COGNITIVENESS OF THE WORLD AND ITS REGULARITIES
Marxist philosophical materialism on the cognizability of the world
The question of the relation of thinking to being – the fundamental question of philosophy – is decided, as has been shown earlier, materialistically or idealistically, depending on what is taken as primary, determining – matter or spirit. “But the question of the relation of thinking to being,” writes Engels, “has another side: how do our thoughts about the world around us relate to this world itself? Is our thinking capable of cognizing the real world, can we in our ideas and concepts about the real world form a true reflection of reality?” (F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, 1952, p. 16).
The question of man's knowability of the material world around him has been and remains the subject of the struggle between materialism and idealism. If the representatives of materialism proceed from the recognition of man's knowability of the material world, then the representatives of idealism deny the possibility of such knowledge, they declare the surrounding world mysterious, inaccessible to human knowledge, to science. The idealistic denial of man's knowability of the world has become widespread in bourgeois philosophy in the form of agnosticism and skepticism. The line of agnosticism in the history of philosophy was most fully and frankly formulated by the German philosopher I. Kant.
Having admitted the existence of the material world in the form of a “thing in itself,” Kant declared the latter to be otherworldly, inaccessible to human knowledge, to science. He believed that human knowledge is limited to the world of phenomena, that it is incapable of penetrating into the world of “things in themselves.” Kant, Lenin wrote, “admits the existence of a “thing in itself,” but declares it “unknowable,” fundamentally different from a phenomenon, belonging to a fundamentally different realm, to the realm of the “otherworldly” (Jenseits), inaccessible to knowledge, but revealed by faith.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, ed. 4, p. 90).
Having declared the unknowability of "things in themselves", Kant put forward a subjective-idealistic theory of knowledge. He argued that the cognizing subject, with the help of a priori (non-experiential) forms and categories inherent in thinking, orders the chaotic world of phenomena, gives it "harmony", "internal unity", "necessity" and "regularity". The English agnostic and skeptic Hume not only denied the possibility of man's knowledge of the surrounding world, but also doubted the existence of the world itself, and considered the very idea of the existence of an objective world independent of man to be absurd and superfluous. "... Hume," wrote Lenin, "does not want to know anything about the "thing in itself", he considers the very idea of it to be philosophically unacceptable, he considers it "metaphysics" ...". (Ibid.) The agnosticism of Kant and Hume was an attempt to reconcile knowledge with faith, science with religion, by limiting the “claims” of science and expanding the rights of religion.
Kantian and Humean agnosticism was later revived by reactionary bourgeois philosophy and in the last third of the 19th and early 20th centuries it became widespread, mainly in the form of neo-Kantianism and then Machism. Having revived Kantian agnosticism and subjective idealism, the representatives of neo-Kantianism and Machism went even further along the path of subjectivism, subjected Kantianism to criticism from the right and expelled the Kantian “thing-in-itself” from their philosophy.
The classics of Marxism-Leninism completely refuted agnosticism, comprehensively demonstrating its absolute scientific inconsistency. Criticizing agnosticism, Engels pointed out that a number of theoretical arguments against agnosticism had been formulated in pre-Marxist philosophy. However, Engels emphasized that the most decisive refutation of these, as well as all other philosophical quirks, lies not in theory, but in practice, namely in experiment and industry. "And if the neo-Kantians in Germany are trying to resurrect the views of Kant, and the agnostics in England - the views of Hume (never died out there), despite the fact that both theory and practice have long since refuted both, then in scientific terms this represents a retrograde movement ... " (F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, 1952, p. 18).
The idealistic nonsense of Kantian and Humean agnosticism was at one time subjected to decisive criticism not only by the founders of Marxism-Leninism, but also by the leading representatives of Russian materialistic philosophy of the 19th century - Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, and others. In a special addendum to the work "Materialism and Empiriocriticism" Lenin noted that the outstanding Russian thinker N. G. Chernyshevsky in his criticism of agnosticism was entirely on the level of Engels. (See V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., pp. 344-346).
Kantian, neo-Kantian, Machist ideas are used by modern idealistic philosophical systems, even more mystical and reactionary than neo-Kantianism - pragmatism, neo-realism, personalism, logical positivism, existentialism, semantics, etc. All these newfangled philosophical systems, reflecting the decay and disintegration of bourgeois philosophy during the general crisis of capitalism, are aimed with their edge against science and human reason, against everything advanced and progressive, first of all against Marxism. The creators of these systems proclaim the unknowability of the world, the impossibility of scientific knowledge, distort the achievements of modern science, trying to prove that it supposedly confirms the Kantian conclusion about the limits of human knowledge, going beyond which is supposedly possible only for faith.
For example, the ideologist of American-English imperialism B. Russell suggests abandoning the path of scientific research based on observation and experience and resorting to "pure" logical analysis. Russell denies the knowability of the world, objective truth in science, he considers science only as a "system of propositions" that has no relation to practice and the objective world.
Another obscurantist, the American philosopher Santayana, claims that only that science can be true which bases its conclusions on faith. Representatives of semantic philosophy (Carnap, Chase, Morris, Neurath, etc.) declare reality mysterious and unknowable, claiming that it cannot be explained, expressed in words, or reflected by science, since the latter is only a system of conventional signs, devoid of any objective content.
American pragmatists (D. Dewey and others), interpreting the process of cognition in a subjective-idealistic spirit, as a process of creation, the creation of the world by the knowing subject, also deprive human cognition, science of any objective content, declaring science a "practical art". Science, they argue, should not go beyond the limits of "usefulness", practical success, for its task is not a reflection of the objective world, but only serving the interests of the subject.
The agnosticism of modern bourgeois philosophy has a pernicious effect on the development of modern bourgeois science, strengthening and deepening its state of crisis. Bourgeois scientists try to use the data of modern science to substantiate the fundamental unknowability of the world, to drag clericalism into natural science. Representatives of modern "physical" idealism (Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, etc.) prove that the more technical means of physical research are improved, the more mysterious and unknowable the real world becomes for us, that it is generally "impossible to penetrate" the secrets of nature. The English physicist Dirac claims that it is supposedly impossible to "create a mental picture" of objective physical processes, that physics is powerless to explain them.
The bourgeois reactionary idealist philosophers are followed by modern right-wing socialists who are trying to push the ideas of reactionary bourgeois philosophy, the ideas of idealism and agnosticism into the masses. They need the propaganda of reactionary bourgeois philosophy among the people as a means to entangle the working masses in lies, to prevent the spread of the scientific proletarian worldview - Marxism-Leninism, which through all obstacles is forcing its way into the minds and hearts of millions of workers in capitalist countries.
Rejecting the idealistic nonsense about the unknowability of the world, Marxist philosophical materialism insists on the knowability of the material world around us and its laws. “In contrast to idealism,” writes Comrade Stalin, “which disputes the possibility of knowing the world and its laws, does not believe in the reliability of our knowledge, does not recognize objective truth, and believes that the world is full of “things in themselves” that can never be known by science, Marxist philosophical materialism proceeds from the fact that the world and its laws are entirely knowable, that our knowledge of the laws of nature, verified by experience and practice, is reliable knowledge that has the significance of objective truths, that there are no unknowable things in the world, but only things that have not yet been known, which will be revealed and known by the forces of science and practice.” (I.V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, p. 582).
The entire history of science and human practice confirms the correctness of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the knowability of the world and its laws. The Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge considers knowledge as a reflection of the surrounding material reality in human consciousness. The process of knowledge is the process of reflection of the objective world and its laws in human consciousness. V. I. Lenin noted that "the basis of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism is the recognition of the external world and its reflection in the human head..." (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 3).
This reflection is an ideal (in the form of ideas, thoughts) reproduction in the consciousness, in the head of a person of objects and phenomena of objective reality. At first, this reflection (in sensations and perceptions) appears in the form of sensory images, displaying only the external sides of individual objects and phenomena of material reality. Then it rises to logical reflection, manifests itself in the form of abstract concepts and mental manipulation of them, as a result of which the internal connections and lawful relationships of material reality are revealed. Being a reflection of nature and society, sensations and concepts are ideal copies of material things and processes. However, unlike metaphysical materialism, which interpreted the process of cognition as a direct and simple act of direct mirror reflection of surrounding objects by man, without understanding the historical nature of cognition, its complexity and contradictoriness, Marxist philosophical materialism considers human cognition as a complex, contradictory and historically developing process, going from ignorance to knowledge, from incomplete knowledge to more complete, from cognition of the phenomena of the objective world to cognition of essence, to cognition of the internal lawful connections and relationships of objects and phenomena.
The dialectical-materialistic theory of knowledge, created in the 19th century by Marx and Engels, was concretized and developed in the works of Lenin and Stalin on the basis of their creative generalization of new scientific data, on the basis of the new experience of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for the transformation of capitalist society into a socialist one. The development of the Marxist theory of knowledge by Lenin and Stalin was conditioned not only by the need for a decisive exposure of the neo-Kantians, Machists and other reactionary idealists who concentrated their struggle against Marxism in the field of epistemology, but also by the historical needs of the new era, the tasks of the revolutionary practice of the proletariat and its party. In the era of practical revolutionary renewal of the world, the collapse of the old, capitalist world and the formation of a new, communist world, in the period of the greatest successes of science in understanding the deepest secrets of nature, the theory of knowledge acquired exceptional significance, especially since “bourgeois philosophy especially specialized in epistemology...” (Lenin).
The task of exposing the subjective-idealistic epistemology of bourgeois philosophers, their latest tricks in the struggle against Marxist philosophical materialism, required further development of the Marxist, the only scientific, theory of knowledge. The development of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism was historically necessary not only for exposing the Machists and other preachers of reactionary bourgeois philosophy, but also for the theoretical generalization of new data from science and the revolutionary practice of the proletariat and its party, for the scientific knowledge of the laws of social development and the development of Bolshevik strategy and tactics. Developed by Lenin and Stalin, the Marxist theory of knowledge armed the cadres of the Bolshevik Party and Soviet scientists with a powerful theoretical weapon in the matter of scientific knowledge of the laws of nature and society, in the matter of using them in accordance with the interests and historical tasks of communist construction.
Sensory cognition (sensation, perception, representation)
The first step in complex and historically developing human knowledge is direct, living contemplation of the surrounding reality, sensory knowledge, which includes sensations, perceptions and ideas. Being a form of direct reflection of specific objects and phenomena of the material world, sensory knowledge serves as a direct or indirect source of all our knowledge. “Other than through sensations,” wrote Lenin, “we cannot learn anything about any forms of matter or any forms of motion...” (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 288).
All knowledge begins with sensations, perceptions, with review, comparison, differentiation, comparison and processing of the material perceived by the senses. The entire subsequent process of human knowledge is ultimately based on sensory knowledge. Sensory knowledge historically and logically forms the initial stage of the process of knowledge. This is true both in relation to the reflection of the material world in the consciousness of an individual and in relation to the historical development of human knowledge.
A person's sensory cognition of material reality occurs in the process of his practical activity, in the process of production. The classics of Marxism-Leninism noted that people begin not with theory, but with practical activity, with the production of means for their existence. In the process of labor, practical production activity, people influence objects and phenomena of the surrounding material world and receive certain sensations and perceptions.
In his immortal work, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin developed in detail the materialist doctrine of sensation. “Sensation,” wrote Lenin, “is the result of the impact of an objectively existing thing-in-itself outside of us on our sense organs...” (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, 4th edition, p. 106) Through sensations, people receive certain information about the properties and qualities of individual objects and phenomena. When the activity of the sense organs is disrupted, the connection between consciousness and the outside world is inevitably disrupted. V.I. Lenin pointed out that “sensation is truly a direct connection between consciousness and the outside world, it is the transformation of the energy of external stimulation into a fact of consciousness.” (Ibid., p. 39).
The mechanism of this transformation—the transformation of physical irritation into a corresponding physiological and then mental process—has been largely revealed by Soviet science, its various branches—physics, biology, physiology, and psychology.
Modern Soviet physiology, based on the teachings of I. P. Pavlov on higher nervous activity, establishes the material, physiological foundations of sensation processes, actions of the sense organs. Sensation is considered as a result of the joint work of the sense organs and the cerebral cortex. The anatomical and physiological apparatus of sensation, called the analyzer by I. P. Pavlov, consists of three parts: 1) a set of peripheral receptors (eyes, ears, nose, etc.); 2) pathways for the propagation of nervous excitation (nerve fibers) and 3) the corresponding (visual, auditory, olfactory, etc.) zones of the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is the organ of higher analysis and synthesis of external stimuli; it also directs the work of the nerve analyzers.
Soviet science has established that the transformation of external irritation into a nervous process (into physiological irritation and a mental act) that occurs in the process of sensation occurs in leaps and bounds, like the transition of physical and chemical energy into a qualitatively different, organic form of movement of matter.
"...Each peripheral apparatus," wrote I. P. Pavlov, "is a special transformer of a given external energy into a nervous process." (I. P. Pavlov, Complete Works, Vol. III , Book 1, Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow - Leningrad, 1951, p. 122). The effect of light energy on our eye causes certain photochemical and electrical phenomena in its retina, which in turn cause a change in the concentration of ions in the peripheral endings of the optic nerves. This excitation process, which began in the light-sensitive nerves - rods and cones - is transmitted via visual fibers to the corresponding (visual) centers of the cerebral cortex, where it is transformed into a specific mental process. I. P. Pavlov revealed the dialectic of the process of transforming physiological irritation into a mental act. He showed that the formation of a conditioned reflex is simultaneously the process of the emergence of an elementary mental act - sensation.
The physiological system of nervous, conditioned reflex connections formed in the brain, fixed by the corresponding material structure (stimuli and their traces in the cerebral hemispheres), which is a system of direct reflection of reality in the form of sensations, perceptions and ideas, was called the first signal system by I. P. Pavlov. “For an animal,” he wrote, “reality is signaled almost exclusively only by stimuli and their traces in the cerebral hemispheres, directly coming to special cells of the visual, auditory and other receptors of the organism. This is what we also have in ourselves as impressions, sensations and ideas from the surrounding external environment, both natural and our social, excluding the word, audible and visible. This is the first signal system of reality, common to us and animals.” (I. P. Pavlov, Complete Works, Vol. III , Book 2, 1951, pp. 335-336).
However, in humans, the first signal system acquired qualitatively new features, since it developed under the influence of the already formed second signal system, under the influence of labor, material production, and socio-historical practice as a whole. Since the biological laws that determined the development of animals were replaced in humans by social laws, their sense organs lost their former animal sharpness and biological limitations, but acquired a new quality - they became human organs. Under the influence of labor, practical impact on the surrounding world, human sense organs and their functional activity improved and developed, their ability to perceive a huge variety of qualities and properties of the objective world increased.
The ability of the sense organs to adequately perceive various properties and qualities of the objective world has improved in the course of biological evolution of organisms, as a result of the increasing complexity of their interactions with the environment. Soviet physiology has established, for example, that the eye's color sensitivity is a product of the comparatively late development of the organic world. At the early stages of phylogenesis, the vision of animal organisms was colorless. In many highly developed animals, color sensitivity is either absent or very poorly developed (for example, in dogs). Even anthropoid apes distinguish only a few colors. Only in humans, in the process of labor and deeper interaction with the surrounding world, has a physiological apparatus developed that has a rich ability to adequately perceive various colors. The eye of a modern person is capable of distinguishing up to 180 color tones, and it can distinguish up to 10 thousand or more different colors (gradations of saturation and lightness). (See S.V. Kravkov, Color Vision, 1951, pp. 15-16).
By subjecting natural objects to practical processing, and even more so by creating new ones, people changed the surrounding objective-sensory world and at the same time changed the nature of their sensory contemplation. Their sensory perceptions reflected objects and phenomena of reality, already largely changed and transformed in the process of labor material and production activity.
The entire “sensory world” that surrounds us, Marx and Engels noted, is not some unchanging, “always equal thing, but a product of industry and social conditions, and in the sense that it is a historical product, the result of the activity of a whole series of generations, each of which stood on the shoulders of the previous one...” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, Vol. IV , 1938, p. 33).
Therefore, the human sense organs and their functional activity are the product not only of the entire previous evolution of his animal ancestors, but also of the socio-historical development of man himself. “The formation of the five senses,” wrote Marx, “is the product of the entire world history.” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, Vol. III , 1929, p. 627).
The human eye, capable of perceiving a wealth of forms and colors, was brought to life by the practical needs of man, by social and historical practice. As their work activity developed, as new types of paints were created in production, people learned to distinguish various shades of colors more subtly. The musical ear could only be formed as a result of the creation of music. Even more dependent on production activity are human taste perceptions, which became human only in the process of developing the production of food items and the art of cooking.
“Just as the gradual development of speech is invariably accompanied by a corresponding improvement of the organ of hearing,” wrote Engels, “so the development of the brain in general is accompanied by an improvement of all the senses in their totality. The eagle sees considerably further than man, but the human eye notices considerably more in things than the eagle’s eye. The dog has a much more acute sense of smell than man, but it does not distinguish even a hundredth part of those smells which for man are definite signs of various things. And the sense of touch, which the monkey barely possesses in its crudest, most rudimentary form, was developed only together with the development of the human hand itself, thanks to labor.” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, pp. 135-136).
* * *
Human sensation is a complex process occurring in its sensory apparatus under the influence of external stimuli. The peculiarity of sensations is that a person senses, perceives, and sensually reflects in consciousness not the physical-chemical and physiological nervous processes themselves, but objects and phenomena that cause these processes.
The question arises: are objects of the material world correctly reflected in the sensations and perceptions of a person? Representatives of agnosticism, philosophical and physiological idealism have proven and continue to prove that there is supposedly an innate inability of the sense organs to correctly reflect the external world. “There is no similarity,” wrote the 19th century German physiologist Helmholtz, “between the quality of sensory sensations and the quality of external agents that excite our sensory sensations and are transmitted through them.”
Agnostics, philosophical and physiological idealists declared sensations and perceptions to be conventional signs, symbols, hieroglyphs, which supposedly have no resemblance to the external objects they represent.
V. I. Lenin in his work "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" subjected the theory of symbols, or hieroglyphs, to devastating criticism. Lenin showed that this theory is an anti-scientific, false theory, which brings grist to the mill of agnosticism and idealism.
Criticizing Helmholtz, Lenin wrote: “If sensations are not images of things, but only signs or symbols that have “no resemblance” to them, then Helmholtz’s original materialistic premise is undermined, the existence of external objects is subject to some doubt, for signs or symbols are entirely possible in relation to imaginary objects, and everyone knows examples of such signs or symbols.”
Lenin also harshly criticized Plekhanov, who, making concessions to Kantianism, wrote that “our sensations are a kind of hieroglyphics that bring to our attention what is happening in reality.” (Ibid., p. 57).
In a decisive struggle against various idealistic schools, Lenin developed with exceptional depth and consistency the dialectical-materialistic doctrine of sensation as an image of objective reality. “Our sensations, our consciousness,” he wrote, “are only an image of the external world, and it is self-evident that the reflection cannot exist without the reflected, but the reflected exists independently of the reflector.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 222)
Lenin's exposure of Machism, physiological idealism, and the theory of hieroglyphs in his work "Materialism and Empiriocriticism" is of great importance and arms us in the fight against modern reactionary American-English philosophy. This philosophy again and again revives old idealistic ideas about the impossibility of adequately reflecting the external world in human sensations. Denying the correctness of the reflection of the objective world in human sensations, they reduce all the wealth of the latter to the subjective world, to the "totality of sensations," to the "specific energy" of the sense organs, etc.
The theory of the subjectivity of secondary qualities (color, sound, smell, taste, etc.), widespread in bourgeois philosophy, was used in the past and is used at present by various idealists in the struggle against materialism in general and the Marxist-Leninist theory of reflection in particular. American and English idealists (Bradley, McTaggart, Royce, Drake, Santayana, Broad, Pratt, Strong, etc.) "prove" the subjectivity of secondary qualities in various ways. "A thing," they assert, "possesses a secondary quality only in relation to an organ... since we can have sensations without an object... Therefore, secondary qualities are appearances."
For all idealists, the denial of the objectivity of secondary qualities was merely a logical preparation for the denial of the objectivity of primary qualities and the objectivity of the world in general. Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, and others based their "logical positivism" on the denial of the objectivity of secondary qualities. Having dealt with the objectivity of secondary qualities, they then reduce the external world to the subjective world, to a collection of "sensory data" (sensations), declare the latter to be "elements of the world," and assert that the entire existing world consists "simply of certain series and combinations of sensory data." The American pragmatist D. Dewey asserts that our sensory perceptions are merely a "stream of consciousness," tools of our practical activity, our needs, but have no relation to external objects.
Dialectical materialism, in full agreement with experience, practice and science, proves that sensation is a reflection in human consciousness of various properties and qualities of objects and phenomena of the material world (extension, movement, form, color, sound, smell, etc.). Lenin's theory of reflection decisively rejects the denial by subjectivists and mechanists of the objective existence of color, smell, sound, etc. It is not our sense organs that generate colors, sounds, smells, etc. in our consciousness, but the objective existence of the coloring (coloring) of objects and phenomena of the material world, their sound and odor are perceived by our sense organs, generating in us the sensation of color, sound, smell, etc.
Advanced Soviet science substantiates Lenin's doctrine of sensation as an image of the objective world with the data of natural science and completely refutes various idealistic theories. Our sense organs have the ability to adequately reflect the properties and qualities inherent in the objects of the material world themselves. For example, with the help of the eye we reflect the color properties of the objective world. The surfaces of objects of the material world have a certain color (color), i.e. they have the property of emitting or reflecting electromagnetic oscillations of a certain wavelength. The color (coloring) of a particular object is the result of its interaction with certain rays of light falling on its surface. Color depends both on the length of the light (electromagnetic) waves falling on the object and on the composition of the substance, on the properties of the atoms and molecules located on its surface. "Both the sun and all the objects illuminated by it," wrote the famous Soviet scientist Kravkov, "send out many rays of the most varied wavelengths. The sum of the radiations of different wavelengths emitted or reflected by each body gives the emission or reflection spectra that characterize the color properties of this body.” (S.V. Kravkov, Color Vision, 1951, p. 18).
Consequently, different colors (red, blue, green, etc.) are certain objective properties, qualities of material objects that exist independently of the subject perceiving them and are reflected by him.
But if color is an objective property of an object, existing outside the subject, then the sensation of it depends on the perceiving subject. Sensation is a subjective reflection in the human head of the objective reality of the external world. "Sensation," says Lenin, "is a subjective image of the objective world..." (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, 4th edition, p. 106). Sensation is a subjective image, since it occurs in the nervous system of a concrete historical personality and does not exist outside the acting subject. Therefore, sensation depends to a certain extent on the state of the subject, on the state and development of both the organism as a whole and its sense organs, nervous system and brain. It is known that a change in the state of the organism, sense organs and nervous system affects the process of sensation, causing either an increased or decreased ability of the nervous system to respond to external stimuli. Sensation is a subjective image not in the sense of a distortion of reality in the consciousness of a person, but in the sense that it is a mental, ideal process, representing the processing of the material in the human head. The image that arises in a person’s head is only an approximately correct snapshot, a copy of a real object; but this image is not identical to the object, is not an absolutely accurate and comprehensive reflection of it. If our sensations immediately and completely reflected the entire complexity of material processes, then science would be unnecessary. “Man,” Lenin points out, “cannot grasp = reflect = depict nature in its entirety, in its “immediate integrity,” he can only eternally approach this...” (V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 157).
Sensation is subjective in its form, for it is a function of the brain, the nervous system, matter organized in a certain way. But the content of sensation is determined not by the nervous process occurring in the subject, but by the nature of the objective reality that caused it. Sensation, being subjective in its form, is objective in its content, in its source. Human sensation contains in itself, in ideal form, that which is actually outside sensation, which is its object, the source of its existence. “If I look at a tree and see it,” says Comrade Stalin, “this only means that even before the idea of a tree was born in my head, the tree itself existed, which evoked in me the corresponding idea...” (I.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 1, p. 319)
Feeling, being an image of objective reality, gives at its core a correct, true, adequate reflection of objective reality, which is confirmed by the daily life experience and practical activities of people.
All the great successes achieved by human practice became possible as a result of man's correct reflection of the material world around him. If sensory perceptions gave an incorrect, distorted reflection of objects, then man's correct relationship with the surrounding world would be impossible, his orientation in this world would be impossible, and even more so, man's objective-practical activity would be impossible.
“Domination over nature,” wrote Lenin, “which manifests itself in the practice of humanity, is the result of an objectively correct reflection in the human mind of the phenomena and processes of nature; it is proof that this reflection (within the limits of what practice shows us) is an objective, absolute, eternal truth.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, ed. 4, p. 177).
By means of sensations, a person reflects various properties and qualities of objects of the external world (hardness, roughness, softness, shape, color, sound, smell, etc.). In reality, there are no “pure” qualities and properties isolated from objects, but there are integral objects that possess certain qualities and properties. We become convinced of the integrity of objects in the process of practical activity, influencing them and changing them. As a result, our sensory knowledge has historically developed as the ability to objectively reflect the material world. Separate sensations, delivered by various sense organs and reflecting various properties and qualities of objects, are synthesized in the cerebral cortex and linked with data from past experience, turning into perceptions that provide integral images of objects.
Sensation and perception are two moments, two phases of a single sensory cognition. Being a more complex mental act than sensation, perception, however, is impossible without sensations. It arises and develops only on the basis of sensations, as the ability to synthesize and generalize them. This process of transforming individual sensations into perceptions is conditioned by the unity of the nature of the perceived object itself (the objective integrity of objects) and the objective-practical activity of the perceiving subject.
Sensory perception is a living contemplation, a form of direct reflection in the consciousness of man of objects and phenomena of the surrounding reality. But the immediacy of perceptions at one or another stage of the historical development of man always grows on the basis of their mediation by all previous socio-historical practice, the development of material production, scientific knowledge and thinking. The development of material production and science reveals the relative limitations of man's sensory perceptions and encourages him to use all sorts of methods of mediated perception, to invent various tools and devices that infinitely expand the boundaries of his sensuality, the area of perceived phenomena.
Equipping the human sense organs with appropriate equipment (magnifying glass, telescope, microscope, spectroscope, etc.) allowed him to infinitely expand the boundaries of sensory cognition and penetrate not only into the distant stellar world, but also into the microscopic world, into the world of the smallest bacteria, into the world of molecules, into the world of atoms and electrons. Thanks to technically improved means of physical research, man was able to penetrate into the world of intra-atomic processes, to understand their patterns and to discover in them new inexhaustible sources of energy (intra-atomic energy), which can be put to the service of humanity. What is inaccessible to sensory cognition at one stage of the historical development of humanity becomes accessible at another stage thanks to the development of social production and technology. Therefore, the natural limitations of the human sense organs cannot serve as the limit of his cognitive abilities.
On the basis of sensations and perceptions, a person develops ideas as a more complex form of reflecting reality. Ideas arise on the basis of a person's practical impact on objects of the material world and are a more generalized form of visual, sensory reflection of these objects. Reproducing a previously perceived object, an idea reflects not all of its concrete-sensory details (as perception), but only its most characteristic features, sides, and attributes. An idea is, therefore, a generalized form of reflecting reality. But an idea is only the initial stage of generalization; it still retains some features of concrete clarity and uniqueness. The interpenetration of the visual and the generalized in ideas constitutes their peculiarity as a link in the dialectical transition from sensory perceptions to concepts, to theoretical thinking.
Abstract thinking
Abstract thinking, i.e. the ability to form concepts and operate with them in the form of judgments and inferences, is based on sensory data and is a more complex process of human cognition.
Human sensory cognition reflects only the external aspects and connections of individual objects and phenomena of objective reality. Sensations and perceptions are not capable of grasping the universal connections, the lawful relationships of the objective world, therefore they are only the first stage of human cognition. On the contrary, abstract thinking allows one to penetrate into the essence of objects and phenomena, allows one to discover their general laws. But the transition from sensory cognition to abstract thinking itself would be impossible if the possibilities and prerequisites for such a transition were not embedded in human sensory perception itself. They are due to the fact that the general, existing in objective reality itself, manifests itself only in the individual, through the individual, the singular. “The general,” Lenin noted, “exists only in the individual, through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) general.” (V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 329).
In sensory perceptions of individual things and phenomena there are already elements of the general and the particular, but they are merged with the individual, not abstracted from it, not realized. Therefore, in sensory cognition of individual objects there is a possibility of cognition of the general, a possibility of formation of abstract concepts.
The first step towards generalization of the individual in the form of ideas arises on the basis of perceptions and is still accomplished within the framework of sensory cognition. Any attempt by idealists to separate rational (mental) cognition from its sensory basis distorts the understanding of the essence of the real process, for in fact there is no gap between sensory and rational cognition, since both reflect the same material reality. Sensory cognition develops into logical cognition, and logical cognition grows out of the sensory and is its further development. This dialectical unity of the sensory and rational (mental) moments in the process of cognition remained incomprehensible to philosophers of the pre-Marxist period. If the representatives of sensualism limited human cognition only to the sensory perception of individual objects, underestimating the role of theoretical thinking, then rationalists, on the contrary, separated abstract thinking from sensuality, considering it an independent process.
The fundamental error of the representatives of rationalism in the past (Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, etc.) was their underestimation of the significance of sensory cognition, which led many of them to idealism. Idealists either ignore sensory cognition altogether, considering it unreliable (Plato, Hegel), or deny its objective content (Berkeley, Hume, Machians, etc.).
The idealistic separation of the general from the individual, of abstract thinking from its sensory basis, is widely practiced by modern reactionary bourgeois philosophy. The American mystic Santayana, separating the general, the abstract from the individual, the concrete, transforms the mystical “pure being” of ideal entities that he put forward into a timeless “divine” nature, elevating it above the world of concrete, individual things. He tries to “prove” that “the kingdom of entities forms the infinite basis of all things,” that “all things are abstractions from the kingdom of entities.” A similar separation of the general from the individual, of abstract thinking from sensory experience, and their opposition to each other is also carried out by many other bourgeois philosophers and scientists.
In contrast to metaphysicians and idealists, Marxism-Leninism considers the existence of abstract thinking impossible without a sensory basis. This is especially clearly seen in the example of the thinking of deaf-mutes, who do not have the ability to speak, people whose thoughts are deprived of a sound shell. “The thoughts of deaf-mutes,” says Comrade Stalin, “arise and can exist only on the basis of those images, perceptions, ideas that they develop in everyday life about objects of the external world and their relationships with each other thanks to the senses of sight, touch, taste, smell. Outside of these images, perceptions, ideas, thought is empty, devoid of any content, i.e., it does not exist.” (I.V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, p. 47).
The transition from sensory cognition of things and phenomena to theoretical thinking, to the cognition of internal connections and lawful relationships between them occurs on the basis of the development of socio-historical practice. The practical activity of people forms their cognitive abilities; on its basis, the process of forming concepts from sensory data and the development of abstract logical thinking takes place; “... the practice of man,” says Lenin, “repeating billions of times, is fixed in the consciousness of man by the figures of logic.” (V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 188).
In the process of the historical development of man himself and his work activity, a physiological apparatus of mediated, generalized reflection of essential connections and lawful relationships of objects of the real world was formed, inextricably linked with speech, with language and called by I. P. Pavlov the second signal system.
The second signal system was formed on the basis of the first in the process of development of the brain in the direction of complication and differentiation of its cortical connections and analyzers, formation of interanalyzer areas and powerful development of the parietal-occipital and frontal lobes. “If our sensations and ideas,” wrote I. P. Pavlov, “related to the surrounding world, are for us the first signals of reality, concrete signals, then speech, especially first of all kinesthetic stimuli coming to the cortex from the speech organs, are the second signals, signals of signals. They represent an abstraction from reality and allow generalization, which constitutes our superfluous, specifically human, higher thinking, which first creates universal empiricism, and finally science - an instrument of the highest orientation of man in the surrounding world and in himself.” (I. P. Pavlov, Complete Works, Vol. III , Book 2, 1951, pp. 232-233).
Animals also have the beginnings of thinking, but they are limited by the first signal system. The second signal system, which operates with words as irritants, allowed humans to develop theoretical thinking by means of abstraction from concrete, sensory objects. Human thinking, capable of forming concepts and operating with them, was formed only in connection with the emergence of language as a powerful and necessary tool of mental abstraction. The concepts formed by people were clothed in certain words as their material form. The word reinforced the abstraction from the sensory form of concrete, individual things and the generalization of their most general and essential features and properties. “Feelings,” V. I. Lenin noted, “show reality; thought and word are common.” (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 256) . Without the emergence of language in verbal form, the transition from sensory cognition to abstract thinking would have been impossible, and the formation and development of concepts would have been impossible.
Since the separation of man from the animal world, the successes of his cognitive and thinking activity have been recorded, consolidated and stored in language, which allows not only to assimilate and preserve them, but also to pass them on to future generations. “Being directly connected with thinking,” writes I. V. Stalin, “language registers and consolidates in words and in the combination of words in sentences the results of the work of thinking, the successes of the cognitive work of man, and thus makes possible the exchange of thoughts in human society.” (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, p. 22).
We have the opportunity to trace this complex process of the transition of human cognition from sensory perceptions to abstract thinking in the process of intellectual development of a child (of course, taking into account a number of features and the influence of the social environment on him). Data from Soviet physiology indicate that a child first develops a physiological system of direct reflection of reality in the form of conditioned reflex activity (reactions to sensory stimuli). And only in the second year of life, in connection with the rapid development of speech activity, does he develop a second signal system as a material basis for children's thinking in the form of verbal abstraction and generalization, operating with concepts.
Having separated from the animal world, primitive people were at first capable of forming only the most elementary general concepts, which for a long time were closely connected with individual sensory perceptions and visual representations. Then gradually, over the course of many millennia, in the process of daily repetitive labor and practical activity, people developed the ability to mentally abstract and generalize, they rose to the ability to form more complex and general concepts, which were subject to further improvement and development as the cognitive and practical activity of people expanded and developed.
The development of the ability to think abstractly was recorded and consolidated in grammatical and logical categories. Thus, in the process of developing work activity, developing language and the ability to think abstractly, certain stable forms of logical thinking were developed.
In his works on linguistics, I. V. Stalin completely exposed Marr's anti-scientific theory about the existence of a supposedly pre-sound language and pre-logical thinking among primitive people of the pre-natal period and scientifically proved that "sound language or the language of words has always been the only language of human society..." (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, p. 46) , that the emergence of language was associated with the emergence of human thinking, since "the reality of thought is manifested in language." (Ibid., p. 39) Marr's anti-scientific fabrications about the inability of primitive people to form concepts and mentally operate with them were borrowed from reactionary bourgeois researchers (Cassirer, Levy-Bruhl, etc.), who, in order to please the imperialist colonizers, sought to prove the inability of primitive people and modern backward peoples to think in a human way, limited their intellectual activity only to the sphere of sensuality, reducing them to the level of animals.
Bourgeois historians of primitive culture, and Marr after them, depict the thinking of primitive people as mystical, illusory, supposedly incapable of correctly reflecting real things and phenomena. This bourgeois lie has long been exposed by the classics of Marxism-Leninism and confirmed by data from many sciences (the teachings of I. P. Pavlov, anthropology, linguistics, history, etc.), which testify to the fact that human thinking, formed in the process of the development of man and his labor activity and social life, was inevitably clothed in a material linguistic (verbal) shell and in a logical form.
If primitive people were incapable of correctly reflecting the surrounding reality, if their concepts and thoughts were mystical, illusory, then their labor, practical activity would not have been successful, then they not only could not produce tools and use them, could not fish, hunt, etc., but would not even be able to navigate in the surrounding nature and would inevitably perish in harsh conditions and in a difficult struggle with the forces of nature.
* * *
One of the main forms of logical thinking is the concept. Concepts are necessarily clothed in a "material linguistic shell" outside of which they do not exist. The formation of concepts is based on the process of abstraction and generalization, i.e., mental abstraction from everything external, individual and random and the unification of the common properties of objects and phenomena of reality. Initially, generalization was closely associated with practical action. One group united those objects and phenomena that were not only similar in their objective properties, but also performed the same function in practical activity. Concepts were formed as a result of the generalization of many practically important features and abstraction from features that were unimportant for practical activity. For example, the concept of "axe" was a generalization of many specific tools that performed the same practical function.
At first, concepts were closely connected with concrete, visual representations and developed in the direction of increasing abstraction and generalization.
The emergence of abstract concepts meant a more complete and profound reflection of material reality, and contributed to the revelation of the most essential aspects, internal connections and laws of measured relations of the objective world. Lenin noted that “the simplest generalization, the first and simplest formation of concepts (judgments, conclusions, etc.) means man’s knowledge of the increasingly profound objective connection of the world.” (V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 153).
Bourgeois philosophers and scientists view the process of the formation of scientific abstractions as an impoverishment of thinking, its departure from reality. For example, the physicist W. Heisenberg depicts the history of physics as a process of its increasing departure from reality and the impoverishment of human knowledge. He proves that all the concepts of modern physics (atom, space, time, etc.) allegedly no longer contain anything real, being only forms of our thinking. A. Einstein interprets the process of scientific abstraction in the same idealistic spirit. For example, he views geometry as a purely formal science, devoid of objective content, asserting that geometric axioms are “free creations of the human spirit.”
In contrast to idealism, dialectical materialism regards scientific abstraction as a specific way of reflecting material reality. Abstraction, like all human mental operations, originates primarily in the process of his practical activity. Abstraction in action, preceding mental abstraction, consisted in the fact that people in their practical actions primarily singled out those properties and qualities of objects that had the most important and direct significance for their needs, abstracting from a whole series of less important, unnecessary or secondary features.
Thinking is capable of analyzing, dissecting the reality being studied into its constituent parts, properties, aspects and studying them in a sequential order, highlighting what is necessary, abstracting from the secondary and random, for the purpose of a more complete and profound understanding of reality.
With the help of scientific abstraction, human knowledge moves from perceptions of the individual to the generalization of a mass of phenomena, creates concepts, categories and laws that reflect deeper connections and patterns of the material world. Comrade Stalin revealed with exceptional depth the role of scientific abstraction in the development of geometry and grammar. “Grammar,” he wrote, “is the result of the long, abstract work of human thinking, an indicator of the enormous successes of thinking.
In this respect, grammar resembles geometry, which gives its laws by abstracting from specific objects, considering objects as bodies devoid of concreteness, and defining the relationships between them not as specific relationships of such and such specific objects, but as relationships of bodies in general, devoid of any concreteness.” (I.V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, 1952, p. 24).
Scientific abstraction not only does not impoverish human knowledge, as idealists try to prove, but, on the contrary, enriches it, is a more complete, profound and comprehensive form of reflection of material reality than sensory knowledge. “Thinking,” noted V. I. Lenin, “ascending from the concrete to the abstract, does not depart — if it is correct ... — from the truth, but approaches it. Abstraction of matter, the law of nature, abstraction of value, etc., in a word, all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, more truly, more fully. From living contemplation to abstract thinking and from it to practice — such is the dialectical path of knowledge of truth, knowledge of objective reality.” (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, pp. 146-147).
* * *
The formation of concepts and the manipulation of them in the form of judgments and inferences are the most important thought processes. Any scientific knowledge is formalized into a specific judgment, which either asserts something (an affirmative judgment) or denies something (a negative judgment). From the point of view of the progressive movement of human knowledge, Engels classified judgments as follows: 1) the judgment of individuality (for example, the judgment: "friction is a source of heat"); 2) the judgment of particularity (for example, the judgment: "any mechanical movement is capable of being transformed into heat by means of friction"); 3) the judgment of universality (for example, the judgment: "any form of movement is capable and forced, under conditions specific to each case, to be transformed, directly or indirectly, into any other form of movement"). This last judgment expresses the general law of nature.
Inference has enormous cognitive significance. Inference is a logical process of drawing conclusions from given judgments. Inference is always based on certain judgments (premises), but its conclusion can and does provide new knowledge compared to that contained in the premises.
In order for a conclusion to be correct and fruitful, at least two conditions are necessary: 1) the judgments (premises) on which the conclusion is based must be true, must correspond to reality itself; 2) the conclusion, i.e. the connection, the combination of ideas contained in the judgments, must be made correctly, without violating the rules of logical thinking. The correctness of the conclusions of the conclusions must be verified by practice, as a criterion of their truth. A correct, scientific conclusion, like a judgment, reflects real processes, connections and relationships between things and phenomena in the material reality itself.
Concepts, judgments, and conclusions can be true only when they correctly reflect objective reality, when they connect, unite, and separate only that which is connected, united, and separated in reality itself.
In contrast to this, the only correct, understanding of logical processes, modern reactionary bourgeois obscurantist philosophers try to prove the independence of forms of thinking from reality. For example, representatives of "logical positivism" consider science as a "system of propositions", and propositions, they claim, must agree only with propositions. Russell proclaimed that philosophy does not deal with the objective world, but only with logical formulas, and therefore "logic is the essence of philosophy". And the representative of semantic philosophy Carnap went even further, declaring that the subject of philosophy is only a combination of words and propositions devoid of any content.
Deduction (the method of reasoning from the general to the particular) and induction (the method of reasoning from the particular to the general) are of great cognitive importance. In bourgeois philosophy, induction and deduction were opposed to each other as two independent methods. Empiricists (Bacon and others) attached universal significance to the inductive method. Representatives of rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza and others) elevated deduction to an absolute method. Marxism-Leninism considers induction and deduction as two different methods of a single, dialectical method of scientific research, which complement (and do not exclude) each other. Engels noted that any scientific deduction is the result of preliminary induction, without which no scientific knowledge is possible. But in turn, induction is scientific only when it uses general conclusions, when the study of individual particular phenomena is based on knowledge of general principles or laws. “Induction and deduction,” Engels noted, “are connected with each other in the same necessary way as synthesis and analysis. Instead of one-sidedly extolling one of them to the skies at the expense of the other, we must try to apply each in its place, and this can be achieved only if we do not lose sight of their connection with each other, their mutual complementarity.” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, pp. 180-181).
In contrast to the metaphysical opposition of analysis and synthesis as two independent methods, materialistic dialectics considers them in unity, as different methods of a single dialectical method of cognition. Without analysis (the dissection of a phenomenon into its component parts), no scientific cognition of a concrete and diverse reality is possible. But analysis alone cannot provide scientific knowledge; it must be supplemented by synthesis, which connects the dismembered parts and presents the studied object or phenomenon as a single whole.
Emphasizing the dialectical unity of analysis and synthesis, Lenin noted among the elements of dialectics: “the combination of analysis and synthesis—the analysis of individual parts and the totality, the summation of these parts together.” (V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 193).
Brilliant examples of the dialectical unity of analysis and synthesis are given in the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. For example, in his work “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” V. I. Lenin studied the various aspects and properties of capitalism in its imperialist stage by means of analysis, and then, by means of synthesis, summarized them, gave a general, exhaustive description of imperialism, and defined its historical place.
In his report to the 18th Party Congress, I. V. Stalin gave a profound analysis of the successes of socialist construction and the development of various sectors of the national economy of the USSR, and then synthesized and summarized them, giving a general description of the historical victories of socialism in the USSR and outlining the main tasks of the further development of the Soviet country along the path to communism.
The role of practice in the process of cognition
Marxism-Leninism for the first time in the history of philosophy introduced practice into the theory of knowledge. The theory of knowledge became truly scientific. The Marxist-Leninist solution to the question of the role of practice in the theory of knowledge, the unity of theory and practice, reflects the revolutionary essence of the philosophy of Marxism, which is called upon not only to explain the world, but also to change it.
Gnoseology in bourgeois philosophy did not acquire a scientific character mainly because it did not reveal the role of practice in the process of cognition. All the representatives of metaphysical materialism did not see, did not understand the active, effective-practical role of man in relation to nature; they especially did not understand the socio-historical and revolutionary practice and its role in the process of cognition of the world, in the development of science and human thinking. If they sometimes tried to connect the process of cognition with practice, then they understood the latter very narrowly and limitedly, reduced it to an experiment, a laboratory test. Therefore, they saw the driving force of human cognition not in socio-historical practice, but in the "curiosity" and "thirst for knowledge" of the scientist, in the desire of people to improve their intellect. This narrowness and limitation in the understanding of practice and its role in the theory of knowledge was due to the narrowness and limitation of the practical and cognitive tasks of the bourgeoisie as an exploiting class.
Representatives of idealism, interpreting human practice as the activity of an abstract idea, the activity of pure spirit, limited and limit the sphere of practical activity to the area of theoretical activity.
In contrast to the various mystical and reactionary fabrications of modern bourgeois philosophers, Marxism-Leninism recognizes the decisive role of practice, the practical activity of people, both as the starting point, the basis of knowledge, and as the criterion of the truth of theory. “The point of view of life, of practice,” Lenin teaches, “must be the first and fundamental point of view of the theory of knowledge. And it inevitably leads to materialism, casting aside from the threshold the endless fabrications of professorial scholasticism.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 130).
Practice in its Marxist-Leninist understanding is, first of all, the labor, material-production activity of people, including all types of production activity both in the field of industry and in the field of agriculture. Further, practice is the social, world-historical and revolutionary-critical activity of people, aimed at transforming not only nature, but also social life. In the conditions of class society, practice also includes the class struggle, which is the driving force of the entire historical process.
The concept of practice must also include laboratory experience, experiment and observation. In the cognition of natural processes that are inaccessible to human influence (cosmic, astronomical, etc.), practice appears in the form of observations using appropriate equipment, which is again a product of human material and production activity. Therefore, Lenin pointed out that "in practice, which serves as a criterion for us in the theory of knowledge, we must also include the practice of astronomical observations, discoveries, etc." (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th edition, p. 127). In such a broad sense, practice is the basis of human knowledge and the criterion of its truth at all stages of its development.
Only in the process of active, labor, production influence on the surrounding material world do people receive certain sensations, perceptions and ideas. Practically processing objects of nature, people receive with the help of their sense organs certain information about the properties and qualities of these objects, and cognize them. Practical operations with material objects underlie the formation and development of concepts and all mental operations: judgment and inference, deduction and induction, analysis and synthesis. “All these moments (steps, stages, processes) of cognition,” Lenin noted, “are directed from the subject to the object, being tested by practice and arriving through this test at the truth...” (V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 215).
The importance of practice lies not only in the fact that without it all forms of mental activity would be impossible, but also in the fact that without it the revelation of internal connections and patterns of objective reality by means of abstract concepts, categories and laws would be impossible. Socio-historical practice is the basis of the entire complex process of scientific knowledge, the basis for the emergence and development of science.
Engels noted that the emergence and development of astronomy, mathematics, and mechanics were determined by the practical needs of ancient peoples. “Thus, from the very beginning,” he wrote, “the emergence and development of sciences is determined by production.” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, p. 145).
The practical needs of people determined the emergence of mathematics. The need to count, measure areas, distances, etc. gave birth to arithmetic and geometry. At first, all mathematical operations were connected with practical operations. People counted only by contrasting one object with another. The first numbers and units of measurement were connected with the organs of the human body - hands, fingers, palms, feet, etc.
“Like all other sciences,” wrote Engels, “mathematics arose from the practical needs of people: from the measurement of the area of land and the capacity of vessels, from the calculation of time and from mechanics.” (F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1952, p. 37).
The emergence and development of biology was determined by the practical needs of improving agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry. Practical activity in the field of agriculture preceded theory and determined the development of the latter. Centuries-old practical experience was generalized into the corresponding theoretical principles of biological science. "In its content, the doctrine of selection is, taken in its most general form, the centuries-old practice of farmers and livestock breeders, who long before Darwin empirically created plant varieties and animal breeds... For Darwin, agricultural practice served as the material basis on which he developed his evolutionary theory, which explained the natural causes of the expediency of the structure of the organic world." (T.D. Lysenko, Agrobiology, 4th ed., 1948, p. 608).
The creation of socialist agriculture in our country and the development of collective and state farm practices led to the development of a new, Soviet biological science – Michurin biology.
“Socialist agriculture and the collective-state farm system gave birth to a fundamentally new, Michurin’s, Soviet, biological science, which is developing in close unity with agronomic practice, as agronomic biology.” (Ibid., p. 614).
Only on the basis of socio-historical practice is it possible to further deepen human knowledge, discover new aspects, connections and relationships of material objects and phenomena, and understand their internal laws.
In isolation from practice, it is impossible to scientifically solve theoretical questions, it is impossible to understand the laws of living nature. Only the solution of practically important questions - questions of weed control in agriculture, selection of components for sowing grass mixtures, rapid and wide afforestation in steppe regions and many others - allowed the Michurinites to solve a number of fundamental theoretical questions of biological science. "Scientific solution of practical problems," notes academician Lysenko, "is the most reliable path to a deep understanding of the laws of development of living nature." (Ibid., p. 640).
The practice of communist construction that has developed in our country is the decisive driving force behind the development of advanced Soviet science. Participating in the struggle of the entire Soviet people for the fulfillment of the fourth five-year plan, in the struggle for further technical progress, Soviet scientists, as comrade Malenkov pointed out at the 19th Congress of the Communist Party, "have successfully solved many scientific problems of great national economic significance." (G. Malenkov, Report to the 19th Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), p. 41).
Comrade Malenkov noted the discovery of methods for producing atomic energy as the most important achievement of Soviet science, which dealt a serious blow to the American warmongers and eliminated their monopoly position in this area. The efforts of Soviet scientists are aimed at finding ways and methods of using this new type of energy "for peaceful purposes, for the benefit of the people, because such use of atomic energy infinitely expands man's power over the elemental forces of nature, opens up for humanity colossal opportunities for the growth of productive forces, technical and cultural progress, and an increase in public wealth." (Ibid., p. 42).
Social and historical practice is the basis for understanding not only the laws of nature, but also the laws of social development.
The emergence and development of the theory of Marxism-Leninism was conditioned by the practical needs of the class struggle of the proletariat. Only when capitalism had reached a certain maturity, when the class struggle of the proletarians against the capitalists had unfolded, were the necessary conditions created for the emergence of a revolutionary theory reflecting the class interests of the proletariat. Expressing these historical needs, Marx and Engels created a scientific theory that became a powerful weapon in the hands of the proletariat in its struggle for its liberation. The concretization and further development of Marxism by Lenin and Stalin were connected with the new practical needs of the revolutionary movement in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, in the era of building socialism in the USSR. Generalizing the new experience of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, Lenin and Stalin raised the theory of Marxism to a new, higher level, developed and concretized it.
The theory of Marxism-Leninism develops in inextricable connection with the practice of the revolutionary workers' movement.
In his brilliant work, “State and Revolution,” Lenin demonstrated the decisive role of revolutionary practice in the development by Marx and Engels of the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In 1848, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels, having first put forward the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, only in general terms indicated the tasks of the proletariat in transforming it into the ruling class. At that time, history had not yet provided the material for a concrete solution to this problem, and only the living, revolutionary-practical experience of the events of 1848-1851 allowed Marx to make a concrete, precise and “practically tangible” conclusion: all previous revolutions had only improved the state machine, and the task of the proletariat was to smash and break it. “Not logical reasoning,” wrote Lenin, “but the actual development of events, the living experience of 1848-1851, led to such a formulation of the problem. The extent to which Marx strictly adheres to the factual basis of historical experience is evident from the fact that in 1852 he did not yet specifically pose the question of what to replace this state machine subject to destruction. Experience had not yet provided material for such a question, which history placed on the agenda later, in 1871.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 25, 4th edition, p. 381).
Lenin showed that Marx did not indulge in utopia, did not compose abstract treatises on the forms of the future state, but waited for an answer to this fundamental question of Marxist theory from the practical experience of the mass revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. And only the experience of the practical struggle of the Paris Communards, their attempt to replace the bureaucratic state machine with a new type of state - the proletarian state - allowed Marx, who carefully studied the experience of the Commune, to see in it the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Marxist doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat about the state Lenin and Stalin concretized and developed further on the basis of the practical experience of three Russian revolutions, on the basis of: the practical activity of the Soviet state. Lenin discovered Soviet power as the best state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, opened the brackets of the formula of the dictatorship of the proletariat from the point of view of the problem of the allies of the proletariat, proved that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a special class alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry, the highest type of democracy, proletarian democracy.
The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat was concretized and developed further by Comrade Stalin. Creatively generalizing the revolutionary experience of the Communist Party and the working masses of our country in the matter of creating and strengthening the new state, Comrade Stalin revealed the essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat, created a doctrine of its three aspects, the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leading role of the Communist Party in it. Based on the creative generalization of the practical experience of building socialism in the USSR under the conditions of a hostile capitalist environment, Comrade Stalin developed a doctrine of the main functions and phases in the development of a socialist state, and gave a theoretical solution to the question of the fate of the state not only in the period of socialism, but also in the period of communism.
The brilliant works of I.V. Stalin are organically connected with the revolutionary-practical activity of the Communist Party. G.M. Malenkov noted at the XIX Party Congress that the center of the theoretical activity of Comrade Stalin during the entire last period was the development of problems of world-historical significance - about the development of the socialist economy, about the gradual transition to communism. Creatively enriching and developing Marxist-Leninist science, Comrade Stalin ideologically armed the Party and the Soviet people in the struggle for the triumph of our cause.
Of the greatest significance for both Marxist-Leninist theory and world revolutionary practice is Comrade Stalin’s work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.”
Comrade Stalin's theoretical discoveries mark a new era in the development of Marxist-Leninist science. These discoveries "are of world-historical significance, arming all peoples with knowledge of the paths of revolutionary reconstruction of society and the richest experience of our party's struggle for communism." (G. Malenkov, Report to the 19th Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), p. 107).
* * *
Marxism-Leninism considers practice not only as the starting point and basis of human knowledge, but also as a criterion for the truth of knowledge. The classics of Marxism-Leninism considered any attempts to resolve questions about the truth or falsity of a particular theory outside of practice to be scholastic.
Practice not only exposes agnosticism, proving the complete knowability of the material world, but also refutes all anti-scientific concepts, ideas, theories, confirming only what is correct, scientific. V. I. Lenin wrote: “Human practice proves the correctness of the materialistic theory of knowledge,” said Marx and Engels, declaring attempts to solve the fundamental epistemological question without practice “scholasticism” and “philosophical quirks.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 126).
The fraudulent attempts of American pragmatists to replace real human practice with subjective “experience,” “success,” “benefit,” etc. are in fact a form of idealistic denial of objective truth and the reality of the external world. For pragmatists, the concept of “practice” is deprived of objective-real meaning, deprived of connection with the real world, therefore it takes on a subjective-idealistic character and, from their point of view, can allegedly confirm any anti-scientific fabrications if they are advantageous and useful to imperialism.
In contrast to all agnostics and subjective idealists, Lenin showed that “the practice of humanity has... objectively real significance.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, ed. 4, p. 94).
Practice serves as a criterion of truth because it, as it were, confronts theory with material reality, brings theoretical formulas out of the realm of ideas into the realm of reality, thereby revealing their truth or falsity. As long as people contemplate natural phenomena without interfering with their natural course, they can only assume the truth or falsity of their concepts and ideas. But as soon as they move from passive contemplation of reality to practical influence on it, they get the opportunity to check whether their ideas correspond to reality. By practically influencing and processing objects of the material world, people check the truth of their ideas and concepts, their correspondence to the reflected objects. Lenin pointed out that it is precisely “by his practice that man proves the objective correctness of his ideas, concepts, knowledge, science.” (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 164).
In the development of natural sciences, the role of practice as a criterion of truth is often manifested in the form of scientifically conducted observations, experiments, and experiences. For example, in astronomy, the criterion of practice, while fully retaining its force, appears in the form of the coincidence of the conclusions of theory with the actual data of astronomical observations.
I. P. Pavlov, developing the theory of higher nervous activity on the basis of experimental data, carefully and comprehensively tested each new position and conclusion of his theory with numerous specially conducted experiments. Providing scientific substantiation for his position on the identity of sleep with inhibition, I. P. Pavlov said: “All those numerous observations that we had accumulated over twenty years of work on conditioned reflexes agreed very well with this conclusion, and this conclusion was confirmed by those new experiments that we deliberately conducted based on this conclusion.” (I. P. Pavlov, Complete Works, Vol. III , Book I , 1951, p. 375).
O. B. Lepeshinskaya, with scientifically conducted experiments during 1933-1945, completely refuted Virchowian principles in cytology and proved the existence of extracellular life, the origin of the cell not only from the cell, but also from the substance of the non-cellular structure.
Practice is the universal criterion of the truth of theory for both social and natural sciences. “The data of science,” says Comrade Stalin, “have always been verified by practice, by experience. Science that has severed ties with practice, with experience – what kind of science is that? If science were as some of our conservative comrades portray it, it would have perished for humanity long ago. Science is called science because it does not recognize fetishes, is not afraid to raise its hand against the moribund, the old, and listens sensitively to the voice of experience, practice.” (I.V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, p. 540).
Practice is the basis of knowledge and the criterion of the truth of theory. Practice is primary in relation to theory, it determines its development. Practice has the dignity of universality, it contains multifaceted connections and relationships of man with material reality, which are only one-sidedly covered by theory. Practice, in comparison with theory, which is only an ideal reflection of reality, contains the dignity of immediate reality, since it is an objective, real relationship of man with material reality. “PRACTICE,” Lenin noted, “IS HIGHER THAN (THEORETICAL) KNOWLEDGE, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate reality.” (V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 185).
The understanding of the role of practice must also be approached dialectically, not metaphysically, not dogmatically. The criterion of practice is absolute in nature, since it verifies the truth of knowledge, confirms everything true and scientific and refutes everything unscientific and false. But at the same time, the criterion of practice also contains an element of relativity, since it proves the truth of a particular law, provision, etc. only for certain conditions, and not everywhere and not always. Every law of science reflects in abstract form one of the aspects, moments of the general connection and interdependence of objective reality, but not all connections existing in reality. Practice verifies and confirms the objective truth of a law. But no verification can turn a law into an absolute, since practice confirms the truth of a law only within the limits in which it manifests itself.
“...We must not forget,” wrote Lenin, “that the criterion of practice can never, by the very nature of the matter, confirm or refute completely any human concept. This criterion is also so “indefinite” as not to allow human knowledge to become an “absolute,” and at the same time so definite as to wage a merciless struggle against all varieties of idealism and agnosticism. If what our practice confirms is the only, final, objective truth, then it follows that the only path to this truth is recognized as the path of science, which stands on the materialistic point of view.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 130).
The practice itself is not something frozen, given once and for all, but is improved, enriched, developed. For example, practice confirmed for a time the assertions of chemists about the impossibility of creating organic substances from inorganic ones (until people had such a skill). But the subsequent development of science and practice led to the artificial creation of many organic compounds and thereby refuted the old truth, replacing it with a new one, corresponding to the new level of development of practice.
The development of the world-historical revolutionary practice of the proletariat and its party makes some provisions of Marxist theory, connected with certain historical conditions, obsolete and requires their replacement by new ones. Lenin and Stalin, creatively generalizing the new experience of revolutionary practice, concretized and developed Marxism further, applicable to new conditions and to the new needs of the proletariat and its party, replacing the obsolete provisions of Marxism with new ones.
Thus, socio-historical practice, being the basis of knowledge and the criterion of its truth, moves science forward, to new conquests of human thought.
Dialectical Materialism on Objective, Absolute and Relative Truth
Only the founders of Marxism-Leninism, having created a truly scientific philosophy – dialectical and historical materialism – gave a correct, scientific solution to the question of objective, absolute and relative truth and exposed the metaphysical and idealistic interpretation of truth. Lenin in his work “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” showed that the doctrine of objective truth is inextricably linked with the materialistic solution of the fundamental question of philosophy, that philosophical materialism is linked with the recognition of objective truth, and that the denial of the latter inevitably leads to agnosticism and subjective idealism. “To be a materialist,” wrote Lenin, “means to recognize the objective truth revealed to us by the sense organs.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 120).
By denying the objective reality of the external world, the Machists inevitably denied the existence of objective truth; they interpreted truth in a subjective-idealistic spirit, reducing it to the form of subjective human experience, to the collective thinking of people. The Machist Bogdanov asserted that "truth is an ideological form - the organizing form of human experience."
By decisively exposing this subjectivist understanding of truth, Lenin showed its reactionary meaning, showed that such an understanding of truth justifies the existence of not only all anti-scientific ideas, but also religious dogmas and superstitions. “If,” he wrote, “there is no objective truth, truth (including scientific truth) is only an organizing form of human experience, then this acknowledges the basic premise of clericalism, opens the door for it, and clears the way for the ‘organizing forms’ of religious experience.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 113).
In contrast to the Machian subjective-idealistic interpretation of truth, Lenin, having deeply developed the question of objective truth, gave a scientific dialectical-materialistic definition of this most important concept of the theory of knowledge.
In the concept of objective truth, Lenin included the objective content of human knowledge, i.e., such content that is given to a person from outside and depends only on the external world, on objective reality, and not on the cognitive abilities of an individual and humanity as a whole. Objective truth is the correct reflection of objective reality in human sensations, ideas and concepts. Exposing Bogdanov's Machism, Lenin asked the question: "... does objective truth exist, i.e., can human ideas contain such content that does not depend on the subject, does not depend on either man or humanity?" (Ibid., p. 110).
V. I. Lenin gave a detailed justification for the existence of objective truth and illustrated this position with scientific data and facts of everyday life.
Lenin's theory of reflection is based on the recognition of the objective reality of the external world and its approximately correct reflection in the human mind. Since human knowledge correctly reflects the existing objective reality, it contains objective truth. Every scientific theory, law, if it correctly reflects objective reality, is verified by experience, by the practice of mankind, is an objective truth. Thus, for example, the heliocentric doctrine of Copernicus is an objective truth, whereas the theory of Ptolemy is not an objective truth, since it does not correspond to objective reality. Michurin's doctrine is an objective truth, whereas the theory of Weismannism-Morganism is a false, anti-scientific theory, refuted by the practice of the development of Soviet socialist agriculture.
The objective truth is Marxism-Leninism, for it correctly reveals the laws of development of nature and society, correctly indicates the paths of transforming capitalist society into socialist society, the paths of building communism. Its truth is confirmed by the revolutionary practice of the Soviet people, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and is confirmed again and again by the practice of socialist construction in the countries of people's democracy, the experience of the struggle of workers of all countries against capitalist slavery.
Since objective truth is such a content of human knowledge that does not depend on man or on humanity, its existence does not depend on whether it is recognized by everyone or not. The bourgeoisie and its ideologists, of course, do not recognize the truth of Marxist-Leninist theory, but Marxism-Leninism, as a true theory, not only continues to exist, but also develops, spreads its influence ever more widely, and takes hold of the consciousness of the working masses.
Modern bourgeois idealist philosophers (pragmatists, logical positivists, neorealists, semanticists, etc.) in the field of epistemology have made the concept of objective truth the main subject of their reactionary attacks. The denial of objective truth serves them as a means of fighting science and scientific knowledge, a means of defending clericalism. It is for these very purposes that representatives of logical positivism expel objective truth from science, “proving” that science allegedly deals not with the objective world, but only with the subjective content of experience. Trying to divert science from the path of knowledge of material reality to the path of pure formalism, they demand that science contain only logically consistent formulas. Back at the beginning of the 20th century, a representative of pragmatism – this philosophy of American businessmen – W. James proclaimed that everything that is “useful” and that ensures “practical success” is true. "If," he cynically declared, "religious ideas fulfill these conditions, if, in particular, it turns out that the concept of God satisfies them, then on what basis will pragmatism deny the existence of God? For it, it will be simply nonsense to recognize as "untrue" a concept that is so fruitful in a pragmatic sense."
This “philosophy,” which declares as true everything that is beneficial to predatory American imperialism, was continued by its modern ideologist, D. Dewey.
D. Dewey considers the real world as "crude existence". Reality allegedly does not exist in itself, but is conditioned, created by our knowledge. The entire process of human knowledge is considered by him not from the point of view of reflecting objective reality, but only from the point of view of "the results of success". Interpreting science in a subjectivist spirit, D. Dewey expels from it objective content, objective truth, declares it "practical art", "a highly specialized form of practice". Dewey reduces science to simple instructions for "actions", and considers its laws as "a way of effectively conducting business". This pragmatist interpretation of science expresses the actual position of science in the USA, where it has been turned into a servant of imperialist monopolies and military departments.
In the conditions of class society, social sciences, since they are connected with the political ideals of the struggling classes, inevitably and entirely take on a class character. The objective truths of the natural sciences, which have no direct relation to the political ideals of classes, take on a universal character and exist for millennia, passing from era to era, from people to people. It is known that the foundations of Euclidean geometry, classical mechanics, electrodynamics, chemistry, which are objective truths, are recognized by all classes and used by them in practice. However, these fundamental foundations of science, which are objective truths, are clothed in certain ideological and worldview forms that have a class and party character. Therefore, each science contains not only fundamental foundations, immutable objective truths, but also their specific ideological interpretation.
Scientists who are apologists for the bourgeoisie dress up scientific truths in a reactionary, idealistic form, and try to reconcile science with clericalism. Monopoly capitalism in the United States has placed shackles on the development of science, subordinating scientific research to the narrow, egoistic goals of the imperialists and their struggle for world domination.
American imperialists, who have conceived the idea of destroying more than half of humanity on earth by means of atomic and bacteriological weapons in order to achieve world domination, are forcing science to serve their vile purposes.
"Scientists" who have entered the service of American imperialism are working on the creation of bacteriological and atomic weapons, developing methods for the mass spread of epidemics, ways of infecting the soil with harmful microbes, and are striving to turn the earth itself into a barren desert. Under the direct influence of the reactionary policy of American imperialism, the development of many branches of science and scientific research is taking a perverted direction; it serves not the development, but the destruction of productive forces, not the improvement of people's lives, but the extermination of humanity. Science in the hands of American imperialists is becoming a destructive force, an instrument for the destruction of cities and cultural and industrial centers, an instrument for the extermination of humanity. Only the destruction of capitalism and the transition to socialism can save science from the imperialist shackles, from its complete degradation. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in our country liberated science from the capitalist shackles and opened the way for its free and creative development. Under the conditions of victorious socialism in the USSR, science flourished to the fullest extent; the objective truths obtained by science were clothed in the truly scientific form of socialist ideology, the unshakable foundation of which was Marxism-Leninism.
Soviet science, placed at the service of the people, socialist society and the state, has acquired a popular character. The popular character of Soviet science is expressed not only in the fact that the Soviet people love, respect and support science, but also in the fact that they take an active part in scientific research, in the practical solution of the most important scientific problems. The army of Soviet scientists of 150 thousand people as a scientific vanguard is connected with millions of leaders of industry, transport and agriculture - rationalizers, inventors, Stakhanovites. This is evidenced by the fact that the laureates of Stalin Prizes in our country are not only scientists and engineers, but also leaders of production in both industry and agriculture. A similar liberation of science from capitalism is now taking place in the countries of people's democracy, where the working masses have thrown off the capitalist yoke and embarked on the path of socialist construction.
But since the country of socialism emerged from the depths of capitalism and is surrounded by capitalist countries, it is quite natural that we still have remnants of bourgeois ideology, which inevitably penetrate into various branches of science. “As a result of the intervention of the Central Committee of the Party in many areas of science,” noted G. M. Malenkov, “morals and traditions alien to Soviet people were revealed, facts of caste isolation and intolerant attitude towards criticism were revealed, various manifestations of bourgeois ideology and all kinds of vulgarizing distortions were exposed and smashed. Well-known discussions on philosophy, biology, physiology, linguistics, political economy revealed serious ideological gaps in various areas of science, gave impetus to the development of criticism and the struggle of opinions, and played an important role in the development of science.” (G. Malenkov, Report to the 19th Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), pp. 95-96).
* * *
The question of relative and absolute truth is the question of “whether human ideas expressing objective truth can express it immediately, in its entirety, unconditionally, absolutely, or only approximately, relatively?” (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 110).
In contrast to the metaphysical, dogmatic understanding of the process of cognition as the discovery of eternal, unchanging and once-for-all established truths, dialectical materialism views human cognition as a historically developing process, moving from ignorance to knowledge, from less complete knowledge to more complete. Each stage of human cognition is limited by historical boundaries, which makes the acquired knowledge incomplete, approximate, relative. Therefore, truth is not something established and finished once and for all, but represents a process of deepening human cognition into the surrounding objective world. “Truth,” Lenin noted, “is a process. From a subjective idea, man moves to objective truth through ‘practice’ (and technology).” (V.I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 174).
Human knowledge as a whole has unlimited possibilities, the ability to fully, absolutely know the material world, but at each stage of its historical development it is inevitably limited by the level of development of science, technology and socio-historical conditions. The unlimited capacity of human knowledge in its historical development is embodied in the thinking of a number of generations of people, each of whom is limited in their knowledge by the historical conditions of their era, the level of development of science and socio-historical practice.
“In this sense,” wrote Engels, “human thought is as sovereign as it is non-sovereign, and its capacity for knowledge is as unlimited as it is limited. Sovereign and unlimited in its nature, vocation, possibility, historical final goal; non-sovereign and limited in its individual implementation, in the reality given at one time or another.” (F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1952, pp. 81-82).
The knowledge of people at each historical stage of their development is limited not only by the level of development of material production, technology and science, but also by the nature of social, socio-economic relations. Historically, this was manifested in the class orientation of the process of knowledge, in the influence of the dominant ideology of the exploiting classes on the development of science.
Thus, in the Middle Ages, feudal relations and the dominant religious ideology hindered the development of scientific knowledge, made the philosophy and science of that time dependent on religion, turned them into the handmaidens of theology. Capitalism in its imperialist stage also imposes shackles on the process of scientific knowledge, on the development of science. Only the victory of the socialist revolution destroys those barriers that antagonistic social relations of an exploitative society place on human knowledge, and creates unlimited opportunities for the free and comprehensive development of science.
Consequently, at each stage of the development of human knowledge, truth, being scientific and objective, inevitably takes on a relative character, appears in the form of relative truth. The relativity of truth should be understood not in the sense of the conventionality of its reflection of a material object, but in the sense of the completeness of this reflection, in the sense of the completeness of knowledge achieved at a given stage of historical development. The relativity of truth lies in the fact that each scientific position, being an objective truth that correctly reflects a particular natural process, cannot yet encompass all its aspects and facets, connections and patterns, and requires clarification, supplementation, deepening and concretization, which can only be achieved as a result of the further development of human knowledge.
“Thus,” wrote Lenin, “human thinking by its nature is capable of giving and does give us absolute truth, which is made up of the sum of relative truths. Each stage in the development of science adds new grains to this sum of absolute truth, but the limits of the truth of each scientific proposition are relative, being sometimes expanded, sometimes narrowed by the further growth of knowledge.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 122).
Thus, truth is relative if it does not yet provide complete, comprehensive knowledge, reflection of a material object or the law of reality; but when knowledge reaches fullness and comprehensiveness of coverage, when it no longer needs further clarification and supplementation, then truth acquires an absolute character.
The one-sided recognition of human knowledge as only relative and the denial of objectivity and absoluteness in it inevitably leads to relativism, and ultimately to idealism. This happened to many bourgeois physicists in the 20th century, who elevated the relativity of scientific knowledge to an absolute, declared scientific knowledge to be devoid of objectivity and absoluteness, which led them to physical idealism.
"All the old truths of physics, including those considered indisputable and unshakable," wrote Lenin, "turn out to be relative truths, which means that there can be no objective truth independent of humanity. This is the way not only of Machism as a whole, but of all 'physical' idealism in general. That the sum of relative truths in their development forms absolute truth, that relative truths are relatively true reflections of an object independent of humanity, that these reflections are becoming increasingly true, that in every scientific truth, despite its relativity, there is an element of absolute truth, all these propositions... represent a book with seven seals for the 'modern' theory of knowledge." (Ibid., pp. 295-296).
These words of Lenin clearly show the dialectical unity of the absolute and the relative in the development of scientific knowledge. Every scientific truth (if it is truly scientific truth) is an objective truth, it is not only relative, but also contains elements of absolute knowledge. That is why a materialist cannot limit himself to recognizing only relative truths; he is obliged to see in them an objective content that is a relatively true reflection of objective reality. Moreover, he must go even further and recognize that every relative truth contains certain particles, grains of absolute truth.
“To recognize objective truth, i.e., truth independent of man and humanity,” wrote Lenin, “means, in one way or another, to recognize absolute truth.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 120).
The relationship between objective, absolute and relative truth in the process of cognition can be illustrated by the example of the development of scientific ideas about the atom. It is known that until the end of the 19th century, the atom was considered in science as the last material particle, considered absolutely indivisible, solid, impenetrable and inert. But this idea of the atom, which was a relative truth, contained not only objective truth (i.e., it was a reflection of objective reality to the extent of its knowledge), but also elements of absolute truth, since it contained irrefutable knowledge about the atom as the smallest particle of a chemical element, about its ability to combine with other atoms and form molecules, about atomic weight, about the size of the atom, etc.
The discovery of radioactivity of elements and intra-atomic particles — electrons and protons — radically changed the idea of the atom. Generalizing these discoveries, physicists, having initially likened the atom to a planetary system, created a mechanical model of it, which expressed a new stage in the knowledge of nature and added new grains of absolute truth to the idea of the atom. Later, physicists discovered new particles of the atom — the neutron, positron, etc. Based on these new discoveries, Soviet physicists (D. D. Ivanenko and others) created a new neutron-proton theory of the nucleus, developed a model of the interaction of intra-nuclear forces. These new discoveries significantly deepened our knowledge of the atom, brought new grains of absolute truth to the scientific understanding of the atom. But this idea of the atom is not yet final, it will be refined, supplemented and developed with the further growth of knowledge about the structure of matter.
“The ‘essence’ of things or ‘substance’,” wrote Lenin, “is also relative; it expresses only the deepening of human knowledge of objects, and if yesterday this deepening did not go beyond the atom, today – beyond the electron and ether, then dialectical materialism insists on the temporary, relative, approximate character of all these milestones in the knowledge of nature by the progressing science of man. The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite, but it exists infinitely...” (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 249).
Every relative truth is a stage of knowledge, an expression of absolute truth, and therefore it necessarily contains grains, grains of the latter. Marxism-Leninism does not at all deny the existence of absolute, eternal truths. For example, the foundations of Euclidean geometry, classical mechanics, physics, chemistry, etc. are to a certain extent eternal truths. Engels wrote that "some results of these sciences represent eternal truths, final truths in the last instance, which is why these sciences were called exact." (F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1952, p. 82). Many provisions of dialectical materialism, reflecting the general timeless and eternal laws of objective reality, also belong to such absolute truths. For example, the philosophical concept of matter is an absolute truth.
“Therefore, to say,” wrote Lenin, “that such a concept may become ‘obsolete’ is infantile babble, a senseless repetition of the arguments of fashionable reactionary philosophy.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, 4th edition, p. 117).
Truths of fact (for example, dates of certain historical events, geographic locations, etc.) are also eternal truths. Lenin noted that they serve as an example of “truths that are eternal, absolute, and only madmen are allowed to doubt...” (Ibid., p. 120).
But all scientific truths always manifest themselves concretely, in connection with the concrete historical conditions of the material reality itself. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism does not recognize abstract truths, but only concrete truths, depending on concrete historical conditions, place and time. “...There is no abstract truth,” wrote Lenin, “truth is always concrete...” (V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 7, 4th edition, p. 380).
For example, the conclusions of Marxism about the inevitability of the simultaneous victory of socialism in the main countries of Europe were true in the specific historical conditions of pre-monopoly capitalism. For the era of imperialism, for the new historical conditions, the teaching of Lenin and Stalin about the possibility of the victory of socialism in one, separate country became true.
In resolving all theoretical and practical questions, the leaders of the Communist Party, Lenin and Stalin, always proceeded from the fact that there is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete. Applying the position on the concreteness of truth to the solution of the national question, Comrade Stalin points out:
"A nation has the right to freely determine its own destiny. It has the right to arrange itself as it pleases, without, of course, trampling on the rights of other nations. This is indisputable.
But how exactly should it be organized, what forms should its future constitution take, if we take into account the interests of the majority of the nation and, above all, the proletariat?
...which solution is most compatible with the interests of the working masses? Autonomy, federation or separation?
All these are questions whose solution depends on the specific historical conditions surrounding a given nation.
Moreover, conditions, like everything else, change, and a decision that is correct for a given moment may prove to be completely unacceptable for another moment.” (I.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 2, pp. 312-313).
The teaching of Marxism-Leninism on the concreteness of truth is inseparably linked with revolutionary practical activity; it is an expression of the unity of revolutionary theory and practice. Lenin and Stalin always linked the solution of theoretical questions with the revolutionary practical activity of the proletariat and its party, therefore the theoretical truths they established have a concrete, militant, purposeful character.
Marxism-Leninism on the importance of scientific knowledge for the practical activities of people
The Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge is not limited to revealing the general laws of human knowledge; it clarifies the role and significance of scientific knowledge (scientific theory) for the practical activities of people, for their influence on the surrounding world.
Marxism-Leninism teaches that any scientific knowledge (if it is truly scientific) is of enormous importance for the practical activities of people, because, by revealing the internal connections and lawful relationships of material reality, it shows people the ways and means of their practical influence on reality and changing it in accordance with the goals and needs of society.
In his work "On Dialectical and Historical Materialism," Comrade Stalin demonstrated the enormous methodological significance of the proposition about the knowability of the world for science and practice. The power of scientific knowledge lies in the fact that it is not limited to knowledge of the external, but reveals the deep internal connections and lawful relationships of the phenomena and processes of the material world, makes it possible to use the laws that govern these phenomena, to see the prospects for the development of phenomena and to practically influence them on the basis of using these laws.
In his work, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” I. V. Stalin demonstrated with exceptional depth the importance of scientific knowledge for the practical activities of man, for his influence on nature and society. With the exception of astronomical, geological and some other similar processes, Comrade Stalin teaches, people “are far from powerless in the sense of their ability to influence natural processes. In all such cases, people, having learned the laws of nature, taking them into account and relying on them, skillfully applying and using them, can limit the sphere of their action, give the destructive forces of nature a different direction, turn the destructive forces of nature to the benefit of society.” (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 4).
But this practical influence of people on nature does not mean the abolition of its natural laws and the establishment of new laws; no, it is always carried out on the basis of taking into account the laws of nature, the laws of science, for the slightest violation of these laws inevitably leads to a breakdown in the matter, to the failure of the entire procedure for transforming nature.
Only scientific knowledge of the laws of nature opens up the possibility for people to use them in their practical activities. Of course, practical knowledge and use of some laws of nature by people is possible to varying degrees and long before their scientific discovery. It is known that for many millennia before Galileo and Newton, people used some aspects of the law of gravity and falling bodies in their practical activities, although they were still far from its scientific understanding. Engels noted that even in ancient times, prehistoric people knew in practice that friction generates heat, and practically obtained fire by friction. But many millennia passed after this before the discovery that friction is a source of heat, and even more so before the discovery of the law of conservation and transformation of energy. Of course, these possibilities for the practical use of certain laws of nature before their discovery and scientific knowledge were very limited. Therefore, for the full practical use of certain laws of nature, the discovery and scientific knowledge of their action is required. I. V. Stalin points out that the forces and laws of nature act blindly and destructively, and people remain powerless against them until these forces and laws are understood, until people learn to curb their destructive actions.
The entire history of human society is the history of the progressively increasing practical influence of people on certain phenomena and processes of the surrounding nature and their use for certain life goals and needs. This influence of people expanded and intensified as scientific knowledge of nature and its laws grew, as the tools of production and means of practical influence on nature improved.
Throughout the centuries-long history of mankind, from the primitive state to modern machine production, man has left an indelible mark on the surrounding nature, he has changed the earth's surface, the land relief, the flow of rivers, the climate, the flora and fauna beyond recognition. Nature in the form in which it existed before the appearance of man, in our time almost no longer exists anywhere. The current state of nature surrounding man is largely a product of those changes that have been introduced by the practical activity of man.
But the nature of the practical impact of people on nature and its changes by man, the use of its forces and resources is determined not only by the level of development of productive forces and scientific knowledge, but also by the type of dominant production relations, the nature of the socio-political system. The impact of people on some natural processes began in ancient times. But this impact, under the dominance of exploiting classes, inevitably took on a spontaneous and predatory character, it was accompanied by the devastation of lands and natural resources.
The plundering of natural resources has reached unprecedented proportions under the conditions of modern capitalism, where the extraction of maximum profit is the only incentive for the development of production. The predatory economic policy pursued by the imperialist rulers inevitably leads to the complete depletion and devastation of fertile lands, to the destruction of forests, to the plundering of mineral wealth, to the extermination of valuable animals, etc., in short, to the transformation of the planet inhabited by us into a desert. The only way to stop this plundering of natural resources by capitalists is to destroy the capitalist mode of production.
The socialist influence of people on nature is fundamentally different. This qualitatively different influence began in the first years of the Soviet state and acquired a grand scale during the period of gradual transition from socialism to communism. Under socialism, people's influence on nature inevitably takes on a planned character and is carried out with the help of the latest technical means and advanced Soviet science. The nature of socialist influence is directly opposed to capitalist influence; it does not lead to the plundering of natural resources, but puts them at the service of the whole society; it is embodied in the landscaping and irrigation of arid lands, in the drainage of swamps, in the construction of ponds and reservoirs, in the connection of rivers and seas and in a number of other measures, which in their totality lead to a radical transformation of nature, to its subordination to the needs of society.
Such events are a vivid example of the socialist influence of people on nature. Influencing nature, Soviet people rely on the achievements of science, taking into account its mighty power. Advanced Soviet science, based on the theoretical foundation of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, as I. V. Michurin correctly noted, "teaches how to actively influence this nature and change it, but only the proletariat has the power to consistently and actively influence and change nature..." (I. V. Michurin, Works, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1948, p. 623).
Modern bourgeois philosophers and sociologists try to prove that social phenomena are supposedly completely inaccessible to human knowledge and practical influence of people, that they are subject to some mysterious force, world fate, divine will. In contrast to these reactionary assertions, the Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge teaches that “social life, the development of society, is also knowable, and the data of science on the laws of development of society are reliable data that have the significance of objective truths.
This means that the science of the history of society, despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become the same exact science as, say, biology, capable of using the laws of development of society for practical application.” (I.V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, pp. 583-584).
In his work, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, Comrade Stalin resolutely emphasized the objective nature of the laws of economic development of society; he showed that people cannot change, much less abolish, these laws, which operate independently of the will and consciousness of people. But people, Comrade Stalin teaches, can understand the economic laws of society and, relying on them, use them in their practical activities, give a different direction to the destructive effects of some laws, limit the scope of some laws and give scope to the operation of others. “It has been proven,” writes Comrade Stalin, “that society is not powerless in the face of laws, that society can, having understood the economic laws and relying on them, limit the scope of their operation, use them in the interests of society and ‘harness’ them...” (I.V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 6).
The use of economic laws by people to one degree or another occurs in all socio-economic formations, but the paths and possibilities of this use are far from identical. In antagonistic socio-economic formations, this use of economic laws takes on a class character. “The use of economic laws,” notes Comrade Stalin, “always and everywhere in a class society has a class background...” (I.V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 49)
It is known that the practical use of economic laws by the exploiting classes has always been limited by their narrow class interests. They use economic laws when and to the extent that they do not contradict their class interests. As long as the bourgeoisie was a progressive class and fought against feudalism, it used the law of the obligatory correspondence of production relations to the character of the productive forces. It overthrew the old, feudal production relations, created new, bourgeois relations and brought them into conformity with the productive forces that had grown up in the womb of feudalism. But when the bourgeoisie turned into a reactionary class, and bourgeois production relations became fetters on the further development of the productive forces, it began to resist the action of the law of the obligatory correspondence of production relations to the character of the productive forces. The bourgeoisie uses these or other laws of capitalist production and exchange in practice only in its narrow class interests, uses them to strengthen its rule, to increase its profits, to intensify the exploitation of the working masses. This has become especially evident in the era of modern capitalism, when the class interests of the bourgeoisie have come into conflict with the interests of the majority of society, when they are aimed at delaying further economic, political and cultural progress of humanity.
At present, only the proletariat, expressing the interests of all humanity, is capable of scientific knowledge of the economic laws of society and their practical use in the interests of the majority of society.
Being the most revolutionary class, the proletariat is the standard-bearer of a comprehensive scientific knowledge of the laws of social development and their use in the interests of the whole of society. The difference between the proletariat and all other classes is that its class interests coincide with the interests of the overwhelming majority of society, since the proletariat fights for the abolition of all exploitation.
The leaders of the world proletariat, Marx and Engels, discovered the laws of economic development of society and created a truly scientific political economy, and Lenin and Stalin developed it further in relation to the new era, in relation to the new needs of the revolutionary practice of the proletariat and its party, in relation to the tasks of socialist construction in the USSR.
The laws of social development scientifically cognized (discovered) by the founders of Marxism-Leninism were used in the interests of the whole of society by the proletariat of Russia and its party in their revolutionary-practical activity aimed at revolutionary change of the world. The ideological and tactical principles of the Communist Party, as well as all its practical activity, are based on the knowledge of the laws of development of society. "This means," writes Comrade Stalin, "that in order not to make a mistake in politics, the party of the proletariat must proceed, both in the construction of its program and in its practical activity, first of all, from the laws of development of production, from the laws of economic development of society." (I.V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, p. 591).
Marxist-Leninist theory, as the result of a truly scientific understanding of the laws of social development and the paths of revolutionary transformation of the world, is of the greatest importance for the revolutionary-practical activity of the proletariat and its party. Marxism-Leninism as a science of the laws of development of society, the laws of the proletarian revolution, the laws of socialist construction, the victory of communism has become a powerful theoretical weapon in the world-historical struggle of the Communist Party for the revolutionary-practical transformation of capitalist society into socialist society.
In practically implementing the revolutionary theory of Marxism and developing it further on the basis of the new experience of the class struggle of the proletariat, Lenin and Stalin comprehensively substantiated and developed the question of the role of scientific knowledge in the practical activity of people, and of the greatest significance of socialist theory for the revolutionary practice of the proletariat and its party. “Without revolutionary theory,” wrote Lenin, “there can be no revolutionary movement.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 5, 4th ed., p. 341). “It is well known,” noted Comrade Stalin, “that theory, if it is truly a theory, gives practitioners the power of orientation, clarity of perspective, confidence in their work, and faith in the victory of our cause.” (I.V. Stalin, Works, vol. 12, p. 142).
The world-historical victory of socialism in the USSR and the successes of socialist construction in the countries of people's democracy testify to the fact that Marxist-Leninist theory is a powerful theoretical weapon for the working class and its party in the matter of the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into a communist one.
Under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union put into practice the Marxist thesis that “materialistic theory cannot limit itself to explaining the world, but must also change it.” (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 6, p. 92). Guided by the most advanced theory in the world – Marxism-Leninism – the Communist Party carried out truly gigantic transformations in the USSR, as a result of which the Soviet country was transformed from a backward, agrarian country into an advanced industrial socialist power, and became the leader of all democratic forces in their struggle for peace, for democracy, for socialism.
In the conditions of a socialist society in the USSR, the Communist Party and the Soviet state, expressing the will and aspirations of the entire Soviet people, are consciously guided by the known laws of economic development of society, and consciously use these laws in the practical struggle of the Soviet people for the construction of communism.
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments