of them was well-founded and based on a detailed and thorough analysis. He also positively affirmed and praised the materialistic side of the eclectics without exception, rather than simply labeling them. It is worth mentioning that in the book "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism", Lenin specifically pointed out the epistemological roots of subjective idealism such as Machism. He said: "Machism has an undoubted connection with a faction in a branch of modern natural science. A small number of new physicists, under the influence of the collapse of old theories caused by the great discoveries of recent years and the crisis of new physics that particularly clearly demonstrates the relativity of our knowledge, have passed through relativism and fallen into idealism because they do not understand dialectics." "The tendency of a school of natural scientists in a branch of natural science to turn over to reactionary philosophy is a temporary detour, a temporary period of illness in the history of science, a developmental disease caused in most cases by the sudden collapse of old established concepts." In other words, Lenin did not simply regard all Machists as apologists for the bourgeoisie, but saw that Machism was closely related to the crisis of classical physics at that time.
Of course, Lenin did not completely separate the philosophical struggle from the political struggle. He realized that the prevalence of philosophical idealism would inevitably affect the appeal and fighting power of Marxism among the party leaders and the revolutionary masses, and thus affect the Russian proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie would inevitably use idealism to dissolve the ideology of the proletariat and their revolutionary demands. Lenin neither equated the philosophical struggle with the political struggle nor separated it from the political struggle. Instead, he examined the complex relationship between the two, which was both different and related, and made specific analysis and evaluation. As for the fact that some people later used the philosophical party principle as a tool for political struggle, as a label without content, and made a simplistic understanding and treatment of it, it was not in line with Lenin's original intention, and Lenin should not be held responsible for it.
However, Lenin also said some words with strong emotional color in the book "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism". For example, he used "reactionary philosophy", "nonsense", "reactionary elements", "helpers" and so on to describe idealist philosophy and its theorists. The use of the term "reactionary philosophy" is not wrong if we only look at it from the history of the development of philosophy. Engels once said: "If the neo-Kantians attempt to revive Kant's views in Germany, and the agnostics attempt to revive Hume's views in Britain (where Hume's views have never disappeared), then, given that these views have long been refuted in theory and practice, such attempts are a step backward in science, and in practice they are just a cowardly practice of secretly accepting materialism and then rejecting it in public." In other words, the revival of Berkeleyism and Kantian agnosticism in the form of Machism and eclecticism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is actually an act of "reversing history" in the history of philosophy, that is, a "reactionary" act. Of course, the reason why a theory is revived in history has profound realistic roots. The resurrection of agnosticism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is inseparable from the crisis of classical physics as a whole. However, Lenin frequently used the word "reactionary", which has a strong political color. It should be said that this is not rigorous enough in theoretical analysis.
The right and wrong of theories should not overemphasize their political tendency and class nature. Idealism should never be simply regarded as "nonsense". Unfortunately, some of Lenin's words and sentences under specific historical conditions have become golden rules for his historical successors, and have been dogmatically understood and applied, causing huge and even disastrous effects in history.
In addition, Lenin particularly emphasized the struggle between materialism and idealism in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, and basically held a negative attitude towards idealism. This was caused by the characteristics of polemical works, and was also related to Lenin's lack of "philosophical literacy" at the time. In the later Philosophical Notebooks, Lenin not only pointed out the epistemological roots of idealism, but also affirmed that materialism and idealism not only have an aspect of mutual opposition and struggle, but also can be transformed and penetrated into each other under certain conditions. He once said: "Smart idealism is closer to smart materialism than stupid materialism." This is undoubtedly a very dialectical evaluation.
Looking through the whole text, it is not difficult to know that Lenin comprehensively used Engels' theory of basic philosophical issues to analyze some problems in epistemology and put forward important theoretical viewpoints such as philosophical party spirit. He not only inherited the basic spirit of Engels' theory of basic philosophical issues, but also developed the theory of basic philosophical issues, greatly enhancing the scope of application of basic philosophical issues. In this process, the negative impact of eclecticism such as Machism on the Russian proletarian revolution was also clarified, and Marxism was maintained and developed in practice. In this regard, we should seriously inherit and not understand Engels' theory of basic philosophical issues dogmatically, otherwise we will be like Lenin said: "Sacrifice Engels for a certain phrase of Engels."
.jpg)
No comments