Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:23 pm

To believers, religious sympathizers and agnostics
No. 8/36, VIII.2019

Image

Belief in God is presented as something very intimate, meaning high spirituality and touching something beautiful. For many, faith in God is associated with deep wisdom, with the knowledge of goodness and even touching the laws of being.

Turning to believers, we offer only to reflect on whether their faith is not the product of a specific attitude to life circumstances, to social forces that reign supreme over them. Are not the religious principles of the unknowability of God's plan, the predestination of his plan and the afterlife imposed from the outside in order to dull the power of thinking, impoverish a person's life, direct his actions in a direction beneficial to someone?

So, to the most important!

What is the world we live in?
Religion answers this question this way: the world was created by an almighty god and exists according to his plan. Science, on the other hand, according to religion, is engaged in the knowledge of the results of divine creation and providence, i.e., swarms in small things, being unable to penetrate the meaning of being. The highest meaning of the world order for us, people, is unattainable, we can only believe in what religious texts offer and spiritualize with prayers, counting on the invisible grace of God.

The omnipotence of God means, first of all, his absoluteness. Any major religion asserts the objectivity and absoluteness of God. This means that God really exists, is omnipotent and is the root cause of everything. However, the logical construction of the absoluteness of a rational being is contradictory in nature. Even the author of the Areopagitics (a corpus of theological writings of the 5th century in Greek) wondered if God could deny himself?

For example, the absoluteness of certain laws of physics or chemistry within the limits of their manifestation is indisputable, but the laws of nature are devoid of consciousness, therefore they do not promise any paradoxes. When absoluteness has consciousness, thinking, intentions, will, plans, then paradoxes involuntarily arise, like: can God create a triangular circle, endow a stone with reason, turn back time, deprive himself of strength, etc.

Many believe, they say, atheists do not believe in God, they deny God, on which the question of worldview ends. Some believers demand to prove to them that there is no God. But this is impossible, since in principle there can be no evidence that they would accept within the framework of religious ideas. Hypothetically, one could prove that there is no specific almighty god by presenting, for example, an almighty Allah to a Christian or an omnipotent triune Christian god to a Muslim, since they are mutually exclusive. But if we proceed from the materialistic idea of ​​the uncreability of being and the absence of higher rational forces, then there is nothing to present to believers in such a context. With the same success, one can demand to prove that there is no world of dreams, mermaids and brownies. Materialism proves the absence of God, revealing the reasons for the appearance of religions, justifying the man-made idea of ​​God, and not trying to prove the absence of what is not. It is time to prove the existence of God, and not vice versa.

Therefore, below is an attempt to present a picture of the world from the point of view of materialistic dialectics (diamatics), so that the reader, firstly, receives the most general ideas about the world in which we live, instead of a single atheistic thesis about the denial of God, and secondly, could compare religious ideas with truly scientific ones, which would put their own views to the test.

*
Instead of being in the form of the providence of an omnipotent god, diamatics recognizes only real being (i.e., a complex of objective realities - space, time and matter), the main characteristic of which is infinity and universality. Being is everything that was, that is, that will be. It is immutable because it is infinite. There is nothing but matter moving in space and existing in time . This is "everything".

As can be seen, consistent diamatic atheists also recognize absoluteness, but only the absoluteness of being itself, its infinity, non-alternativeness and integrity.

Unlike religion, diamatics defines the surrounding world as continuously moving in space and existing in time, indestructible and never created by anyone matter, represented by an infinite variety in the combination of its forms . In turn, everything spiritual is inherent only in man, it is a product of consciousness - the properties of matter for reflection. The man himself, i.e. society is a highly organized form of matter .

You can often hear, especially from people who have received higher education, about the “problem” of recognizing the infinity of the universe. How, they say, can one imagine the infinity of the world? The emergence of this question demonstrates only the logical blinkered thinking of the educated majority of our society. It is time to ask a counter question: how can one imagine the finiteness of the universe? Even supporters of the "big bang" and readers of the bible know that before the creation of the universe, in one case, there was a "singularity point", and in the other - an abyss, over which a bored god flew. It is absolutely impossible to imagine that the universe has an absolute beginning. The same goes for the end. It's all over, what's next?

In addition, idealists, including believers, do not want to see the difference between the recognition of objective truths by materialists and their own faith. They say: some believe in God, in scripture, while others believe in matter, science, and the like. This is a deeply flawed judgment, and here's why. The basis of scientific knowledge and adequate thinking in general is the principle of considering reality, whether it is nature, society or a person, as it is, without mixing anything from the outside, without the supernatural, mystical, and so on. This philosophical principle is an axiomadequate thinking, confirmed by all, without exception, the truths of mankind. That is, if a mentally healthy person directs his mental gaze to a phenomenon, process, or even to the universe as a whole without mixing in anything foreign, including God, then reliable results of at least observation are guaranteed. If something subjective, including God, is added to the mind's eye, the distortion of the received data or developed ideas is guaranteed, that is, false ideas. That is the nature of thinking.

Thus, the difference between scientific knowledge and faith lies, firstly, in the fact that scientific knowledge excludes the admixture of anything extraneous, subjectivistic, and secondly, that scientific knowledge is confirmed by the entire socio-historical practice of mankind . Therefore, the fact that 2 × 2 = 4 does not need to be believed, it is necessary to know. On the contrary, people frivolously believe in God because the arsenal of their knowledge about the universe, especially general and universal, is extremely narrow and cluttered up with fairy tales and idealistic theories to the maximum.

Generally speaking, in true science, the grounds for the emergence of faith are completely absent. If someone suggests believing in a certain concept, like, for example, fans of Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Dirac, then this only proves that we are not facing science, but another form of idealism under the guise of science.

Thus, Marxism requires that a person think not by means of faith, speculation or common sense, but by concepts, the content of which is adequate to objective reality. The highest type of concepts is the category. The philosophical category is, firstly, an extremely general and extremely specific scientific abstraction, the richness of the content of which guarantees the systematization and coordinated inclusion of any particular fact or series of facts. Secondly, this is the concept of a phenomenon that does not allow arbitrary interpretation. Thirdly, it is a concept that reflects the objective laws, forms or aspects of objective material reality, the key points of knowledge. The philosophical category always presupposes its full compliance with the entire socio-historical practice of mankind .

It should be noted that the problem of the starting point of thinking in science has been called "the main or highest question of philosophy." Engels, for example, wrote that all the thinkers of mankind are objectively divided into two large camps according to how they answered "the highest question of all philosophy." It was Marxism that gave an answer confirmed by practice: matter is primary, the world is cognizable. This initial message first turned philosophy into a science. Along with this, the philosophy of Marxism has become a powerful ideological weapon in the hands of the exploited classes.

In our time, there is no higher, basic question of philosophy - either a person stands on the basis of scientific thinking and recognizes a Marxist axiom, or he is engaged in speculation. Now all non-scientific philosophy, all representatives of decrepit idealism, professorial "objectivism" and salon "wisdom" are engaged in the denial of the formulation of the question itself and, of course, the Marxist axiom. All philosophies that have arisen on the basis of the “third way” are ideological rubbish: academic chewing gum or parlor chatter.

In an expanded presentation, this axiom of diamatics sounds as follows: being is infinite and is represented by an infinite variety of forms of matter that continuously move in an infinite objective space and exist from an infinite past by the present moment in objective time to an infinite future, and society is a highly organized form of matter capable of knowledge of the universe and the transformation of nature .

So being (or “everything”) is space, time and moving matter. What is space, time and matter in this case?

Space is an intangible objective reality in the form of absolute rest. No other absolute rest, except for space, is unthinkable and, by definition, impossible. From here follow the main characteristics of absolute rest: space is integral and infinite, it is an infinite receptacle of everything finite.

Time is an intangible objective reality in the form of absolutely pure movement. No absolutely pure movement other than time is unthinkable and by definition impossible. From here follow the main characteristics of pure motion - time is irreversible, progressive and "moves" by the current moment from the infinite past.

Matter is an objective reality in the form of an infinite variety of material objects and processes that are in continuous motion. The forms of existence of matter are a manifestation of the absolute qualities of matter - its variability, that is, movement, eternity, that is, non-creation, indestructibility and divisibility - discreteness and corpuscularity. Movement (change), non-creation, indestructibility are forms of the existence of matter, and the forms of matter themselves are nothing but infinitely discrete things or objects. In other words, all material objects have extension (which in the natural sciences is understood as volume), contain a certain amount of matter (which in the natural sciences is understood as mass) and consist of composite, simpler material objects.

The continuity of matter, space and time is manifested in the following. Firstly , in the fact that the moving matter fills all the infinite space and exists in time from the infinite past to the present moment. And nothing else is possible. Secondly , in the fact that the infinite space, which is absolute rest, is indifferent to the infinitely flowing absolutely pure time, and vice versa. At the same time, matter, the main difference of which from space and time is that it is constantly changing, refers to space and time as the conditions of its existence.

If we take all reliably known facts about the cosmos, nature, society and personality, all the socio-historical practice of mankind, including science, technology, production, then the only consistent explanation of the universe that is confirmed in practice is the fundamental categories of being presented above.

While on issues of the world order, religions are offered to believe in what is written on the basis of speculations and conjectures of a sample of two to three thousand years ago, diamatics is a rigorous science that has obtained all its truths through scientific knowledge. The utmost conscientiousness of the founders of Marxism and the analysis of the three revolutionary discoveries of natural science - the cellular structure of the body, the conservation of energy and the origin of species - made it possible, by synthesizing everything scientifically valuable in human culture, to establish not only the objective content of the historical process, but also to develop a scientific philosophy, i.e. knowledge universal.

The sensations that arise during the development of objective truth are unlike anything else. The transition from ignorance to knowledge, from misunderstanding to understanding, occurs in leaps and bounds, as a result of repeated recourse to formulations. Reading something is not the same as understanding. To assimilate, for example, the above-determined fundamental categories, careful thought, a broad outlook and maximum mobilization of intellectual efforts are required. When a person has mastered any scientific knowledge, he experiences sensations similar to those that arise when groping for a solid wall in an absolutely dark space, a wall, holding on to which, you can confidently move forward.

Further.

Humanity, religion and the meaning of life
According to popular religious beliefs, man is the crown of God's plan in the creation of the material world, moreover, he is the only one endowed with an immaterial soul and created in the image of an almighty God. The meaning of human life is to die with a minimum number of sins in order to count on forgiveness and the eternal well-being of the soul in paradise. A beautiful fairy tale invented to kill the desire for happiness on Earth, to convince a person to become humble and decent, to respect the cyclopean scale of the wealth of the oligarchy and its tyrannical power.

Diamatics teaches that society is a form of matter. Matter of a special kind, the peculiarity of which lies in the subjective consciousness of the people who form it . Objective reality is independent of consciousness, but consciousness depends on the content of social existence and does not contain anything that would not be a reflection of reality. Consciousness is a highly developed property of matter to reflect the forms of being , in fact, the interpenetration of two material systems: man and nature. A person reflects the objective world in his head, and then in his activity transforms it on the basis of cognition.. The development of matter generates consciousness, and already consciousness sets in motion the objective material forces of society, and thus social movement occurs, this is how society exists.

From what has been said, it is clear that religion is also a reflection of some kind of objective reality. The only question is: is it a reflection of the existence of God or a distorted reflection of some forces dominating man in a mystical form.

Marx wrote:

“Man creates religion, but religion does not create man. Namely: religion is the self-consciousness and self-feeling of a person who either has not yet found himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is not an abstract being huddled somewhere outside the world... This state, this society give rise to religion, a perverse worldview, for they themselves are a perverse world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritualistic point d'honneur [question of honour], its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn completion, its universal ground of consolation and justification. It transforms the human essence into a fantastic reality...

Religious squalor is at the same time an expression of real squalor and a protest against this real squalor. Religion is the breath of an oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a soulless order. Religion is the opium of the people .

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for its real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about one's position is the demand to give up a position that needs illusions. Criticism of religion is, therefore, in the embryonic criticism of that vale of lamentation, of which religion is a sacred halo.

Religion is the opium of the people . In other words, religion is a form of class struggle for the elimination of the subjective factor of social revolutions by planting alogisms, faith and deliberate atrophy of thinking .

But do not confuse faith and religion. Faith can also be generated by individual, everyday frivolity. Whereas religion is a form of class relations, a set of ideas and institutions designed to keep the exploited majority in a state of servility and weakness.

The scientific study of the phenomenon of religion leads to such conclusions.

Clerics try to pretend that atheism presupposes an aimless life, immorality, desire for earthly pleasures, and the like. Since we are striving to prove the necessity of not just atheism, but a diamatic worldview, it is important to show that science equips man with a truly productive and objective morality.

What is the meaning of human life from a scientific point of view? Society in relation to the individual is primary and decisive. Personality is the expression and manifestation of society. Thus, the meaning of human life is dictated by the objective requirements of social progress.

Famous words of Lenin:

“Does communist morality exist? Does communist morality exist? Of course yes. Often things are presented in such a way that we do not have our own morality, and very often the bourgeoisie accuses us of the fact that we, the Communists, deny all morality. This is a way of substituting concepts, throwing sand in the eyes of the workers and peasants.

In what sense do we deny morality, deny morality?

In the sense in which it was preached by the bourgeoisie, which derived this morality from the commands of God. On this score, of course, we say that we do not believe in God, and we know very well that the clergy spoke in the name of God, the landowners spoke, the bourgeoisie spoke in order to pursue their exploiting interests. Or instead of deriving this morality from the dictates of morality, from the dictates of God, they derived it from idealistic or semi-idealistic phrases, which also always amounted to what is very similar to the decrees of God.

We deny any such morality, taken from a non-human, non-class concept. We say that this is a deceit, that this is a swindle and a swindling of the minds of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists.

We say that our morality is completely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. Our morality is derived from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.

(…) The old society was based on the principle that either you rob another, or another robs you, or you work for another, or he works for you, or you are a slave owner, or you are a slave. And it is clear that people brought up in this society, one might say, with mother's milk perceive psychology, a habit, a concept - either a slave owner, or a slave, or a small owner, a petty employee, a petty official, an intellectual, in a word, a person who cares only about to have his own, but he does not care about the other.

(…) At the heart of communist morality lies the struggle to strengthen and complete communism. This is the basis of communist upbringing, education and teaching. This is the answer to the question of how communism should be studied.

A person experiences the need to know and create, to love and be loved, justified by the objective laws of progress. Cognition and creativity are forms of realization of human labor forces, and love, friendship, collectivism are the most harmonious forms of relationships between people. Material goods and comfort are necessary for a person within the reasonable limits that serve to realize these needs. This is the case if one looks at the essence of man and society in the abstract.

In reality, the division of society into classes and all the contradictions arising from it fetter a person, create a tyranny of anti-rational social relations - capital. Therefore, the struggle for communism, that is, for the elimination of classes and the building of a system of social relations on the basis of science, is an urgent, objective requirement of progress. And only in its realization can a person acquire the full meaning of his life .

In science-based service to society, there is real happiness and meaning in life .

Thus, there is no special intimacy, spirituality and wisdom in faith and religiosity. Just ignorance and self-deception.

A. Redin
24/08/2019

https://prorivists.org/36_faith/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:12 pm

Capitalism’s Court Jester: Slavoj Žižek
JANUARY 7, 2023

Image
Slavoj Žižek, Slovenian philosopher, a favorite of Western academia. File photo.

By Gabriel Rockhill – Jan 2, 2023

One of the most prominent intellectuals in the contemporary world was named to the list of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers” in Foreign Policy magazine in 2012.[1] He shares this distinction with the likes of Dick Cheney, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Mossad director Meir Dagan. The theorist’s best idea—according to this well-known publication that is a virtual arm of the US State Department—is that “the big revolution the left is waiting for will never come.”[2]

Other ideas were surely strong contenders, and we could add to the list more recent positions. To select but a few examples, this top global thinker has described 20th-century communism, and more specifically Stalinism, as “maybe the worst ideological, political, ethical, social (and so on) catastrophe in the history of humanity.”[3] As a matter of fact, he adds for emphasis that “if you measure at some abstract level of suffering, Stalinism was worse than Nazism,” apparently regretting that the Red Army under Stalin defeated the Nazi war machine.[4] The Third Reich was not as “radical” in its violence as communism, he insists, and “the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough.”[5] Perhaps he could have taken some tips from Mao Zedong who, according to this theoretical grandee, made a “ruthless decision to starve tens of millions to death.”[6] This undocumented assertion positions its author well to the right of the anti-communist Black Book of Communism, which recognized that Mao did not intend to kill his compatriots.[7]Such information is of no import, however, to this theorist since he operates on the assumption that the worst ‘crime against humanity’ in the modern world was not Nazism or fascism, but rather communism.

The thinker in question is also a self-declared Eurocentric who intimates that Europe is politically, morally, and intellectually superior to all other regions of planet Earth.[8] When the European refugee crisis was intensified due to brutal Western military interventions around the wider Mediterranean region, he parroted Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ credo by declaring that “it is a simple fact that most of the refugees come from a culture that is incompatible with Western European notions of human rights.”[9] This top-tier pundit also endorsed Donald Trump for president in the 2016 election.[10] More recently, he explicitly positioned himself to the right of the notorious warmonger Henry Kissinger by accusing the latter of “pacifism” and expressing his “full support” for the U.S. proxy war in the Ukraine, claiming that “we need a stronger NATO” to defend “European unity.”[11]

Being fêted by the preeminent journal co-founded by the arch-conservative national security state operative Huntington is only the tip of the iceberg for this global superstar, who has achieved a level of international fame rarely accorded to professional intellectuals.[12] In addition to being an academic celebrity with prestigious appointments at leading institutions in the capitalist world and innumerable international junkets, he has consolidated an enormous media platform. This includes publishing books and articles at a dizzying speed for some of the most prominent outlets, serving as the subject of multiple films, and regularly appearing on television and in major media spectacles.

Given the nature of these political positions and their amplification by the bourgeois cultural apparatus, one might assume that the thinker in question is a rightwing ideologue promoted by imperialist think tanks and the U.S. national security state. On the contrary, however, this is a commentator that anyone perusing online for radical theory or even Marxism is likely to encounter almost immediately, because he is one of the most visible intellectuals taken to represent the Left: Slavoj Žižek.

Donald Trump expressed his belief in the power of the US propaganda machine by infamously claiming that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing a single voter.[13] In our perverse and decadent society of the spectacle within the imperialist core, much the same applies to the poster child for the global theory industry. Žižek could take the most reactionary political positions imaginable, have them broadcast around the world by the capitalist cultural apparatus, and still be presented as a towering intellectual of the Left. As a matter of fact, he has done precisely that.

Discursive sausage for the uneducated
As a young philosophy student in the United States in the early 1990s, I must admit that I was hoodwinked by this huckster and the system that promoted him. He burst onto the scene like the Evel Knievel of the theory industry when I was an undergraduate. Rather than endless disquisitions on a European philosophic history I knew nothing about, here was someone who could talk about it all to a poorly educated 19-year-old-wannabe intellectual: Hollywood movies, science fiction stories, consumer society, online culture, cool theories from Europe, pornography, sex, and, well, more sex. He was intoxicating to read, particularly for someone miseducated by the capitalist ideological apparatus and hungry for something—marketed as—different.

I devoured each book when it came out in the 1990s and early 21st century. I also followed on his heels by pursuing a Ph.D. under the direction of his intellectual father figure in Paris: Alain Badiou. However, as I continued to educate myself, I began to tire of his repetitions, theoretical superficiality, and rote rhetorical moves. I increasingly saw his provocative antics as a poor ersatz for historical and materialist analysis. This came to a head in 2001 when he endeavored to explain the events of September 11th through a cheeky Lacanian interpretation of The Matrix. His hot takes, while they sold like hot cakes, paled in comparison to rigorous materialist analyses of the history of U.S. imperialism and the machinations of its national security state, if it be in the work of Noam Chomsky, or much better, that of Michael Parenti.[14]

I then had a unique opportunity to see how Žižek’s discursive sausage is made when I translated a book by Jacques Rancière as a graduate student. Since Rancière was largely unknown in the Anglophone world at the time, every single publisher turned down the project. When I was finally able to talk one of them into considering it, after a hasty initial rejection, the acquisitions editor for the publishing house—which is now defunct—imposed one condition: to guarantee lucrative sales, I needed to secure a preface by a major marketing force in radical theory like Žižek. The latter agreed and later sent me a jumbled text that bore more than a striking resemblance to the section on Rancière in his book The Ticklish Subject.[15] He had added to this some free-associative ruminations and prefatory comments for one of Rancière’s books on cinema, which demonstrated little to no knowledge of the latter’s work on aesthetics or the book in question (I had translated Le Partage du sensible: Esthétique et politique). Disgusted by this shameless disregard for scholarly rigor, yet devoid of any institutional power or a deeper political analysis at the time, I felt that my hands were tied because I needed to accept the theory industry’s use of this charlatan to promote its commodities if I wanted my translation to see the light of day. I sought to bury the preface by turning it into a postface and surrounding it with scholarly elucidations of Rancière’s work. In retrospect, however, I should have simply halted the project.

In looking back on my experiences with the so-called Elvis of cultural theory, I now see that, as part of the ascendent and miseducated professional managerial class stratum in the imperialist core, I was the target audience for his antics. In 1989 the Berlin Wall fell, and Žižek’s first major book came out in English with Verso: The Sublime Object of Ideology. With a preface by the post-Marxist—viz. chichi anti-Marxist—radical democrat Ernesto Laclau, it was presented as a flagship publication in his new series with Chantal Mouffe. The series sought to draw on “anti-essentialist” theoretical trends, like those in France inspired by Martin Heidegger, in order to provide “a new vision for the Left conceived in terms of a radical and plural democracy” rather than support for socialism.[16] These two radical democrats—whose political orientation resonated with the anti-communist movements that were presented as ‘pro-democracy’ and used to dismantle socialist countries—played a central role in promoting Žižek. They invited him to present his work in the Anglophone world and opened up prestigious publication platforms to him. He reciprocated by explicitly using their post-Marxist pronunciamento, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985), to frame his first book, based on their shared opposition to “the global solution-revolution” of “traditional Marxism.”[17] In 1991, the USSR was dismantled, and the aspiring post-Marxist theorist catering to the West published two more books: another in Laclau and Mouffe’s series, and one as an October book.[18] He thus definitively caught the rising theoretical wave of radical democracy just as dissident ‘pro-democracy’ movements backed by imperialist states and their intelligence services were aggressively rolling back the gains of the working class in order to redistribute wealth upwards.

As Soviet-style socialism was being dismantled, this Eastern European native informant increasingly presented his post-Marxism as nothing short of the most radical form of Marxism. Not unlike Elvis, who notoriously rose to fame in the music industry by appropriating, domesticating, and mainstreaming music from Black communities that was often rooted in very real struggles, Žižek became a front man in the global theory industry by borrowing his most important insights from the Marxist tradition but subjecting them to a playful postmodern cultural mash-up to crush their substance, thereby commodifying them for mass consumption in the neoliberal era of anti-communist revanchism. It is essential to note in this regard that, while the capitalist establishment celebrated the supposed end of history in the 1990s, it also promoted, for the rather niche social stratum of the radlib intelligentsia, the symbol of Marxism, purportedly set free from its substance, like a red balloon floating whichever way the—capitalist-driven—wind would blow. This was Žižek: he was to become the most well-known “Marxist” in the neoliberal age of accelerated anti-communism. The mystery man from the East—a literal caricature of the “crazy Marxist,” best captured by the sobriquet “the Borat of philosophy”—rose like a perverted phoenix publicly masturbating over the flames that had destroyed Soviet-style socialism.

Dialectical sophistry

Like many of his fellow self-styled radical thinkers, whose snake oil sells so well because it is ever so slippery, Žižek prides himself on his elusive prose and erratic behavior. In reading him, one comes to anticipate, at the turn of each page, yet another ‘gotcha’ moment when we learn that it’s actually the opposite (of whatever he had led us to believe on the previous page)! Like a child who never tires of playing hide-and-seek, in spite of their inability to actually hide, the Slovenian wunderkind constantly shirks and spirals out of discursive control to say everything and its opposite in the hopes that he can cover his tracks and remain ever elusive. He appears to be ignorant of the fact that there is an obvious and consistent ideology operative in the chameleonic character of intellectuals of his ilk. It is called opportunism.

When Žižek was interviewed for the Abercrombie and Fitch catalog, his interviewer said she’d share the text with him in advance of publication. He retorted: “Oh that’s not necessary. Whatever I say, you can make me say the opposite!”[19] Saying something is just as good as saying its opposite for an opportunist whose main objective is to have his name in lights. In fact, if you say both over time—while disingenuously attributing this tiresome rhetorical move to “dialectics” in order to provide pseudo-intellectual cover for nothing more than crass self-promotional chicanery—you occupy more space and take up even more time, squeezing out any of those who might actually have somethingto say. The fact that the bourgeois cultural apparatus gives him such an enormous platform reveals its proclivity to promote such tomfoolery over and against truly radical forms of analysis. It is worth recalling, in this regard, that his dada dialectics knows very precise limits. We have never heard him say, as far as I know, something like: ‘the dominant ideology constantly says that actually existing socialism was utterly horrific… but it’s precisely the opposite!’

We might wonder why a self-stylized Marxist uncritically embraces the crassest elements of the culture industry that promotes him, willingly whoring himself out to a mega-corporate clothing line that was placed on the “Sweatshop Hall of Shame” by the International Labor Rights Forum in 2010. This is, however, just one example among many others of the intimate relationship between the global theory industry and the general industry of consumer capitalism. Žižek doesn’t only sell books; he also peddles movies, art, literature, magazines, newspapers, public spectacles, and, well, American-style clothes for “cool, good-looking people,” in the choice words of A&F’s CEO.[20]

Pro-Western, anti-Communist dissident

Since this grifter says and re-says just about everything and its opposite, it is helpful to focus on what he has actually done and the nature of his theoretical practice. To fully understand the latter, it is necessary to situate him and his specific skullduggery within the social relations of intellectual production. In other words, by theoretical practice, I not only mean his subjective activities as an intellectual but also the objective social totality within which he operates, and which has promoted him as an international superstar. Part of my argument is that Žižek needs to be understood as a cultural product of the global theory industry rather than fetishized as a sui generis subject.

The author of In Defense of Lost Causes was born in 1949, and he grew up in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). He would later assert, with no evidence beyond anecdotes to support his claim, that “life in a Communist state was mostly worse than life in many capitalist states.”[21] However, his home country provided a quality of life for the masses that is worth briefly recalling:

Between 1960 and 1980 it [Yugoslavia] had one of the most vigorous growth rates, along with free medical care and education, a guaranteed right to an income, one-month vacation with pay, a literacy rate of over 90%, and a life expectancy of 72 years. Yugoslavia also offered its multi-ethnic citizenry affordable public transportation, housing, and utilities, in a mostly publicly owned, market-socialist economy.[22]

According to his biographer Tony Myers, Žižek disliked the communist culture of his homeland. Surely clued into potential opportunities for personal socio-economic advancement in the larger capitalist world, this venal young intellectual devoted himself to imbibing Western pop culture. “As a student,” Myers writes, “he developed an interest in, and wrote about, French philosophy rather than the official communist paradigms of thought.”[23] His Master’s thesis on French theory “was deemed to be politically suspicious” because, in the words of his fellow Slovenian philosopher Mladen Dolar, “the authorities were concerned that the charismatic teaching of Žižek might improperly influence students with his dissident thinking.”[24]

He did end up writing his first book on the unrepentant Nazi Martin Heidegger, the principal reference for the Slovenian anti-communist opposition according to Žižek himself. He also published the first Slovene translation of the French philosopher who made an enormous contribution to rehabilitating Heidegger’s reputation after WWII: Jacques Derrida.[25] The French magus of deconstruction was himself directly involved in dissident anti-communist political activism against the government in Czechoslovakia.[26] He co-founded the French chapter of the Jan Hus Educational Foundation, which has been funded by an impressive array of corporate and Western governmental sources with a record of supporting anti-communist subversion, including the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, the Open Society Fund (Soros), the Ford Foundation, the United States Information Agency, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is a CIA cutout.[27]

After a sojourn in Paris to complete a second Ph.D., Žižek returned to the SFRY in 1985 and first came to public attention as an anti-communist dissident who was part of the French-theory inflected, Western-oriented ‘opposition.’[28] “In [the] late 1980s,” he explained, “I myself was personally engaged in undermining the Yugoslav Socialist order.”[29] He was “the main political columnist” for Mladina, a prominent weekly publication that was part of the dissident movement against the communist government.[30] The magazine, for which he wrote a weekly column, was accused of being backed by the CIA in a long and detailed report by the Yugoslav Communist Party, which also highlighted the proliferation of counter-revolutionaries who were threatening the very survival of the SFRY.[31] Žižek later claimed, on numerous occasions, that this was precisely his orientation as a dissident who contributed to the fall of communism.[32] He was involved, amongst other things, in the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights of the Four Accused in 1988 that demanded, in his own words, “the abolishment of the existing socialist system” and “the global overthrow of the socialist regime.”[33] This was in perfect line with President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Decision Directive 133 (NSDD), which advocated in 1984 for “expanded efforts to promote a ‘quiet revolution’ to overthrow Communist governments and parties” in Yugoslavia and other Eastern European countries.[34]

Žižek cofounded the Liberal Democratic Party (LDS), and he served as one of its leading public spokespeople.[35] The LDS was rooted in the liberal tradition of promoting ‘pluralism’ and would dominate Slovenia during the first decade after the end of socialism.[36] Žižek was the party’s candidate for the four-person presidency of the earliest break-away republic, which served as a wedge for dismantling the SFRY. He made the following campaign promise in a 1990 televised debate: “I can, as a member of the Presidency, substantially assist in the decomposition of ideologic Real-socialist apparatus of the state.”[37] He expressed his willingness to implement policies of liberal economic restructuring, which had already had catastrophic consequences for workers, asserting that he’s a “pragmatist” in this area: “if it works, why not try a dose of it?”[38] Indeed, he openly advocated for “planned privatizations” and flatly asserted, like a good capitalist ideologue: “more capitalism in our case would mean more social security.”[39] This was, once again, in perfect line with Reagan’s NSDD 133, which explicitly called for “Yugoslavia’s long-term internal liberalization” and the promotion of a “market-oriented Yugoslav economic structure.”[40]

The Eastern liberal also affirmed his support, at least in the short term of socialist demolition, for what the anti-communist philosopher Karl Popper called the “open society.” He claimed that George Soros, the anti-communist founder of the Open Society Fund (and Popper’s former student), was “doing good work in the field of education, refugees and keeping the theoretical and social sciences spirit alive.”[41] Popper supported NATO’s intervention in the SFRY, and his work had been promoted by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the infamous CIA front organization. Soros has been deeply invested in anti-socialist regime change operations in Eastern Europe. In Yugoslavia, “his Open Society Institute channeled more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and ‘independent’ media.”[42] Moreover, Soros openly admitted that he was—through his foundation’s lavish funding of anti-communist organizations and activities—“profoundly implicated in the disintegration of the Soviet system.”[43]

Although Žižek was narrowly defeated in his presidential run, he served as the Ambassador for Science in the emerging post-socialist republic and apparently continues to provide informal advice to the government.[44] Indeed, he expressed his “open support for the Slovenian state after the restoration of capitalism in the 1990s,” and he remained faithful to his anti-communist liberalism: “I did something for which I lost almost all my friends, what no good leftist ever does: I fully supported the ruling party in Slovenia.”[45] The LDS, as a party of capital, pursued denationalization and privatization. This was in a context in which the IMF and World Bank were pushing through brutal economic counter-reforms that had been destroying the industrial sector, dismantling the welfare state, fostering the collapse of real wages, and laying off workers at a terrifying pace (614,000 out of a total industrial workforce of some 2.7 million had been laid off in 1989-90).[46] The pro-privatization party that Žižek openly supported, during a time of “massive declines of living standards for large sections of the world population,” was also keen on becoming a junior partner in the imperialist camp. It was “the leading proponent of accession to the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).”[47] This process began in the 1990s, and Slovenia officially joined the EU in 2003 and NATO the following year.[48]

It must not be lost on us, then, that this entrepreneurial intellectual had been for pro-Western civil society and against the state when the latter was socialist, whereas he was proudly against civil society and for the state when the latter turned capitalist (and sought membership in capitalist and imperialist transnational organizations).[49] As a matter of fact, in his presidential campaign, he advocated for an anti-socialist purge of the state apparatus, adding that he would be very strict and “start from scratch” regarding “the Administration of internal affairs, political police and so on.”[50] He explicitly advocated for developing an intelligence service that would be completely liquidated of all socialist elements, announcing what could only be interpreted as the CIA’s wet dream in the first break-away republic (which raises serious questions about his precise relationship to the agency that has played such a central role in overthrowing socialist governments around the world, often by working hand-in-glove with local anti-socialist political parties, intelligence agencies, publication outlets, and intellectuals): “There [regarding the Administration of internal affairs and the political police] I would make a cut. Now I will say something sinful. I think that in these turbulent times Slovenia will need an intelligence service because during this battle for sovereignty there will be actions to destabilize it. But for this service it is particularly important that it does not share any continuity with the current Administration of internal affairs [i.e. the socialist one]. Here I advocate a cut.”[51]The communists, according to this toady of the West, hate him. They undoubtedly recognize that he is an opportunist playing a very dangerous game to advance his career—as well as brutal privatization schemes and imperialist expansion—at the expense of the masses of workers. “I am rather perceived as some dark, ominous, plotting, political manipulator,” writes the Lacanian joker about how he’s seen in Slovenia, “a role I enjoy immensely and like very much.”[52]

Although he provided mild pushback against the Western propaganda narrative that ethnic hatred was the principal cause of the dissolution of the SFRY, his rationale for this stance perfectly aligns—like so many of his other political positions—with the propaganda promoted by pro-capitalist public relations firms like Ruder & Finn and CIA media assets. In a text entitled “NATO, the Left Hand of God,” he flatly asserted: “it was Serbian aggression alone, and not ethnic conflict, that set off the war.”[53] The Serbs, it is worth recalling, had “a proportionately higher percentage of Communist party membership than other nationalities.”[54]Žižek was thus parroting the position put forth by Ruder & Finn’s Director James Harff, who bragged that his spin doctors had been able to construct for the SFRY a “simple story of good guys and bad guys.”[55] The Eastern liberal even attempted to blame the communists, who had overseen a functioning multi-ethnic state for decades, for producing nationalism and “the compulsive attachment to the national Cause.”[56] He also embraced the Western demonization of the socialist President Slobodan Milošević by indulging in liberal horseshoe theory, claiming that “he managed to synthesize some unthinkable combination of fascism and Stalinism.”[57]However, whatever mistakes or misdeeds were committed by the socialists, the fact of the matter is that, as Michael Parenti has explained in a fact-driven book on the topic: “there was no civil war, no widespread killings, and no ethnic cleansing until the Western powers began to inject themselves into Yugoslavia’s internal affairs, financing the secessionist organizations and creating the politico-economic crisis that ignited the political strife.”[58]

Where did the pro-capitalist stand on NATO’s self-proclaimed humanitarian bombings of defenseless civilian populations and socialist infrastructure, whose real goal was the ‘Third Worldization’ and effective colonization of the only nation in the region that had refused to shed what remained of its socialism? He cheekily asserted, with his signature gusto for puerile provocation: “So, precisely as a Leftist, my answer to the dilemma ‘Bomb or not?’ is: not yet ENOUGH bombs, and they are TOO LATE.”[59] Since he made this ringing endorsement for intensifying the illegal mass murder of civilians in a draft that circulated online, and this particular statement dropped out of the text when it was published, we should note that he is crystal clear in other interviews, like when he flatly asserts: “I have always been in favor of military intervention from the West.”[60]

In his subsequent career as one of the world’s most visible public intellectuals, he has repeatedly taken strong positions against actually existing socialism. Cuba, for him, is nothing but “a nostalgic inert remainder of the past” that provides no hope for the future and is undeserving of even circumspect support.[61] In perfect line with capitalist propaganda, he casts China as an existential threat, and he unflinchingly describes Chinese communist leader Xi Jinping as an authoritarian capitalist who runs in the same corrupt gang as Trump, Putin, Modi, and Erdoğan.[62] It is quite obvious in reading him, in spite of his radical mummery, that he abides by Margret Thatcher’s infamous neoliberal mantra: TINA—There Is No Alternative. In fact, he regularly says as much himself: “I’m not aware of any convincing radical left alternatives” and “I don’t have any fundamental hopes in a socialist revolution or whatever.”[63] In the 1990 presidential debate mentioned above, he expressly embraced the views of Winston Churchill—whose dogged advocacy for colonial butchery positioned him “at the most brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum”—by claiming that capitalism “is the worst of all systems” but “we don’t have another one that would be better.”[64]

At the same time, he has regularly intervened in public debates to express his support for the European Union (a longstanding capitalist project promoted by the U.S. national security state as a bulwark against communism) and select acts of Western imperialism, including some of NATO’s brutal military interventions, particularly those in or near Europe.[65] His grand idea for the future of humanity is not to be found in the socialist states in the Global South that have waged successful anticolonial struggles against imperialism. It is instead located in the historic epicenter of colonialism and imperialism. “In today’s global capitalist world,” he writes, “it [the idea of Europe] offers the only model of a transnational organization having the authority to limit national sovereignty and the task of guaranteeing a minimum of norms for ecological and social well-being. Something subsists in this idea that directly descends from the best traditions of the European enlightenment.”[66] As a matter of fact, according to his Euro-diffusionist historical narrative, Third World anti-colonial struggles are themselves dependent upon concepts purportedly imported from the West, including what Žižek describes as the latter’s “self-critical examination” of its own “violence and exploitation” in the Third World.[67] As a social chauvinist who deeply believes that Europe is the natural leader of world development, he even concurs with Bruno Latour’s reactionary assertion that “only Europe can save us.”[68]

Commie cosplay

In spite of Žižek’s clear political orientation in practice as a pro-Western anti-communist, who aggressively supported the overthrow of socialism in favor of capitalism, this self-styled eccentric never tires of claiming that he’s a communist. He even attempts to dress the part, so to speak, presenting himself as the “dirty communist” from the East. In addition to the obligatory beard and the disheveled appearance, he belligerently talks over his interlocutors, spewing out endless dirtbag left provocation like pseudo-intellectual logorrhea was going out of style. A true performance to épater les bourgeois.

Žižek is neoliberal capitalism’s court jester. Aping the figure of the Marxist-qua-antisocial-fanatic, he encourages disdain for the real-world project of socialism, while hawking the wares of Western consumer society through his pop cultural mash-up. The histrionic show put on by this contumacious enfant terrible is—we must never forget—on the capitalist stage. The trickster is just a hireling, and a telling symptom of neoliberalism’s cultural apparatus. It is the capitalist court that has made the joker into a superstar, precisely because he has played his part so well. Like all good jesters, he pushes the limits of courtly decorum and says the most outrageous things in a hysterical spectacle of critique, while ultimately toeing the most important line by demonstrating his fealty to the puppet master (king capital).

To convincingly play his provocative part, this clown not only says he’s a Marxist, but he insists on being nothing short of a Leninist. Let’s listen in to one of his ridiculous rants, which, of course, is part of his routine and is therefore repeated in numerous texts: “I am a Leninist. Lenin wasn’t afraid to dirty his hands. […] When you get power, if you can, grab it. Do whatever is possible.”[69] This commie cosplay depiction amounts to saying that Leninism is all about playing dirty and ruthlessly pursuing power. Such a disingenuous representation of Lenin, and Marxism-Leninism more generally, is perfectly in line with a long ideological history. Benedetto Croce, the Italian liberal and fascist sympathizer, said the exact same thing about Marx: he was the Machiavelli of the proletariat because he put force first and sought to ruthlessly seize power.[70] Steve Bannon, relying on a similar conflation of Leninism with brute power politics, is also a self-declared “Leninist” à la Žižek.[71] This is likely one of the many reasons why the neo-Nazi leader Richard Spencer declared: “Slavoj Žižek is my favorite leftist. He has more to teach the alt Right than a million American conservative douches.”[72]

Since the jester always has more to say on every topic, let’s hear him out on what it means to be a Leninist in 2009, when he made the claim cited above: “I am a Leninist. […] This is why I supported Obama.”[73] This is one of his best jokes of all time. The deadpan delivery is killer because he actually means it. He literally equates Leninism with supporting the neoliberal Deporter-in-Chief whose diversity cred provided thin cover for revving the engine of the US imperial machine around the world, leading to Obama’s infamous statement about his assassination program, namely that he was “really good at killing people.”[74] Žižek, though, homes in on the former President’s purportedly revolutionary approach to healthcare, meaning an imposed mandate for private insurance modeled on Republican Mitt Romney’s plan: “I think the battle he is fighting now over healthcare is extremely important, because it concerns the very core of the ruling ideology.”[75] Obama, we might remember, rejected any discussion whatsoever of single-payer healthcare, a system of universal coverage with socialist roots.

When you’re an idealist wag like Žižek, Leninism is just a word, a floating signifier, that you can play around with, using it as just one more prop or gimmick. This is painfully obvious in his comic book Repeating Lenin. In spite of what the straightforward title might suggest to the naïve and uninitiated, he proclaims: “I am careful to speak about not repeating Lenin. I am not an idiot. It wouldn’t mean anything to return to the Leninist working class party today.”[76] What he likes about Lenin “is precisely what scares people about him—the ruthless will to discard all prejudices. Why not violence? Horrible as it may sound, I think it’s a useful antidote to all the aseptic, frustrating, politically correct pacifism.”[77] It’s that unbridled death drive that the Slovenian Lacanian feels compelled to repeat. “To REPEAT Lenin,” he writes with clownish typography, “does NOT mean a RETURN to Lenin – to repeat Lenin is to accept that ‘Lenin is dead,’ that his particular solution failed, even failed monstrously, but that there was a utopian spark in it worth saving. […] To repeat Lenin is to repeat not what Lenin DID, but what he FAILED TO DO, his MISSED opportunities.”[78] As the most visible ‘Leninist’ never tires of repeating, communism was and is a cataclysmic failure. His compulsion to repeat it is thus best understood in terms of the line in Beckett that he regularly quotes in contexts such as these: “Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” What the future has in store, according to this rebel with a lost cause, is thus nothing more than enhanced failure: “we have to accept the fact that it is impossible for Communism to win […] , i.e., that, in this sense, Communism is a lost cause.”[79]

The final payoff for the jester’s commie cosplay is that the super-rich chortle in their martinis and invite him to write copy for their advertisements. Meanwhile, some students and members of the professional managerial class stratum buy up his pop philosophy thinking perhaps they’ll learn something about Marxism. Instead, they are taken on a theoretical magic carpet ride that demonstrates how ridiculous Marxism is while advertising Hollywood’s blockbuster films, TV shows, science fiction novels, and assorted consumer products of the global theory industry.

The discreet charm of the petty-bourgeoisie

Žižek, like Badiou, is not a historical materialist.[80] Neither of these philosophers engage in rigorous analysis of the concrete, material history of capitalism and the world socialist movement, and they eschew serious political economy in favor of discussing superstructural elements and products of the bourgeois cultural apparatus. Both of them openly indulge in an idealist philosophical approach that privileges ideas and discourses, and they are metaphysicians who defend an anti-scientific belief in superstition.

If we bracket their idiosyncratic vocabularies and examine their theoretical practices outside of the ideological confines of cultural commodity fetishism, their specific version of idealism could best be described as transcendental idealism. They present their brand-managed conceptual framework (largely based on personal interpretations of non-Marxist discourses like those of Jacques Lacan and G.W.F. Hegel) as the transcendental structure of reality. They then choose specific empirical elements—a current event, a text, a Hollywood movie, a candy wrapper, the back of a cereal box, a Starbucks’ cup, a porn site, or literally anything else, particularly in the case of Žižek—that they contend confirms this pre-established theoretical model, thereby producing the illusion that it has been proven true. Such a claim, however, can never be collectively tested in any rigorous manner, because it is up to the whims of each speculative prestidigitator to decide what empirical data corroborates their theoretical assumptions (and thus what information can be ignored).

This can be clearly seen in their approach to communism. Unlike Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who maintained that “communism is the real movement which abolishes [aufhebt] the present state of things,” they assert that communism is an “Idea” and a “desire.”[81] At the same time, they regularly toe the capitalist propaganda line by condemning the real movement of communism for purportedly indulging in bloodthirsty terrorism, violent dictatorship, and genocide (blithely ignoring the need to provide documentation for such claims, or simply invoking as ‘proof’ the work of reactionary anti-communists or sources funded by the U.S. State Department and the Open Society Fund).[82] The possible exceptions they sometimes point to would often better be described as anarchist, at least as they interpret them, because they tend to celebrate moments of anti-state and anti-party insurgency, including against socialist states (as in Badiou’s interpretation of the Chinese Cultural Revolution).[83] Meanwhile, those who support actually existing socialism are presented as ideological dupes or remnants of a bygone era, trapped in an imaginary world not unlike those ensnared in capitalist ideology. “The left which aligned itself with ‘actually existing socialism’ has disappeared or turned into a historical curiosity” is what we are told in the introduction to their widely acclaimed volume The Idea of Communism.[84]

When this book was published by Verso in 2010, the Chinese Communist Party boasted some 80 million members, which surpassed the entire combined population of both France and Slovenia by about 16 million people. Where, then, we might wonder, are these social chauvinists getting their information about the current state of the world? The answer is embarrassingly simple for these idealist philosophers: Jacques Lacan and the Lacanian elements in Louis Althusser’s work. The latter drew on Lacan’s mirror stage and conceptualization of the imaginary to create a misleading portrayal of ideology in his famous interpellation scene.[85] As Althusser asserted in a passage that contradicts his earlier analysis, an individual becomes an ideological subject when it recognizes itself as the one being hailed (interpellé) by a police officer in the street, meaning that the individual identifies with the image put forth by the other, assuming one’s place in the extant symbolic order.

There is another possibility, however, which Lacan referred to in his seventh seminar as following the imperative to not compromise one’s desire (ne pas céder sur son désir), which Žižek has theorized in terms of the ‘ethical act.’ Rather than remaining an ideological subject trapped in an imagined relationship to the social relations of production within the symbolic order, one can become a Subject à la Badiou by fearlessly pursuing the Real, which is that je ne sais quoi that resists the symbolic order (while at the same time being “contained in the very symbolic form” insofar as the Real is “the absent Cause of the Symbolic”).[86] The object-cause of desire, what Lacan called the objet petit a, is in Žižek’s words “the void [of the Real] filled out by creative symbolic fiction.”[87] It drives our jouissance in the sense that we crave it precisely because of its impossibility: the Real can never be seamlessly integrated into the symbolic order or simply translated into what Lacan calls ‘reality.’[88]

Since Badiou is more systematic and rigorous than the scattershot Žižek, and the latter borrows profusely from the idealist whom he refers to as a living Plato, it is worth recalling the basic Lacanian structure of Badiou’s “Idea of communism”: “the communist Idea is the imaginary operation by which an individual subjectivation projects a fragment of the political real into the symbolic narration of a History.”[89] In slightly more straightforward language, this means that the Idea of communism is an operation by which an individual ideologically (the imaginary) commits themselves to an unexplainable political event (the Real)—like May ‘68 for Badiou—whose consequences they attempt to trace out within a given historical situation (the symbolic). This cannot actually (réellement) be done, according to the French metaphysician, because the Event qua Real is recalcitrant to the symbolic realm of ‘History’ and the ‘State’; it can only be done imaginarily (imaginairement) by the individual Subject.[90] This is one of the reasons why Badiou peremptorily proclaims that “communist” cannot be used as an adjective to describe an actual party or state.[91] A century of collective aspirations and horrors has apparently demonstrated that “the Party-form, like that of the socialist-State, are henceforth inadequate for assuring the real support of the Idea.”[92] As a matter of fact, the communist Idea can only sustain politics that “it would be definitively absurd to say that they are communist.”[93] Anarchist would be the common term, and more specifically insurgent anarchism, merged with an unhealthy dose of metaphysics and utopian socialism. After all, this is a politics in which an individual becomes a Subject by being faithful to an inexplicable Event that interrupts history, acting on its consequences like the followers of Christ.

“Real communism” is thus a metaphysical communism of the Lacanian Real. Accordingly, we are told, the collective project of materially transforming the world is in fact destined to fail if it takes the form of parties or states since these would give concrete form or ‘symbolization’ to the otherworldly Real. Communism is thereby displaced from the realm of collective action aimed at socialist state-building projects—as a first but necessary step to break the chains of imperialism—to that of individual consciousness and the subjective experience of the privileged few that Nietzsche referred to as ‘free spirits.’ In counter-distinction to this small group of great thinkers and artists of the world, Žižek explains with his signature disdain for the working class, 99% of “concrete people” are “boring idiots.”[94] These hapless proles and peasants did not study in Paris with the petty-bourgeois luminaries of the global theory industry, so they have not understood what is most essential: communism is a subjectiveprocess of resisting the symbolic order of extant societies and desiring the impossible, even individually ‘acting on’ this desire.[95]

One of the reasons idealists love to heap scorn on materialists as somehow being crass reductionists and ‘unphilosophical,’ is precisely because the latter are capable of revealing the material structures that undergird and determine the conceptual games they play. If we subject the idealist communism of the Real to a class analysis, it becomes readily apparent that it rejects, under the heading of ‘actually existing socialism,’ the project of the masses, of the global Untermenschen (subhumans) who have imagined that they could make the Real of their desire into a historical reality. It is here that the Nietzschean orientation of these radical aristocrats comes clearly into view because they deride the purported ignorance of the hoi polloi. Over and against their crass materialism, the Real communists aspire to much more than the lowly pursuit of collective access to potable water, food, shelter, healthcare, and so on via concrete anti-imperialist state-building projects (all of these are in the realm of what Lacan called ‘need’ as opposed to ‘desire’). Real communists, in the Lacanian sense, have the supreme subjective dignity of individually demanding the impossible—not something that could materially help improve the lives of the global masses in the here-and-now.[96]

Such a posture literally means that these self-stylized radical thinkers demand something that cannot be done, which is the epitome of petty-bourgeois radicalism. What they truly desire, if we translate their pseudo-intellectual narcissistic self-indulgence into materialist terms, is the appearance of making the most radical demands imaginable while, at the same time, avoiding any threat to the material system of social hierarchies that has elevated them as leading intellectuals in the imperialist core. They desire the impossible, and even ‘act on’ this desire, precisely because they do not want anything to substantially change. That, then, is their big Idea of communism, namely that it is impossible.[97]

“The work of the Marxists,” wrote V.I. Lenin in a passage that anticipated the liberal leanings of the Lacanian-Althusserians, “is always ‘difficult’ but the thing that makes them different from the liberals is that they do not declare what is difficult to be impossible. The liberal calls difficult work impossible so as to conceal his renunciation of it.”[98] Marx also presciently described these capitalist accommodationists avant la lettrewhen he diagnosed the essence of petty-bourgeois sophistry in his critique of anarchism, which merges with liberal ideology on essential points. He traced its material roots back to opportunist careerism within the capitalist core. What he says here about Proudhon describes the idealist casuistry of Badiou and the ostentatious contradictions of Žižek with remarkable precision:

Proudhon had a natural inclination for dialectics. But as he never grasped really scientific dialectics he never got further than sophistry. This is in fact connected with his petty-bourgeois point of view. Like the historian Raumer, the petty bourgeois is made up of on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand. This is so in his economic interests and therefore in his politics, religious, scientific and artistic views. And likewise in his morals, IN EVERYTHING. He is a living contradiction. If, like Proudhon, he is in addition an ingenious man, he will soon learn to play with his own contradictions and develop them according to circumstances into striking, ostentatious, now scandalous now brilliant paradoxes. Charlatanism in science and accommodation in politics are inseparable from such a point of view. There remains only one governing motive, the vanity of the subject, and the only question for him, as for all vain people, is the success of the moment, the éclat of the day. Thus the simple moral sense, which always kept a Rousseau, for instance, from even the semblance of compromise with the powers that be, is bound to disappear.[99]

Radical recuperator

The collapsing biosphere, the rise of fascism, and the threat of the ‘new’ Cold War turning into WWIII all mean that the stakes of contemporary class struggle could not be higher. Capitalism’s court jester, like other intellectuals of his ilk, is applauded by the ruling class’s elite managers and promoted internationally for encouraging us to ride fearlessly into the apocalypse of ‘the Real’ while lapping up his provocative hot takes and binge-watching the blockbuster films and TV shows he promotes.

This neoliberal prankster is thus the epitome of a radical recuperator. He cultivates and markets the appearance of radicality in order to recuperate potentially radical elements in society, particularly young people and students, within the pro-imperialist anti-communist fold. This is precisely why he is the most famous ‘Marxist’ in the capitalist world, festooned by the likes of a journal linked to the engine of U.S. imperialism. His mantra is nothing but an opportunistic perversion of the closing lines of The Communist Manifesto: “Cultural consumers of the pro-Western world unite—and buy my next book, or movie, or crossover product, or whatever, and so on, and so on!”

https://orinocotribune.com/capitalisms- ... voj-zizek/

Notes at link
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:45 pm

Good Bye, Slavoj

With a dismal start to the new year, it was hard to find a ray of hope among war news and parliamentary foolishness.


But gifts often come from unexpected places. My daily dose of CounterPunch-- the website co-founded by one of my journalistic heroes, the late Alexander Cockburn-- served up a gift: an article by Gabriel Rockhill burying the infamous pseudo-Marxist, Slavoj Žižek, in the dung heap that he merits.



Žižek is an intellectual pederast. By that, I mean that he is one of the latest in a long line of frauds, peddlers, and opportunists who seduce young people hungry for new ideas, for radical thinking, for a vision beyond the staid, ivy-covered walls of academia. He seduces them in the cheapest, most disreputable way, by weaving long, convoluted, purposefully obscure tapestries from manufactured, tortured words and clever, but paradoxical phrases. For the inexperienced, those hungry for a perspective only available to those who with the patience to decrypt, Žižek and his ilk are irresistibly attractive.



Many of us-- I suspect Rockhill as well-- have fallen under the spell of one or more of these intellectual conjurers in our studies.



As long as there has been a left, there have been the distractors, the obscurantists, the charlatans who derail movements by diverting the energies of promising young people into the weeds of opaque theory.



In my student era, it was thinkers like Herbert Marcuse and others in the so-called Frankfurt School, who painted a dark picture of left prospects, directing radicals towards cultural critiques and the political efficacy of the lumpen proletariat and third world movements and away from working class agency and the then-influential Communist movements. It was not uncommon for young activists to carry unread copies of Marcuse’s books in their book bags to impress their friends.



Later generations of radicals were subjected to “post-Marxist” French and German thinkers, who wrote nearly unreadable texts filled with neologisms and sentences constructed (or encoded) to be deliberately provocative and ambiguous. Much of this was scattered around the vague, but radical-sounding philosophical pole of postmodernism (and post structuralism). Intellectual hipsters collected the profound-sounding works of Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard, and others.



The fall of the Soviet Union only encouraged the growth and spread of confusion from thinkers who were intent upon “rethinking,” “reimagining,” or replacing Marxism. Before that devastating event, the existence of a real, existing socialist community was a splash of cold water to the faces of the academic dreamers.



Sadly, the handful of serious Marxists holding university positions are blocked from notoriety, while the poseurs like Žižek achieve celebrity status. And the best practitioners who combine theory and practice, like Michael Parenti, can’t get a teaching job or academic support at any level.



Common sense and experience should show everyone that prestige and recognition in an advanced capitalist country like the US will not find its way to authentic revolutionaries. Marxists like Herbert Aptheker, Phillip Foner, James Jackson, Victor Perlo, Henry Winston etc. never found their books reviewed in the New York Times, or their letters published. Conversely, manuscripts published by elite publishers and billed as dangerously fresh and original, like Hardt and Negri’s Empire (Harvard University Press), are invariably a trip towards an ideological dead end.



One can almost measure a thinker or his or her work’s value by its distance from acceptability or celebrity-- the more independent and challenging to the status quo, the more distant.

Žižek enjoys wide acceptance by the capitalist establishment as the iconic left thinker, a figure posed as the embodiment of rebellion and resistance to power. Far too many fail to see the contradiction in the ruling class promoting the agent of its demise.



Now comes Gabriel Rockhill, exposing Žižek for the scoundrel that he is.



Capitalism’s Court Jester: Slavoj Žižek is a very long, demanding article. To smother the popularity of this intellectual fraud, one must delve into his entire career, his chameleon-like disguises, his shifts and maneuvers, his reliance upon obscure phrases and freshly minted words, his looseness with the truth disguised as “playfulness,” and his limitless opportunism. Rockhill tracks all of this, but at the cost of enormous research and documentation.



Sadly, this scholarship doesn’t fit well into the Twitter world, but no one should give an ounce of legitimacy to Žižek without reading this critique.



Rockhill recounts his own infatuation with Žižek during his formal education, his own encounter with the man, and his disillusion with his virulent anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism.



Amusingly, Rockhill dubs Žižek “the Elvis of cultural theory,” an apt description for someone who appropriated Marxism the same way that Elvis borrowed and diluted rhythm and blues for the amusement of a white, middle-strata audience at a time when the authentic practitioners were denied media access because of segregation and racism.



Žižek’s role in the anti-Communist opposition to the Yugoslavian leadership in his homeland is exposed and elaborated by Rockhill, noting the celebrity philosopher’s deep involvement with the post-Soviet regime and its move toward capitalism.



Further, Rockhill documents the convergence of Žižek’s thinking with US (and imperialist) foreign policy, as well as his near xenophobic Eurocentrism.



The Discreet Charm of the Petty-Bourgeoisie, Rockhill’s penultimate section, takes the reader into the Lacan-Badiou-Nietzsche weeds that are the nourishment of the herbivorous Žižek. Rockhill does his best to render the discussion perspicacious, but I suspect that it is still two removes from clarity. Nonetheless, there are gems of Rockhill’s insights in the section.



I fear that Rockhill’s brilliant takedown may be lost to the tastes for brevity, shallowness, or anti-theory that plague so many on the US left. The fact that the CounterPunch link on its email blast to me took me to the wrong article only underscores my fear.



Read this wholesome, nourishing article!



Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:50 pm

The magic of a diamond in the philistine
No. 3/79.III.2023

Introduction

A substantive study of the distortions of people's consciousness - the barriers that prevent them from adequately exploring objective reality and conducting progressive activities - can be started with various illusions: democratic voting, nationalism, mysticism, personal helplessness, khataskrynichestvo and others and others, but first of all we will deal with the illusion of commodity fetishism .

Why exactly her? Because this phenomenon, being a product of a commodity society, is an illusion of a destructive force, the enormous power of which is due, firstly, to its ubiquity, and secondly, to the fact that it daily feeds animal atavisms and molds an obedient slave of capitalism out of a person - a petty bourgeois or even an exploiter. So we will consider two tall barriers at a time.

We remind the reader that the ultimate goal of studying the distortions of consciousness is the need to combat them, that is, to find an approach to the bearers of illusions in order to reforge them into real Marxists. One way or another, through personal contact or on the Internet, a Marxist has to face this task. Having made his way in dialogue through a heap of various philistine illusions, a Marxist will invariably discover their basis: commodity fetishism. Any talk about "repression", modern politics, communism, capitalism invariably ends with the desire of the layman "to earn money and live in peace on this money." Karl Heinrich Marx brilliantly described the commodity society and the commodity fetishism in it, and we will stand on this foundation in order to understand: how to act in the matter of reforging a particular individual.

As we can see, the explanation of the truths to the bourgeois in Marxist categories does not work well, and sometimes it seems that the barrier cannot be overcome. In this article, the author tries to find the first productive steps in this direction through the study of the anatomy of philistinism and develop recommendations.

In the process of research, it was found that, despite the presence of firm confidence in the “ironness” of their logic, the reasoning of the bearer of any illusion always contains gaps through which one can break through to rational consciousness. So the barrier lends itself to opening, after which it is already possible to direct the layman towards self-learning. Getting rid of the basic illusion of commodity fetishism will help the tradesman see the rest of the heap of distortions that are built on its shaky foundation.

The limitation of the article lies in the fact that commodity fetishism is considered separately from the full picture of the capitalist formation, which abundantly provides ground for illusions on any social science issues. In the future, it is necessary to further explore this separate illusion in conjunction with the others within the framework of a full-fledged diamatic picture of the world.

Part 1. Method of studying illusions
1.1 What is an illusion. Anatomy of an illusion. Getting rid of illusory haze. Illusions are pseudo-rational and irrational. Example
A person can develop activity to solve a problem that requires interaction with the outside world and its change only after mental operations on an ideal object that has arisen in the brain as a result of reflecting objective reality. The accuracy of the activity is proportional to the accuracy of the reflection. If the accuracy of reflection cannot be achieved due to lack of knowledge, then the ideal object acquires fictional features that do not exist in the real world. Such an object can be called an illusion. It must be taken into account that the inaccuracy of the reflection can have a different degree, which means that we can talk about the proportion between the true and the illusory in the reflected object. As a rule, the bearer of the illusion cannot detect distortions on his own until he has acquired the necessary knowledge to show the lost relationships. Or the practice itself will not lead to rethinking. But even in this case, he will need some theoretical training so as not to jump from one illusion to another.

The forms of illusions can be the most intricate. Relationships missed by an uneducated mind always lead to simplification in the study of the world. Such consciousness begins to look for the full power of social relations and the source of their movement outside of society, either personifying them in a deity, or referring them to something globally non-material (fate, nature, the natural course of things), or fetishizing them in things, or even attributing them to some part of society (a nation, an arbitrarily defined group of people or an individual). Whatever option (deity, nature, thing, nation, etc.) is chosen, it will acquire distorted outlines in consciousness through the endowment with non-existent properties.

The incorrectly reflected part of the object is extremely stable, since it arose and exists “on its own”, without taking into account all the necessary relationships with reality and their changes. Such stability, metaphysicality, encourages a person to prevent a change in the conditions for the emergence of an illusion. At the same time, the bearer of the illusion cannot completely ignore the ongoing development of the world and is forced to adapt his worldview to it. So, for example, religious consciousness relies on the eternal most benevolent simplified dogmas, but in specific historical conditions it is forced to additionally use something more concrete: either scientific knowledge or the dogmas of the exploiters (feudal lords, democrats, Nazis). In the latter case, tribesmen have the ability to supplement the illusion with new distortions in order to force its bearer to act in their own interests.

In the study of illusion, three phenomena should be examined in relation to each other.

First , it is necessary to consider the illusory ideal object itself, the result of an inaccurate reflection by a person of objective reality. It is necessary to reveal the content of such an object, and highlight the dominant negative and weak positive aspects in the content.

Secondly , behind such an object it is necessary to discover and investigate the reality and its interpenetration with the illusion:

a) describe the essence of reality - incorrectly reflected objective phenomena;

b) find the causes of the illusion;

c) discover the form that an objective phenomenon takes in illusion and find its essential properties;

e) indicate the negative consequences for society of the activity of the bearer of a distorted consciousness, arising from the peculiarities of the form of the illusion.

Thirdly , it is necessary to consider the features of the activity of a person with a distorted consciousness. An incorrect reflection of reality does not allow one to calculate the consequences of one’s actions and their scale, and the study should show exactly how the activity of this person, even being aimed at the positive aspects of the content of the illusion, every act invariably leads to an increase in negative consequences for society. It is also important to consider the reinforcement mechanism by which the illusion is held in consciousness.

The ultimate goal of the study of illusions and their disclosure is the return of a person in the literal sense "to the true path", that is, the improvement of the quality of his activity to scientifically substantiated and thereby progressive. But how to deal with unscientific consciousness? The method of struggle follows from the very nature of the appearance of illusions. Under the conditions of external life-threatening influence and lack of knowledge, humanity adapts: the consciousness of the individual generates illusions, allowing it to adapt to the conditions, albeit in a suboptimal way, which gives time to the whole society to develop scientific knowledge. The negative side of this state of affairs is that people continue to live in illusions even after the advent of knowledge, because distortions are fixed in habits, in blind belief, in the stimulation of animal atavisms. In the conditions of open truths and emerging knowledge, there is no other way to deal with non-scientific consciousness, except for demonstrating this knowledge to it (in our case, the anatomy of an illusion) and forcing it to learn. In this case, the will of the individual and his conscience play a key role.

The specific method of getting rid of the illusory haze depends on the way the illusion is perceived by its bearers, which also requires careful study. Illusions, to varying degrees, are present in the minds of contemporaries, just like in the ancestors, who endowed nature with mystical properties in the conditions of undeveloped science, which caused a lot of trouble in the matter of survival. However, the ancestor was honest in the matter of ignorance and said directly: “I believe,” thus denoting the irrational in his head. There is no need to look for such illusions of a mystical nature, the interlocutor will tell about them himself. It is difficult to bring the bearer of such illusions to objective reality because faith relies on feelings and does not allow comprehension. The contemporary, spoiled by the wonders of science, considers it his duty to demonstrate his rationality.

Sometimes it is difficult to detect the illusions hiding behind the pseudo-rational argument of the interlocutor. It is even more difficult to show such a pragmatist that his firm beliefs rest on the shaky foundation of mysticism. For example, explaining to himself the concept of “greed” by some natural naturalness inherent in the entire human race, our contemporary is really confident in the scientific character of such a definition and is trying in every possible way to evade the honorary title of “obscurantist”.

We will show the application of the above method on the example of a believing medieval peasant.

A small note. The author is aware that religion is the broadest historical socio-cultural phenomenon, covering not only class relations, but it is the focus on the latter that makes it possible to most accurately understand the destructive role of illusion and ways to get rid of it.

Description of the illusion . The illusory ideal object in this example is the deity. Hopes for universal equality, love and justice are associated with this mystical creature. It manifested itself in that in ancient times it sent down a moral and ethical code, the fulfillment of which by each person in theory should lead to reunion with the Almighty and, presumably, to normal conditions of existence, however, not necessarily during life.

Incorrectly reflected objective phenomenon . If you look from the outside at the life of the peasant himself, you can see that he is forced to give part of his "labor" to the feudal lord in the form of dues and corvee; that he is uneducated and therefore not immune from illusions; and that, finally, he lives a hard, servile life, and therefore short and joyless.

In essence, the illusion hides and does not allow one to see a certain exploitative system of social organization - feudal social relations - as well as the struggle of two opposites: a strong, self-realized exploiting class with a weak and ignorant mass of the exploited. Such relations are characterized by the desire of the ruling feudal class to fix the exploitation of the peasants and the whole existing state of affairs forever, as well as a slowly developing, but still extremely meager system of scientific knowledge.

Causes of the Illusion . On the one hand, the harshness of the impact of the exploitative social structure on a person and the impossibility of changing the given course of things with the help of simple everyday ingenuity give rise to spontaneous anti-exploitative aspirations of the social lower classes. The search for a cause in conditions of low scientific literacy and the inability to discern the struggle of opposites gives rise to an illusion in which explanations of the existing order of things, ideas about justice, equality and love are intertwined, and ways to achieve them are outlined. On the other hand, religion and faith are implanted by the ruling classes in their own interests.

Illusion form . This illusion takes the form that has historically been characteristic of humanity for thousands of years - the form of religious consciousness, faith. Unscientific consciousness personifies social relations, that is, it ascribes the causes, consequences and development of these relations to the actions of an otherworldly creature with a mind, which is a common anthropological mistake. Objectification occurs around religious symbols: relics, crosses, icons; however, the principle “do not make an idol for yourself” makes objectification an insignificant factor for research, since the main thing in the matter of worship is still a non-objective supreme being.

The special properties of the form: firstly , stability, secondly , extreme metaphysicality, which contributes to the attraction of other illusions to explain changes in the world, and thirdly, suppression of the will of the bearer, in particular, the acceptance of such a state of affairs when the most general religious wishes do not lead to a better life.

Consequences for society . If the described reality is adequately reflected in consciousness, then the subsequent activity of a person is devoted to the fight against the essence of the problem - exploitation. The special properties of the form of the illusion under consideration contribute to the fact that the struggle is nipped in the bud by interested parties and feudalism only flourishes.

Activity caused by illusion . The destructiveness of the peasant's activity is expressed in the following behavioral patterns.

Manipulability . The religious agenda is easily intercepted by the ruling class, which agrees with ethical postulates that are of little danger to it and circumvented, such as “do not kill” and “do not steal”, but add items that are mandatory for believers to increase exploitation: items about humility, the divinity of the king, and others. And now a powerful church organization, under the guise of fighting universal injustice, justifies in the eyes of believers everything that the soul of the ruling class wants, up to conquests and genocide. Thus, the illusion that arose as an attempt to combat exploitation, in fact, only strengthens the latter.

Inconclusive struggle with the help of well-wishes. Suppose that our peasant is a true believer, an obedient member of the community: he observes fasting, reads prayers, follows the commandments, regularly attends church. In this case, he is certainly a good person, but every action performed under the influence of illusion, every act of prayer is an action with a misguided aim, hindering social progress and allowing the ruling class to increase exploitation.

Getting rid of the illusion . The described illusion is irrational, and this irrationality is recognized by the bearer of the illusion. The believing peasant cannot be convinced of the absence of God with the help of logic, since he believes "with his heart, not with his mind." The most compelling way to reconsider one's views is the reality itself, in which social relations bring the social rank and file to an extreme degree of exhaustion and exhaustion and bring the struggle to a new level. It is possible to reveal the illusion and educate such a peasant only at the moment when the faith is shaken, which becomes more and more frequent with time.

Brief summary . Religious illusion is an irrational personification of exploitative relations that arises in conditions of scarcity of scientific knowledge and takes the form of a mystical being, used by the ruling class to increase the exploitation that occurs with every action of any believer caused by this illusion, regardless of the degree of positiveness of the motives prompting him to such behavior. Getting rid of the illusion is possible at a moment of religious doubt caused by a collision with the consequences of increased exploitation.

Let us add, digressing already from the Middle Ages, that common views with a believer in the course of a conversation can be developed on the basis that the spontaneous anti-exploitative aspirations of a believer and the scientific anti-exploitation aspirations of a Marxist coincide.

Part 2. Anatomy of the illusion of commodity fetishism
2.1 Description of the illusion

To begin with, let's look at the cult of consumption through the eyes of modern society.

Commodity fetishism does not go unnoticed and is reflected in modern culture in the form of an excessive desire to accumulate, say, gold, and in so-called consumerism - the cult of things, their acquisition and consumption (“shopping”).

Explanations for this phenomenon are also well-known to everyone: it is an innate human savagery, which is a consequence of either the animal nature, which is primary in a person, or the intrigues of higher forces - they are also mammon and the golden calf.

On the whole, of course, consumption and accumulation are considered natural and welcomed by society; public censure affects only citizens who pray to mammon too zealously, for show. The essence of the phenomenon, therefore, is defined as a function of each individual head, and overconsumption as an exclusively ethical problem associated with the poor education of a particular individual personality. The solution of the issue is also offered only in the plane of ethics and is expressed in the form of some well-wishing, which must be absorbed and followed from childhood. This, for example, can be asceticism (“deny yourself everything”) or, say, a call for awareness (“consume moderately using the mind”). As social experience shows,

“It’s good that this doesn’t apply to me with my pragmatic and sensible attitude to life,” the reader will exclaim before stopping reading this boring article. And wrong, and how! Because the most rational consumer builds his life within the framework of an obsolete destructive system of social relations, which means that he does not realize the destructive consequences for society of each act of his consumption, as evidenced by this very “sanity” and the absence of struggle.

Let's try to find an illusory ideal object. This is a thing-with-excess : an incorrectly reflected objectively existing thing that has received a distortion in the mind in the form of excess : a non-existent property that makes a good part of our fellow planets with the reader crave this thing and do inadequate actions for it, despite its partial or complete uselessness in use. In other words, something that makes people chase after things of varying degrees of uselessness, the distorted consciousness attributes to these things themselves. Such an attraction, magically settled somewhere inside a useless thing, is excess .

What does it look like in real life?

An oligarch, hung with shiny trinkets, looks like an ugliness of a bizarre scale, in the cabin of a personal plane, mediocrely finished in the latest fashion, or on the deck of his twenty-ninth yacht. But the grotesque is not at all necessary here. Here is one reader, having a meager income, arranges a holiday and buys caviar for the table. Or here is another reader saving up for a friend for a long time on a ring with a precious stone. And the third one puts pieces of gold in a hiding place “for a rainy day”, buys a ticket to the beach with white sand, gets a more comfortable car, more living space and branded clothes.

What is wrong with it?

Twenty-nine yachts will not take the oligarch better than one. Caviar once a year will not satiate the reader more than ordinary food. A precious stone is no different from an ordinary one, and you can’t milk it for any benefit at all. And the aesthetic component has nothing to do with it: the reader buys a ring with a very average gemstone, and not the best wooden one. Gold from the safe is not used at all; a white sand beach for relaxation is no better than any other; a super-comfortable seat and a dozen electronic gadgets do not help the car get to its destination better; a three-hundred-meter house will not make a family's life better than a hundred-meter one, and branded clothes exist to splurge.

Note that the degree of uselessness of additional luxury can vary: if the comfort of car seats is still able to be recognized by the average ass, then branded clothing provides approximately zero additional utility in relation to ordinary clothing. Gold and jewelry have to be forcibly shown to others, hanging them on themselves with additional cargo, and the twenty-ninth yacht can even stand on the pier all its life.

It turns out that, regardless of the level of wealth, the layman constantly desires things of varying degrees of uselessness because they contain a magical shade of luxury - "excess". It is due to the presence of this property that a thing, according to the layman, is attractive to all people, regardless of its usefulness for consumption.

For convenience and a red word, excess can be called “ magic of a diamond ” - an absolutely useless trinket in everyday life that occupies minds and hearts.

2.2 Misrepresented objective phenomenon
Excess is an erroneous attempt by an uneducated person to discover and reflect in the mind social relations of a certain nature.

We are talking about a relatively recent period in the development of mankind, when the dominant social relations became the relations of commodity production and commodity exchange.

What characterizes these relationships?

First , such relationships are historically temporary and become dominant during the industrial revolution. In a number of traditional societies there is no commodity exchange, and even today one can observe that there is none inside a large factory between departments.

Secondly , such relationships have a significant negative impact on society through the opposition of people to each other.

This opposition begins with the appearance of an area of ​​blindness in relation to each other: all the richness of interactions between people is reduced to interaction through exchange. If personal relations are not always affected by it, then all other socio-economic relations - labor, business, production, acquisition - all of them occur with the help of and in connection with the exchange of goods, money, capital. So, it doesn’t matter for business which partner will give the product at a bargain price, and it doesn’t matter for the buyer who exactly and how the product was produced if it is cheap enough.

The area of ​​relationships perceived by people, the actual area of ​​the exchange itself, is characterized by the fact that each of its participants is a competitor for the exchange partner and wants to receive more than to give. In the vast majority of exchange acts, one of its participants wins, and it is precisely this non-equivalence of exchange that violates the harmony of social relations. At a certain stage of development, money appears - "social labor embodied in a universal equivalent form" - which turns into a means of exploitation, oppression, unleashing wars and spiritual enslavement of a person.

Thirdly , in such relations, and only in them, things become objects of commodity exchange, which are equated to each other in terms of value, according to the amount of labor expended of a certain quality. On the qualitative side, it is not the professional quality of labor itself that plays a role in creating a thing as something useful for consumption, but the fact that this is labor of a certain socially determined quality - labor under the conditions of commodity production and exchange. On the quantitative side, the magnitude of value depends on the expenditure of labor power - nerves, muscle strength, the intellect of a living person, that is, it consists in the amount of social labor necessary to produce a good with an average level of skill and intensity of labor in a given society.

A small digression. When first opening a critique of the political economy of Karl Heinrich Marx, the author expected to see anything but a book entirely dedicated to people and their relationships. Already the first 30-40 pages of the text of the first section of the first chapter reveal all commodity fetishism literally on the fingers: you can see the whole mechanics of commodity exchange relations, its evolution, the place of human labor in it, the features of how labor can take on any specific social character ( e.g. commodity) and how equivalence is determined. You need to study this on your own, because retelling Capital will be akin to trying to hum the melodies of Johann Bach.

For the time being, we are only interested in the fact that value is in no way contained in the thing, because value is the word adopted to designate the form of relations between people arising from the amount of abstract labor contained in exchanged commodities. Cost becomes an illusion - an excess- precisely at the moment when it ceases to be perceived as a social relation, and even more so as a temporary regressing social relation, and begins to be reflected in consciousness as something eternally belonging to some thing. The product of labor, even the most unnecessary, thus acquires a mysterious character, a special attraction, as soon as it takes the form of a commodity. The latter is especially pronounced in the craving for universal exchange equivalents like diamonds and gold - things with near-zero utility in everyday life, but with physical properties convenient for exchange (durability, small volume, etc.) and rarity.

2.3 Causes of the illusion
The illusion under consideration is based on two main objective factors: on the relations of commodity production and exchange that prevail in the current period of history, and on the accompanying mass social science ignorance, which, from the subjective side, is served by the entire dominant bourgeois culture.

Thus, the first reason for the appearance of the illusion of commodity fetishism lies in the nature of exchange relations, namely, that they are competitive. It's not good, it's not bad; it is an objective reality that has arisen in conditions where production is not sufficiently developed to provide every member of society with the conditions necessary for life. As we said earlier, market participants are opposed to each other, which means that their relationship, aptlyRedina, is an extremely primitive, semi-animal relationship that turns any person with an infinitely rich inner world into an impersonal competitor; relationships that reduce the entire diversity of social life to the struggle of "predators" for "food base". Value relations reduce labor to the amount of labor force invested, and the motivation of the producer in these relations is determined not only (and often to a lesser extent) by the use properties of the thing, but also by the value of its commodity form.

Under such social conditions, a person is forced to live in fear that he will not receive enough of the means of life (even elementary food) to survive, and he naturally begins to defend himself, which in these conditions is in itself an adequate reaction. You can choose the direction of your activity from two options: either in cooperation with other "reasonable people" to change social relations, or to surround yourself with goods in excess, accumulating them for a "rainy day", until relations are changed.

The second reason for the appearance of the illusion of commodity fetishism is the lack of knowledge about the essence of value relations in particular and about the development of production relations in general. This ignorance contributes to a misrepresentation of the surrounding reality, which limits the response of a person to harsh conditions only to such activities that are aimed at acquiring goods, to the impossible goal of accumulating such an amount of excess that will allow complete control of the situation.

2.4 Form of illusion and its properties
The most entertaining thing to consider is the step-by-step process of forming an illusion from objective phenomena. It is he who can help to discover the essential properties of the illusion, explain the irrational activity of a person and give clues to its change.

Step one . Need as an objective reason for the emergence of exchange relations . Under capitalism, relatively speaking, things that have taken the form of a commodity, as it were, govern social practice.

Note that the relationship between people about the exchange of goods is objective. But at the same time, no thing acquires an additional physical property of value, and the things themselves do not acquire the magical ability to control the behavior of society.

Step two . Negative impact on society of exchange relations. One way or another, the vast majority of the world's population is involved in production and exchange relations, and a person has non-commodity relations only with the narrowest circle of people, and even then not always: property issues often overshadow the life of even the closest relatives. Thus, all the richness and variety of human relations is reduced to one, to a partnership about the exchange of things. Moreover, this partnership takes place in a competitive environment, which means it provokes people to deceive. This phenomenon is sometimes called relational objectification. Both family relations with their heritage and marriage contracts, and workers with their labor contracts are reduced to marketability. In this primitive and dangerous environment, the average person seeks salvation in that tangible that binds this overwhelming dimension of relations - in things. So things begin to be appreciated the more

Step three . Ignorant consciousness distorts understanding through extreme simplification. The need to survive pushes a person to look for the causes of an unsatisfactory and dangerous life, to explain negative phenomena in order to correct the state of affairs. And here success depends on habits and the amount of knowledge about the world around us. With a lack of knowledge, the easiest way, as we saw above, is to bring the causes, consequences and source of the development of social relations into something tangible and easily understood. Under the conditions of commodity exchange, it is easiest to discover the thing being exchanged. A person who does not know how to think diamatically simply ignores the incomprehensible complex social relationships. He ascribes the result of the movement of these relationships to things, thus endowing them with a magical property - the property to serve as an eternal source of the development of society through the management of the motivation of each individual person.

So, instead of a complex of concepts about social relations built around ordinary things, instead of realizing their commodity form, an illusion appears in the human mind: a thing-with-excess , enticing a person a hundred times more than just a thing.

For clarity, we describe the mechanism of operation of simplification in fantastic conditions. To do this, we adapt the ever-memorable poetry of the Arim from the novel by G.L. Oldie. Let's say some civilization put an experiment on humanity in order to find out the level of reasonableness. The conditions of the experiment are such that automatic alien conveyors are able to produce food in unlimited quantities, and a person can get it for poetry, and the quantity and quality of food is proportional to the number of letters “r” used.

The calculated level of intelligence is proportional to the time it takes for people to band together and hack the conveyor belt to remove the stupid ritual from the necessary livelihood.

Hacking the conveyor is difficult at first, and so everyone practices versification, which is reinforced by eating food. The technical complexity of the pipeline and the very complex idea of ​​universal interconnection, that is, that "a third party created the pipeline and must unite to destroy it", are simplified. Now the distorted consciousness sees the reason for getting food not in the device of the conveyor, equipped with a senseless ritual by some third party, but ascribes it to the verses themselves, which are endowed with the magic of getting food. And now the “science” of versification is already beginning to develop, which at some point even manages to substantiate in a “scientific way” the connection of the letter “p” with an increased quantity and quality of food through the presence, so to speak, in certain letters of the food-causing gene.

Thus, objectively there is a relationship of getting food; also objectively there is such a form of interaction in which for a verse with the letter "r" you can get more food than usual. But in the letter “r” itself, no magic appears from this. Therefore, it would be necessary to direct energy not to composing endless "rrrrrr" poems, but to development in order to break the conveyor and thereby destroy the idiotic relationship about getting food. But no. An illusion appears in the heads, fixed by each act of versification, culminating in biological stimulation - through eating the food received as a result of it. The letter "p" now has a supervalue in itself, and the conclusion is fixed that it has always been like this and this does not depend on the degree of development of society. It's just that there is a "r", there is a person, and the latter will always crave as many "r"s as possible.

Outcome . Technology on Earth has already developed to the point that the conveyor can be hacked by joint efforts, and people continue to engage in rhyming idiocy. The aliens fly home in surprise, saying in the English manner: “Brrr-illant!” End of experiment.

Now, from the considered step-by-step process of the formation of the illusion, it is possible to deduce the essential properties of this form.

The first property: infinity. The mass illusory worldview always results in social degradation precisely because the illusions in the head lead to the vicious activity of each person. In our case, it leaves him with only one way to respond to the danger caused by the surrounding social relations - the accumulation of things and money. But these actions do not lead to the desired result, since no number of things can be protected from the possibility of losing them in an unstable competitive environment: inflation eats up money, illness kills working capacity and savings are consumed, capital comes to other capital with war. Therefore, the unsatisfied desire for security, fixated on quantity, requires not just excess , but even more excess .. And there is no limit that stops this degradation. As they say, woe to him who has a mouth larger than his stomach.

Property two: sustainability . Interaction with things satisfies certain needs: firstly, accumulation temporarily satisfies the need for protection from the dangers of the outside world, and secondly, the use of things for their intended purpose, that is, their consumption, satisfies some actual need. With each everyday act of this interaction, a positive connection is fixed in the brain, and after a sufficient number of them, the illusion becomes stable. Gradually, reasonable motivation gives way to the dominance of biological, that is, animal atavisms of those primitive times, when the extraction of food required considerable effort.

At the same time, the enlightened age, one way or another, confronts a person with the wonders of science and technology, which means that it is important for him not only to believe, but to be able to justify, at least for himself, the rationality of his behavior. And in that simplified model of the universe, where his mind got, everything is prepared for this: objectively there are exchange relations, objectively there is a danger associated with competition, no less objectively satisfies the biological and other needs of the purchased thing, and certainly objectively can help for some time postponed for a "rainy" day, the golden "airbag". Justification of rationality significantly strengthens the stability of the illusion.

However, such pseudo-rationalism is not able to see that it is looking for protection in a thing with a non-existent property, which means that the danger does not disappear anywhere, that it will not achieve its goal, and that it will waste its energy on this false activity. So, behind the seeming rationality, in fact, lies the use of things for other purposes - a fetish, that is, obscurantism, as a result of which a person is not able to see the monstrous consequences of his activities. The fact that the conditions have changed and true security can only be found by collectively changing irrational social relations is not subject to the clouded mind, and this is what you need to spend your time on, and not on degradation through interaction with things.

In fact, all intelligence is now directed to those activities that provide a comfortable and safe standard of living. It turns out even funny: the inner animal is engaged in goal-setting, and the intellect is engaged in specific tasks, sincerely considering itself rational and even dominant. “Twice two equals five,” the layman asserts in full confidence that knowledge of numbers makes him a scientist, and continues to build a building on these calculations, which, not now, but pretty soon, will fall on his head.

2.5 Consequences for society
Research and description of the objective reality of the relations of commodity production and exchange are beyond the scope of this article; here it is only necessary to emphasize the involvement of the vast majority of the planet's population in them and the anti-human essence of competitive exploitative relations, as a result of which the initially progressive activity of entrepreneurs in relation to feudalism inevitably develops into a world war of imperialist monopolies.

Within the framework of such relations, the acquisition of a commodity means, in fact, that a person acquires a thing that simultaneously contains both utility for consumption and, due to the commodity form, as if some value, the value of which is measured by the invested labor power. In particular, storing money in a safe for security in case of unforeseen circumstances means nothing more than the accumulation of a certain amount of "dead" labor.

But is it possible to expect sanity from a distorted consciousness?

The true desire of every man with an illusion in his head is to protect himself from the relations of competition by concentrating the labor of the rest of mankind in himself - in the form of things, money or capital. The latter includes an "ideal" scenario when all of humanity works in favor of one "lucky one". And since such an aspiration contains a logical contradiction, because all particulars cannot appropriate the universal at the same time, then the conflict is inevitable. In this person, as in a drop of water, the relations of the whole society are reflected. The most peaceful tradesman, the most corrupt politician, the most greedy businessman and the oligarch who is preparing for war manifest themselves in the same way: qualitatively the same and only quantitatively different, contributing to the degradation of society. Don't forget to put the blame for the consequences on each other.

Of course, the illusion of commodity fetishism in itself is not the source of the relations of commodity production and exchange.

However, firstly , due to its property of infinitythe illusion greatly enhances the consequences of commodity relations. The social conflict is therefore seen as massive and difficult. It is impossible to protect oneself from the dangerous reality of capitalism by accumulation, neither in the form of things, nor in the form of money, nor in the form of capital and exploitation. But every inhabitant tries very hard, investing energy, time, life in this, and at the same time achieving exactly the opposite result - the degradation of society and the approach of war. Where a diamatically savvy person satisfies his basic needs and goes to fight and change existing social relations, a stupid fetishist will strive to concentrate the maximum amount of labor of others around him: a tradesman will look for a job with a bigger salary in order to increase living space, and a businessman will strive to increase exploitation employees in order to maximize profits.

Second , because of its stability propertyillusion prevents the eradication of the relations of commodity exchange and the destruction of this order of things. The social conflict is therefore seen as protracted. The inhabitant is blind to the abnormality, regressiveness of what is happening due to the fact that a temporary sense of security through the accumulation of "dead" labor gives him the appearance of rationality of his behavior in his own eyes, and at the same time, consumption itself satisfies biological needs, stimulating pleasure centers. A blind person does not see the relations of exploitation; a blind person does not notice their temporality; a blind person does not associate the approach of war with his behavior; a blind person defends with all his might his right to consume and accumulate other people's labor, fixing more and more illusions in his head for this - faith, nationalism, bourgeois democracy and others.

(Continued on following post.)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:51 pm

(Continued from previous post.)

2.6 Activity caused by illusion
Discovery of the "magic of the diamond". Destructive patterns of activity of the inhabitant. area of ​​blindness. It should be recognized that non-commodity types of social interactions have not completely died out: friendship, love, mutual assistance, sincere labor curiosity are present in our lives. However, the tendency of commodification of every aspect of human activity is visible to the naked eye. Along with it, the situation in the world is also degrading, forcing the opposite trend: people are awakening who do not want to be limited to flat commodity relations.

Let us consider the manifestations of the phenomenon under study at the individual level, so that every inhabitant, “infected” with commodity fetishism, can recognize himself and understand the connection between his activities and the general degradation of society.

2.6.1 Discovering the "magic of the diamond" in daily individual activities
As an example, let's take an ordinary person with bright aspirations, who just wants to live life "normally": exist without need, start a family, raise children.

To do this, firstly , the task is to find a means of subsistence.

For the sake of this task, he first of all receives an education. True, for this he will most likely have to give up his dreams and choose a profession in the area that brings good money. Because "a normal person should be financially independent."

Then there is a choice: either go to work or create a business. In both cases, it is discovered that the sole purpose of the company is to make a profit, which often leads to the fact that the company's activities are chaotic, stupid, incomprehensible and sometimes even merciless to its customers and employees. If a person is a hired worker, then he is forced to spend most of his time on this stupidity and leave the results of his work to the employer, receiving in return experience, professional knowledge and payment for the expenditure of labor power. If a person is a businessman, then he himself is forced to set not the most consistent and philanthropic goals because it is necessary to adapt to the market and keep the rate of profit.

Because "a normal person should earn and support a family."

Further, a human worker must improve his skills and be in search of a more profitable job, and a human businessman must look for new opportunities for making a profit. So time begins to be wasted beyond the usual worker.

Because "you can't stay in one place and degrade."

For this, secondly , a pragmatic attitude to life in competitive conditions is being formed.

If for a career you need to go over the heads of less efficient colleagues, then this must be done, otherwise they will “hook” you yourself. If at the same time the place of work requires bribes, theft, meanness in a private or state company, then you will have to do this, otherwise you will quickly fly out of office.

Because "if not you, then you" and "we are not like that, life is like that."

In addition, moral authorities appear in a person’s life, and, as a rule, these are members of the Forbes magazine list who are “self-made”, live beautifully, think about the future of mankind, and are engaged in charity work.

Because "a successful person is successful in everything."

To do this, thirdly , you need to equip your personal life with the money you earn in your free time from work.

A person takes out a loan for real estate, which is a little more than his family needs. A person tries to go on vacation to more expensive places. A person can start building a house and invest a lot of personal time in it.

Because “I have earned and I have the right”, “they are greeted by clothes” and “should be no worse than people’s”.

A person invests all unspent funds and a little more of the remaining personal time in gold, stocks, cryptocurrency and various other things.

Because "it is necessary to postpone for a rainy day."

Let us evaluate the result of such activity in relation to the main goal of a person with bright aspirations in terms of time expenditure. Most of a person's time is spent on an essentially aimless job (or business) and keeping himself competitive. Additionally, a significant amount of time is spent on the fetish: acquiring, accumulating and managing things (like building a house) that are not needed in such a volume. And, finally, the rest of the time is spent on idleness in order to take a break from previous affairs.

Thus, the achievement of the goal is accompanied by significant side effects. Firstly , this is exorbitant labor costs for such a task. Secondly , a huge part of these labor costs was not spent on the goal at all: it was caused by the “magic of a diamond”, which makes you save up and get more comfort. Most of this time, from a social point of view, is spent senselessly at best, and in most cases even contributes to the degradation of society. Thirdly , the support of competitiveness often leads to the degradation of the individual.

Thus, bright aspirations turn into savagery, which a man in the street with a distorted consciousness is unable to realize or change.

Because "how could it be otherwise, only in this way can hunger be avoided."

2.6.2 Destructiveness of the activity of the inhabitant
The illusion makes the above-described "ordinary person with bright aspirations" act irrationally, contributing to the degradation of society. This happens literally with every act of his life, which can be combined into several behavioral patterns.

First, let's highlight self-deception . The aggressive competitive environment that has emerged in the conditions of commodity production and exchange forces a person to adapt by attempting unlimited accumulation and exploitation - by concentrating the maximum amount of human labor. And since, as already noted, this is a false way out, a person with an illusion in his head deceives himself, wasting his life time at best, in vain, and at worst, on activities that are destructive to society.

A person wants to believe that his choice is completely free and conscious, but in reality he is limited by the insignificant framework of the existing exchange-deceitful social relations. This applies both to the actual philistine activity, and to the attempt to predict one's actions and their consequences for society, even when there is a spontaneous understanding of the incorrectness and destructiveness of what is happening.

Secondly, we highlight the susceptibility to manipulation .

The general rule is that a person who incorrectly reflects objective reality always has a weak spot in logical preparation, which can be used by his unscrupulous contemporaries in order to direct his activity in a direction that is useful for manipulators and destructive for the whole society. Commodity fetishism is a subspecies of obscurantism, that is, an incorrect reflection of the real world, susceptibility to manipulation and the resulting destructive activity, and in this sense, the modern layman is identical to the medieval peasant.

It is with the help of such manipulation that the spontaneous anti-exploitative aspirations of the peasants, expressed in their faith, are saddled by the feudal class by attracting the clergy, who simply add postulates of humility to the faith. The peasant resigns himself, and society continues its torment within the framework of the exploitative formation.

In modern conditions, capital makes people do the most vile deeds, just as the ring moved Gollum. You can add a branded tag to the item, and the layman will strive to possess it, not disdaining additional hours of work and credits, in order to then rush about with it and other things like a scarab that rolls a ball of dung (however, with such a comparison, we somewhat offend a beneficial beetle ). It is easy to frighten the layman with instability by showing him a fictitious enemy (for example, in the form of a neighboring nation), and now he is already running to choose a savior by democratic voting. If the threat created by the hands of the bourgeoisie is great enough, then the layman is ready to give up his rights for the sake of imaginary security and even, after the necessary information pumping, to justify the warmongers and give his life for the goals of the manipulators.

Thirdly, let's single out a destructive reaction to a change in social relations .

As we discovered when considering the form of illusion, the consciousness of an illiterate person breaks the relationship and does not see the phenomenon in development. For example, gold for him is an eternal value. When the social relations behind the relations of things begin to move, the tradesman is bewildered.

At first, social relations degrade, but the majority of the population continues to engage in their destructive petty-bourgeois activities even under extreme conditions, and only the most conscious inhabitants have a spontaneous desire to change everything for the better. But through an illusory prism, such a desire refers not to social relations, but to things. Thus, our philistine responds with the illusion of struggle to the illusion of understanding the cause of the problem and begins to struggle with the consequences, and not with the root causes of commodity exchange relations, thereby making senseless his resistance. The actions of a person who decides to become an ideological ascetic or a Rastaman escapist are meaningless. The social relations of commodity exchange continue their bloody course while he sits in the forest and consumes nothing. For the same reason, it does not help to fight social degradation and the choice of the profession of a doctor and a volunteer. The actions of a man who decided to found Fight Club, an underground anti-consumption cult, are meaningless. Appeals to reason, prayers, appeals to ethics and any other good wishes are meaningless, because they, too, are aimed at combating the consequences of social relations. The attempts of "balanced" politicians to limit the monopolization of business sound stupid, because in essence this is a futile attempt to limit progress, since in the development of monopolies one must also consider the moment of the objective development of the social nature of labor; it is pointless to fight the course of history when it is necessary to promote monopolization, but within the framework of other, non-commodity relations.

Then, when the degradation of social relations reaches extreme forms (extreme degree of exploitation of the population, mass stratification, war) and social forces appear that begin to deal with the root cause through a fierce and extremely intense class struggle, through the forceful destruction of relations of exploitation, relations of private property, our inhabitant will begin to fight furiously with the revolutionary forces for the established state of affairs.

2.6.3 Area of ​​blindness
If the activities of a person living in the era of commodity relations include hiring and buying things, then this is a living person adapting to reality. However, if in his activity there is no struggle with the existing state of affairs; if he has not joined the revolutionary forces that are waging this struggle, it means that he does not understand the principles of the development of society, does not delve into the essence of existing social relations, does not realize the influence and consequences of his own activities, does not see his contribution to the degradation of society, therefore, incorrectly reflects reality is the bearer of the illusion of commodity fetishism, that is, an obscurantist who is easily manipulated and, with a high degree of probability, resists the improvement of society.

2.7 Getting rid of the illusion
General principle. Three levels of influence. At this historical stage, the small backbone of Marxists is surrounded by a myriad of ordinary people who, to one degree or another, are subject to illusions and who, under the influence of the unfolding world war, begin to emerge from hibernation and look for answers to the reasons for the violation of their well-being.

We set ourselves the task of ridding them of the distortions of consciousness, in particular, of one of the fundamental illusions of capitalist society—commodity fetishism.

But is there a fundamental possibility of interaction with a person who incorrectly reflects objective reality? The two of you look at the same phenomenon and see fundamentally different things. So a pagan looks at a wooden idol and sees a god, while a contemporary sees a carved pillar. The conversation does not stick, and the irritated Marxist gives up trying to convince the obscurantist and continues to work with the masses.

Well, the statistical method of bringing the truth to the masses in the absence of a party certainly works, but unexpectedly, in the course of the study, the author discovered a method that can improve efficiency in talking to the layman about getting rid of their illusions. This method will also give results in a personal conversation, but it must be remembered that the activity of persuading the inhabitants must have a coordinated collective character. The task is to convince the masses, and the activities of lone Marxists in social networks are not effective enough to achieve results.

The first aspect of the method is three levels of influence: emotional, intellectual and physical.

Second an aspect of the method is the use of the origins of the illusion. Interaction between people of different levels of education does not stop even for a minute. There are three ways to achieve unanimity of some quality: firstly, you can fully accept the point of view of the opponent, secondly, manipulate him by mixing additional illusions into his distorted picture of the world, and thirdly, carefully add scientific knowledge to those areas where the illusion begins its appearance and where, as a rule, there are still no negative aspirations in relation to society. For example, in the case of religion, spontaneous anti-exploitative aspirations are expressed with the help of good wishes, positive for society, but maximally undeveloped, non-specific. However, they are the common starting point for achieving unanimity, and it is precisely by taking them as a basis in the dialogue that it is possible to show the concrete steps which, on the basis of concrete scientific knowledge, Marxism proposes to achieve them. In the case of commodity fetishism, the point of contact lies in the need to get rid of dangerous for society (or personally for oneself, as the layman sees) the relations of commodity exchange. The layman seeks security, and this can be used as a starting point in a dialogue, scientifically explaining the causes of this danger and ways to rid society of it.

The third aspect of the method is the use of the essential properties of the form of the illusion. The barrier of the "magic of a diamond" for a self-confident layman at first seems impregnable, but, having carefully examined the features of the form of this illusion, we will find gaps through which contact with the distorted consciousness and influence on it is possible.

What gaps does commodity fetishism give us?

Firstthe point of contact is the theme of the cause of the illusion; impact on feelings of fear and unresolved personal security issues. At least implicitly, any tradesman sees that the environment is aggressive and that surrounding himself with "dead" labor - things or capital - does not bring the desired sense of security. As capitalists act on this painful point to manipulate the layman, so the Marxist can use it to open a conversation, that is, use the irrational feeling of the layman to bring him from an animal state to a human one. To put it simply, any statement like “my life is good, if I go to work, take out a loan for a bigger apartment and go on vacation” easily beats the formula “if you get sick, you will drag out a miserable existence”, and any "my life was successful in connection with a successful business" easily beats "you will be devoured by a large monopolist." Also, any “this is a normal state of affairs, but I am threatened by ... (here is a list of enemies)” is easily beaten by an indication that this fictional enemy in his obscurantism is typologically identical to the layman himself. To this we can add an indication of both the personal moral degradation of the layman, and the fact that society, having reduced all the richness of interactions to the exchange of things (which is manifested in the daily activities of the layman), is degrading towards a world war, which is an undoubted threat to the layman personally and his family.

The second point of contact is the fact that the layman considers himself a rational being, which greatly strengthens the stability of the illusion under study. Fortunately, the same rationality makes the layman get involved in a conversation and defend his point of view - as if justified, but in fact having a significant discrepancy with reality. Thus, it becomes possible to reveal specific worldview and logical errors. At the first stage of the conversation, it is enough to point out illogicalities without going into the depths of the issue. The author proposes to do thiswith the help of a descent along the “road of knowledge” in the direction from specific nonsense about judgments about contemporary events to the very foundation of the worldview. At the same time, it is important to use the most simplified terminology for a start, since the layman at this moment does not understand Marxism, does not fully understand the logic and often relies on well-known anti-communist clichés. Do not "lose" the interlocutor - this is the art of persuasion.

These two points are part of the first level of influence on the layman - emotional . Here, having worked out the theme of reason and having worked on fear, it is very important to touch on two more aspects. First , give hope ; to show that the conditions for the existence of society have already changed! And this is simple, because communism, saturated with optimism, speaks of an inevitable change in formation to one where the goal of everyone's life will be the expanded reproduction of the whole society in conditions of universal cooperation, and not the reproduction of things in conditions of competition, as is happening now. Secondly , it is necessary to establish a common goal-setting for the Marxist and the layman. And this is also not a problem, since in most cases the layman wants a peaceful life and cannot but agree with at least a simplified thesis that “it is necessary to eliminate this unjust arrangement of life, in particular, rid the world of wars.” The difficulty will arise in shifting the focus from a threat to the particular to a threat to the general, in order to link the behavior of the layman, all his actions and, most importantly, his inaction in the fight against this very injustice. The layman always sees himself as an innocent saint, and at this stage of the conversation, such a link is required only so that later, when self-studying, he always had this in mind and could ultimately find his contribution to the degradation of society on his own.

Having interested the layman, the Marxist will move to the second level of influence on the layman - intellectual . Here the task is to encourage him to self-learning. The magic of the diamond itself is easily broken when a person, on the basis of materialism and with the help of dialectics, comprehends the first few chapters of Capital by Karl Heinrich Marx. To solve this problem, Marxists need to develop a program for a self-study school.

And, finally, the third level of influence on the layman - physical - is necessary because of the extreme stability of the illusion associated with the dominance of the biological principle over the social that it caused. The external environment is also physically affected, for example, when a job, business is lost, or a war is approaching. It is also necessary to physically and forcibly limit the ability of the townsfolk to waste time on the pursuit of excess in order to free up time for the class struggle. It is physically necessary to abolish some of the conditions for private property relations. Physically, you need to include the layman in the team, which will make a person out of him.

2.8 Brief summary
Historical conditions lead to the establishment of social relations of commodity production and exchange, in which a particular person cannot be sure of his future. Such relations inherently contribute to the reduction of most social interactions to the exchange of things, as a result of which, in the minds of the uneducated masses, things take on the form of a thing-with-excess, that is, they are endowed by an ignorant consciousness with a non-existent property - the ability to direct people's behavior.

The metaphysical nature of such an illusion, that is, the consideration of the current state of affairs as unchanged, the extreme simplification of the picture of the world and ignoring the relationship of the reflected phenomenon with society, leads to deviations in the behavior of the masses: an unlimited desire to fence off the surrounding danger with the help of endless appropriation of the results of someone else's labor.

In itself, the illusion of commodity fetishism is not a source of commodity production and exchange relations, but on the scale of the entire philistine society, it significantly enhances the negative consequences of these relations, and also prevents their eradication.

What can be said about the bearer of the "magic of the diamond"?

Such a person acts irrationally. Firstly , he reacts to the steadily growing danger (social) by in no way helping, but steadily growing consumption of things. Secondly , he is not able to find another way out of the situation, as he is looped in an illusion. He characterizes the situation as eternal and does not see that social relations have already changed and that it is necessary to protect oneself from danger in other ways. Thirdly , not understanding the reasons for what is happening, he cannot calculate the most disastrous consequences of his seemingly peaceful and rational activities.

Such a person protects the illusion in the same way that Gollum protects his ring, because his biological principle, having received the illusion of security and stimulation of pleasure centers as a result of the consumption of things, begins to dominate the social one. Considering himself a rational being, but, in fact, being guided by biological incentives, such a person, firstly , is able to consume unlimitedly, secondly , is subject to manipulation and, thirdly , resists the really necessary changes in social relations with all his might.

Thus, a paradoxical situation arises when, running away from the objective danger of commodity relations, the bearer of illusion multiplies this danger with every action of his life and he does this with the most rational expression of his physiognomy.

The barrier of the illusion of commodity fetishism at first seems insurmountable. If a person is physically deprived of the opportunity to unlimitedly appropriate the work of others and is encouraged to engage in intellectual activity to master Marxism, then the barrier will, of course, fall. However, to move is, first of all, to find common ground and cause emotional interest, using the root causes of the illusion and the essential properties of its form. For commodity fetishism, such points of contact are the impact on the feeling of fear and the unsolvable problem of personal security, as well as the fact that the layman considers himself a rational being and gets involved in a dialogue when he discovers illogicality and unscientificness in his own reasoning. At the same time, arguing as simplistic as possible, it is necessary to give hope for the possibility of changes,

The interested layman, our potential companion, should be further directed to the school of self-study.

https://prorivists.org/79_brilliant/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Thu May 18, 2023 2:37 pm

CAPITALISM WANTS UNTHINKING SUICIDAL MAJORITIES

The Cayapo Image

May 16, 2023 , 11:38 a.m.

Image
(Photo: El Cayapo)

The massive levels of suicide in the developed centers - Europe, Japan, the United States - are astounding, right where people are supposed to be clear, happy, defined, with a bright future, with their vital axes sustained because they have achieved what they are told. offered and for what he fought for, his high salaries, his insurance, pensions, retirements, his security, the welfare state, his superior conditions of existence with respect to the inhabitants of all the mining countries, but overnight he they went to hell, they vanished, and democracy, freedom, civilization, economic growth, progress, development, go down the slide of the most dazzling and overwhelming accumulation of capital, that has never existed but that nobody wants to see, more than those interested in its benefits.

All this is the work of capitalism and its dynamics. We do not judge if it is right or wrong, what remains for the believers, but after 500 years of offering democracy, civilization, progress, economic development, where millions and millions of people donated or sacrificed their lives compulsorily or happily to the construction of what we are today, 8 billion slaves who, for the most part, are not happy even in the so-called centers of accumulation of wealth, such as the cases of France, England, Germany, Spain, the United States, to name a few, where we perceive to thousands and thousands and thousands of angry workers protesting because they are wrong for the increase in the number of years for retirement and the working day and the reduction in real wages; but beyond that, for not understanding what really happens to us.

We realize that these workers, like us, suffer the same consequences, regardless of which part of the planet we work in, because the economic system that governs those territories is the same system that governs where we live.

So, we came to the conclusion that things are not going well on the planet, that the problem is not the governments, that capitalism stopped being the pleasant chimera that kept slaves in their apparent vital axis, telling us that we could be prosperous. , but today after so much work, work and more work, we end up zombified, without realizing what is happening, full of fentanyl, opiates, cocaine, marijuana, alcohol or any other television, religious, telephone, Internet, digital drug, legal or illegal; in the end, the effects are the same.

We all, like zombies, walk drugged in a thousand ways towards nothing, it is repeated infinitely, wildly wishing to be the only one, without realizing that the ideological fiction of happiness, rights, freedom, sovereignty, progress and other martingales hallucinogenic for slaves turned us into the only real slave, who works alone accompanied by millions of unique and lonely slaves who believe they are unique in their infinite consumption of addictive ideology, believing to get out from below until, tired of work and loneliness, we die of " overdose of love", hopes, illusions, utopias, without understanding that this path loses us from ourselves in an ideological labyrinth that does not allow us to meet with others, and even worse: with ourselves without being able to weave together what is thought to make us life again.

The vast majority of the planet is highly depressed, it is generalized, people torn apart with very high levels of depression, people who do not want to be who they are, women do not want to be women, men do not want to be men, grandparents do not want to be grandparents , grandmothers do not want to be grandmothers, mothers do not want to raise children, fathers much less, children do not want to be children, grandchildren do not want to be grandchildren, while dogs, cats, pigs, snakes, tigers, platypuses are turned into pets objects of sick commercial affections, which for fear of being hurt cannot be transmitted to the alienated slaves, while capitalism jumps on one leg promoting the juicy business of pets that live better than slaves, and of course consume more and more and more further. And without thinking

People want to be what the network sells them. Pure idiocy, but behind that is the manifest interest in buying and selling, there is an entire propaganda apparatus worldwide working so that the individual becomes more individual every day, ceasing to be a man or a woman. For example, they have already positioned artificial intelligence in the collective imagination and sell it to us as a panacea for scientific development and a great good for humanity, without telling us that it forms part of a new accumulation of capital, one of the ways in which the great swallow small producers. But it is also a way to eliminate millions of workers, and like all technology in the field of capitalism is not innocent,

But these examples, are they a causality, a phenomenon, a magical fact, or do they have a purpose? From the appearance of capitalism as a generator of culture to these days, nothing is random, magical or purposeless. In this case, we are before the most colossal rearrangement of capitalism. Never before, not even in the second war promoted expressly by the transnationals to assassinate the powerful vestiges that had resulted from the Treaty of Westphalia, had there been such a monumental rearrangement as the one that capitalism is experiencing today, in its phase absolute imperialism on the entire planet, therefore, from its base, from the family nucleus onwards, nothing serves it anymore, everything is a hindrance, no institution serves capitalism.

We are talking that in its immense rearrangement it is not only processing factories and corporations, swallowing each other, destroying many, throwing out millions of workers, destroying or readjusting infrastructure, it is also eliminating or rearranging academic institutions, such as schools, high schools, universities, where They no longer need teachers, professors, intellectuals, because in its infinite repetition with artificial intelligence it is enough and more than enough to solve the problems that circumstances present, since when thought is not produced, no other action occurs that deserves particular attention, but they are not useful to us either. us. What is the use of being taught to be slaves?

Claiming political institutions, whether parties or unions will be replaced by NGOs that will mediate to solve the problem of social services, health, education, housing, and others; Diplomatic institutions, rules, agreements, call them the UN, OAS, foreign ministries, when the nation-states disappear, not only in the mining continents, but in the entire planet, these institutions become obsolete; from then on, the new accumulation of capital in its imperial state will impose its new requirements according to how capitalism advances, its rules will adapt to these circumstances. From then on, a single drug will reign on Earth. Capitalism in its imperial phase.

It is up to us from this perspective to review why these institutions that it created and assimilated at the time and that served it so much are not useful to capitalism, but that is not why we are going to defend the family, the church, the State, private property, the UN , the OAS, the universities, schools or high schools, health, education or capitalist architecture in general, because we would be going back to the past and not understanding that capitalism, war, competition, appropriation, theft or the family do not They are natural, because the family was created by capitalism for the transmission of the inheritance of private property over the means of production, including the illusion of ownership in the slave, and thus justify the precarious legality of that loot product of robbery and crime. .

Capitalism advances because it destroys a model of society where the whole world, the family, the people, the clans, the tribes, all obey a superior being, they belong to the king as an absolute being, with absolute power. Although humanism breaks with this rule, it is no less true that it builds other rules that are also anti-nature, such as the modern family, such as the reconditioning of the State that hides the true power of the owners, does not solve any problem but rather aggravates the problems. problems that have been dragging on for 15,000 years, because it not only serves as an arbitrator for disputes between owners, but also rivets the chains of violence to our ankles with more force.

The progress of capitalism, as a conceptual physical system, urgently needs to destroy those institutions that it itself built in order to build others that adapt to this violent, direct buying and selling that is being proposed. There are no more children, there are no more fathers, there are no more mothers, there are no grandparents, that family nucleus disappears. The State also disappears, international institutions must also disappear. Because the idea is that what mediates between one being and another is the buying and selling, but at what level?

That there will be vendor organizations, which in this case are transnationals, large corporations that require negotiating with an absolute individual, one who does not belong to anything. Let us imagine, if when proletarian parties and unions were founded, the workers, the peasants, the fishermen were massacred, what would not happen to the individual in his orphanhood, the unique and alone individual, fearful, ignorant, unaware of his existence and also overwhelmed by the great power of a corporation negotiating its workforce, with some NGOs working in favor of corporations, let's be suspicious for a moment: we are 8 billion people in the hands of a corporation telling us "sell me your strength at the price I feel like it and buy me the product of your work at the price that I want to sell you". That, in essence, are the true rules that speculative financial capitalism is proposing, and for this all the networks, the televisions, the mass media that they have at their service based on the achievement of their objectives. That explains everything that is happening with everyone.

Any enlightened, social fighter or feverish anti-capitalist can come up with the bizarre idea that capitalism is dying because the institutions it used to develop are screwed. Yes, social fighters at different times have always raised the death of capitalism, and in the face of each crisis it reemerges stronger, but it is destroying the base that makes it possible, and it is a discussion that social fighters have to have from now on because the Capitalism is not a system that can disappear by itself, "well, I got here and I disappear", no. As a goal, it has an infinite limit, although there is finite production in infinite ambitions.

It is true, this greatly affects capitalism, but since this system is based on very powerful constructions and has control of the planet, even if it is a monstrosity as a capacity to obtain the surplus value it requires, it will continue to exist, be it as an absolute dictatorship, be it whatever, whatever they name it, and it will work forever as long as a thought that replaces it as a mode of production that generates another cultural data does not appear in the people affected by the system, because just as people are not violent by nature, neither is capitalism. it is a natural fact.

Capitalism is a concept that derived from 15,000 years of war that were systematized by the powerful throughout the history of this species. The only way that capitalism can disappear is by replacing it with another mode of production that would generate another cultural fact, another way of relating. Now, if we continue fighting against capitalism to have a house, a car, studies, so that the government works well, to have, have, have and have, capitalism would happily applaud that fight, taking advantage of it to strengthen itself and continue. Thus, en masse, let us shout day and night: "Death to capitalism!"

Capitalism is not an ordinary and dangerous habitual threat against the world, it is an overwhelming reality that the planet suffers, including the territory where the offices that control the accumulation and force of power are based.

When capitalism, with its manifest destiny, with its religious, egalitarian, democratic and libertarian clothing robbed, robbed, murdered, plundered on the coasts of this continent for 500 years, no one ever imagined the tragedy that its ambition would unleash, not only in the American continent but throughout the world. Since then, their criminal action, their robbery, their looting, their terrorism, their permanent war, has not stopped and the almost 400 invasions that since then have been carried out against the planet by their beautiful constructions known in the world as corporations, transnationals, factories, trust, monopolies. Who in the name of their freedom, superiority, manifest law, democracy and all the other deceptions with which their mode of production and dictatorship impose on the world the superior, beautiful and precious humanist culture that intimidates us but that we slaves love so much.

Yes, gentlemen, it is not a threat, it is a fact, a tangible physical reality, ideologically desirable by your slaves. Even those who oppose it practice or want to practice its foundations, its progress, its freedoms, equality, democracies, its growth, development, in military, political, diplomatic, artistic-cultural, scientific, productive terms, but capitalism has never talked with no one but twisting someone's arm or pointing a gun at someone to achieve their goals, based on their selfish interests. His diplomacy is abusive, controlling, blackmailing, in his commercial relations he always intends to win, win and win by himself. This is the only truth, practiced and established; the rest are utopias, hopes, chimeras and illusions of slaves.

The mine-countries within the framework of capitalism have always played the role of compulsive buyers, or rather, forced by the owners to acquire machinery, products that at the time are produced by large corporations and need to sell out of stock ., they immediately initiate policies to substitute imports because in the future the need to purchase is another product. In none of these mine-territories does there exist a single commercial industrial economic policy that is the decision of politicians or intellectuals or writers or poets or professionals or academics, but on the contrary, everything is part of the plan of the large corporations that , either settled in any country or by their own decision, decide to dominate with their own interests the policies or decisions that are apparently democratic, independent, sovereign in these mines, but the true truth is that the collective imagination in these territories, in the planet, are all influenced by the imaginary of progress, civilization,

Today a great crack opens, because although capitalism is rearranging, it is no less true that it has stopped thinking as a future possibility. All your thinking today is rooted in remaining, and for this it repeats itself infinitely. Bourgeois liberal thought builds, manages, develops and perpetuates the capitalist mode of production over time and achieves all the dazzle we know today. The great buildings that surpass the great cathedrals, the great highways that surpass the royal roads of the Middle Ages, the great agricultural and industrial systems, the production of mass transportation, of luxury transportation such as yachts, jets, luxury planes, that is to say , the flow and production of merchandise is very high in this system, and manages to take the whole concept of buying and selling to higher levels never imagined. The fact that the levels of information are taken from one point to another instantly does not mean that we are communicating: that means that they are informing us and generally misinforming us, because they are ideological truths that people interested in us believing what we are hearing are telling us. , seeing, feeling. The interest of these people is that we consume or consume ourselves, both are valid.

Everything reached unimaginable levels. Art developed impressively, call it poetry, sculpture, painting, cinema, theater, whatever it was, in humanism it achieved unthinkable levels of development. In no previous culture had that been possible, but from around 1920, approximately that creative thought that is the humanist stopped appearing as creative thought and a great deterioration began in all its branches, call it liberalism, communism, anarchism, utopianism, whatever. from those branches a deterioration begins. People begin to regurgitate themselves, repeat themselves, vomit themselves up, and there is no longer anything for which any generation is worth sacrificing, going to a faraway place, knocking down a mountain, crossing the sea, Or go to a war where you have no interest other than the very illusion of participating in the war, because they told you that your life, your dream, was fulfilled there. Until a shot puts out the lights and lowers the curtain.

Then, the constructions of that thought begin to generate elements that are mostly defensive, everything that think tanks think today is based on the defense of humanism, and returns again to something that seemed to have been extinguished in some time it was the war. Someone said at some point that war will be a pipe dream and people will negotiate in other ways, but the truth is that we are at the time when war is once again the only state of diplomacy, fulfilling Sun Tzu's maxim : "War is very old, that's why it will always be new."

It is not a pleasant time, something beautiful is not going to happen right away, where people are going to get to work based on an idea, and from there that will prosper and the country will be very beautiful, and everything they sell to one, that is really not what is going to happen in the now, and when we say now we refer to many years, so many that it exceeds the generations of our existence, our children and grandchildren.

Life does not commit suicide, of this we are absolutely convinced, so let us take advantage of this loophole that capitalism reluctantly offers us: to create another thought, and we throw this gauntlet at the 8 billion slaves.

In the symbols and keys of a culture, its memory dwells forever. If the memory of a culture is colonial slavery, then that culture will forever be destined for slavery, as long as it is not capable of thinking and overcoming that inherited tragedy.

Now, the memory of the culture to be built must live clinging to the most hidden of the collective being that makes it possible. When speaking of the other culture in the future, each symbol, each key, must not be a myth but must be the real history of the beings that make it possible, and these in turn will have to keep them in their collective memory. practicing with the body the daily doing that always, for different, for new, will make them life. Unlike the existing culture that is based on myths and beliefs that in the context of violence is repeated as death.

His story should reflect flesh and blood people with their strengths and weaknesses and not superior beings endowed with superhuman conditions. The territory where its action takes place cannot be conceived of difficulties beyond those of each territory. Nothing, neither the people nor the territory, nor their circumstances, can be expressed as impossibilities that cannot be solved by the ordinary being who decides to carry out solutions to problems, who makes decisions based on real facts and circumstances.

Manpower, modern worker, slave or whatever we like to be called / Let's not go for chimeras, illusions or hopes / Let's not run after horizons that are closer or further away / It is not true about rivers of milk and honey or living sheltered by the man who steals our work / Let's forget the blue iguanas and unicorns forever / Let's suspend everything and walk towards nothingness / No more heavens, utopias or earthly paradises / May the shelves keep the heroes and martyrs well locked up, enough of sacrifices / It's time to use your brain / Outside of us the birds still sing carefree of us / The waters of the rivers travel in their future without caring about our existence / The wind does not stop caressing the indigo surface of the sea, even if a thousand ships cross it / The trees, without knowing it,intertwine in a green that floods the eyes / Yes, there life goes on / Outside of tragedy and what we think of it / The brain is also alive to ask us from the alienated death / Is a future possible with this species living and not the imitation that we are today?

https://misionverdad.com/chavismo/el-ca ... -pensantes

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:18 pm

Why did Lenin study Hegel?
No. 6/82.VI.2023

August 1914. A world war breaks out in Europe. Very soon, tens of millions will become victims of the insane massacre. For four years, the “cradle of world culture” has been flooded with rivers of blood, launched to please the interests of a handful of financial aces for the redistribution of colonies, the capture of new markets, the destruction of competitors. At the same time, in the Galician wilderness, in the village of Bely Dunaets (at that time, Austria-Hungary), a Russian emigrant and the leader of a small close-knit political party is busy looking for new forms of party work in wartime conditions, when the belief that war will speed up the revolution reaches the heights of unconditional truth.

In September, Lenin, deported to Switzerland, writes theses on the current massacre under the title "The Tasks of Revolutionary Social Democracy in the European War", where he establishes its essence as an unjust, barbaric, imperialist war, and the leaders of the Social Democratic parties of Germany, France, Belgium, etc. condemns as traitors to communism, as opportunists and henchmen of the ruling classes, calling on everyone to unconditional war against the bourgeois governments and reactionary parties of all warring countries.

In mid-October, Lenin traveled to Lausanne to attend a speech by the “father of Russian Marxism,” who advocated helping the tsarist government in the war. Opposing Plekhanov from the positions of internationalism, Lenin calls for turning the battle between the exploiters into an uprising of the oppressed on the basis of the extreme aggravation of the contradictions of capitalism and the maturation of the revolutionary situation. As during the revolution of 1905-07, when Georgy Valentinovich, in view of his vicious idea of ​​merging the Social Democrats with the Cadets (since the revolution is bourgeois, the proletariat is obliged to submit to the party of entrepreneurs, to enter into a direct bloc against tsarism with them), fell into preaching petty-bourgeois patriotism, called for bringing the war to a victorious end - to protect the interests of domestic capital. It is obvious that this error had a very specific philosophical background. Plekhanov,

The aggravation of social contradictions, in the opinion of most revolutionaries, required something more than articles, pamphlets and public speeches. Not heeding this call, the leader visits the library almost daily, doing ... philosophy. Reads Aristotle, Heraclitus, Leibniz, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Lassalle. Reads from September 1914 to January 1915. Six months, but what half a year - a time of colossal acceleration of the historical process, and the leader is busy with "abstract matters"! After all, “theory is good, but practice is more expensive”!

Why, then, did Lenin sit down not for military affairs, for example, but precisely for philosophy? Because it was necessary to prepare in detail for the theoretical defeat of opponents in the conditions of the inevitable upsurge of the working-class movement: God-builders, otzovists, liquidators, Machists, reformists, Mezhrayontsy and other Mensheviks. Understanding that any truth is concrete and that the Bolsheviks will have to refute the specific philosophical speculations of the opportunists with their false appeals to Hegel, Mach, Aristotle, Feuerbach, Lassalle, etc., Lenin began to analyze the contradictions of capitalism (giving us the modern theory of imperialism), defining tactics the world communist movement in the current conditions to fight against bourgeois philosophy, modern revisionism and dogmatism, a theoretical study of the patterns of building a communist society.

In that era, materialist dialectics acquired special significance: only from its standpoint could it be possible to reveal the imperialist nature of the war, to expose the sophistry and eclecticism of the leaders of the Second International, their opportunism and social chauvinism:

“Lenin hoped that the war years would be enough for him to systematically present his understanding of dialectics, and for this he had to turn again to the important details of the Hegel method, whom Marx openly called his teacher. An important feature of Hegel's method was the corrosiveness of the bulldog, the meticulousness of the letter-eater in the verbal formulation of the movement of one's thought from appearance to essence. It was this accuracy, exactness, that Lenin learned from Marx and his teacher, Hegel. But the time trouble generated by the First World War did not allow Lenin to sit down at his desk. I had to write in a hut not the science of methodology, but “The State and the Revolution” ”, - V.A. diapers.

That is why the materialist Lenin spent time on the idealist Hegel, especially on his most "out of touch with reality" part of the philosophical system called "The Science of Logic." Lenin was not only a materialist, but also a dialectician - a man who recognized the absolute law of identity and unity (struggle) of opposites, understanding it as the essence of dialectics - the consideration of everything that exists in motion. Therefore, those who perceived theoretical abstractions in a philistine way, as something mentally abstract, could not understand the essence of the leader's library "recluse". Whereas the dialectic materialist (diamatician) understands that the selection of one feature and its rejection from all the others is not the end of the movement of thought. That isolating abstraction, undergoing the next negation, becomes a moment of connection between the isolated and the general, but already with the more concrete,

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the author of one of the most comprehensive philosophical systems, the collector of all pre-Marxian wisdom, believed that a genius becomes a world-historical personality by virtue of his calling "into the circle of confidants of the world spirit." Hegel thought so because he was an idealist. An idealist is a person whose worldview is based on the recognition of the primacy of the spiritual over the material. Of course, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, as a mentally and morally healthy, active and educated person, could not believe the biblical myths and legends, but nevertheless, there are references to the divine in his works. Moreover, he, as the "Aristotle" of modern times, put the divine at the basis of his teaching. True, the Almighty Hegel is not a white-bearded grandfather on a cloud, but an idea. Moreover, the idea is pure - known, but not known, prior to all material reality. Roughly speaking, Hegel is a monist, for him there is only one basis - the idea. And everything real around is the otherness of this idea, and it is caused by it. From here, his "Science of Logic" explores the movement of a pure idea, or absolute spirit, which, through self-negation, gives rise to nature, consciousness, and through the highest forms of the human psyche - art, religion, philosophy - finally cognizes itself. In other words, with the help of the world mind, a person intellectually penetrates into the self-developing realm of ideas, simultaneously cognizing the world mind itself. And since the world and human mind are identical (simultaneously one and the same, and not the same), having comprehended the first one, a person becomes free.

But, in spite of all this, Lenin reasonably asserted that it was in Hegel's "Science of Logic" that there was more materialism than some materialists! The only question is how to read it correctly.

Hegel, digressing from matter, begins his reflections with abstraction, with pure thought - meaningless, pure being, which is at the same time, by virtue of its meaninglessness, formal, and therefore no longer being, but nothing - the same non-objective (or pure). Since the content of pure being and pure nothing is indefinite, their transformation from one to the other and back cannot be fixed. Pure being is indefinite, because it is at the same time pure nothing, and pure nothing, once it exists, is already pure being. Consequently, on the one hand, pure being and pure nothingness are identical - the content of both is indefinite, but on the other hand, they are absolutely different, since any unity presupposes a combination of differences. The inseparability of pure being and pure nothing is due to their transition into each other. What is called becoming - the disappearance of pure being in pure nothingness and vice versa. In these Hegelian arguments, the diamatic sees a reflection of the fundamental law of the existence of matter - that everything that exists is becoming - the variability of all phenomena and processes in the real world. And Hegel, in the second book of the Science of Logic, The Doctrine of Essence, points out:

“Becoming in essence, its reflective movement [mutually reflecting the unity of opposites - being and nothing], is therefore a movement from nothing to nothing and thereby a movement back to itself.”

And here Lenin notes:

“There are movements “towards nothing” in nature and life. Only “from nothing”, perhaps, does not happen. From something always.

And about the "circle of trusted representatives of the world spirit" he adds:

“Everyone knows what a human idea is, but an idea without a person and before a person, an idea in abstraction, an absolute idea, is a theological invention of the idealist Hegel.”

Hegel writes:

"When all the conditions of any essence of the matter are present, it comes into existence."

And Lenin notes:

"Very good! What does the absolute idea and idealism have to do with it?”

Rejecting the idealism of Hegel with his postulate of the primacy of spirit over matter, Lenin adopts the dialectical method of the movement of thought, the method of cognition, where there is nothing supernatural. When Hegel writes about reality from the point of view of an idealist, they say, a pure idea gives rise to its own otherness, that is, reality, then it is obvious that this is not so. Of course, if we go beyond the basic question of philosophy (what is primary: spirit or matter?), it is clear that a person first forms something in his mind and then brings it to life. However, it is worth remembering that consciousness is a product of the development of matter. That matter existed before the advent of consciousness, and thinking occurs through material processes. Therefore, we see that human consciousness is able to cognize reality, and most precisely with the help of diamatics. Know the reality

The betrayal of the labor movement on the part of the European Social Democracy, as a consequence of opportunism, had as its cause the rejection of diamatics. It is known that political ideas are inextricably linked with philosophical ones - what a person is, such is his philosophy. The actions of the leaders of European social democracy, based on metaphysical ideas, did not have a solid scientific basis:

“The revisionists shrugged their shoulders contemptuously about dialectics, and the revisionists went ... into the swamp of the philosophical vulgarization of science, replacing the “cunning” (and revolutionary) dialectics with “simple” (and calm) “evolution”,” V.I. Lenin.

That is, the opportunists imposed their anti-Marxist, anti-scientific ideas on the proletariat under the guise of concretizing Marxist theory and developing scientific social science. After all, Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action, so we will act on the basis of ... a revision of Marxism. Following this vicious path, the German Social Democracy was able to convince the German proletariat to defend German imperialism in the First World War. Subsequently, one of the main ideologists of revisionism, the German Social Democrat Eduard Bernstein, naturally took a hostile position towards Bolshevism. After all, he was guided by the same revision of Marxism in this matter, pointing to materialist dialectics as a set of arbitrary constructions, but, in fact, insisting on the eternity of capitalism, the uselessness and impossibility of the dictatorship of the proletariat, putting forward the demand to replace diamatics with neo-Kantianism. Like, "the latest materialists, like the greatest modern natural scientists, resolutely take the point of view of Kant's philosophy." The same philosophy that "substantiated" the unknowability of the world.

If between us and reality lies the process of abstract cognition - our ideas about reality - accordingly, we are not able to study the subject itself, but we will study only our idea of ​​\u200b\u200bit - the notorious abstractions, as if separating us from reality by a “Chinese wall”. Bernstein and Co. dragged the proletariat into such a misunderstanding, taking advantage of the fact that the masses "were taught dialectics not according to Hegel." Otherwise, they would have known that knowledge does not separate reality from consciousness, but, on the contrary, it connects. It brings the subjective in line with the objective, since the subjective position of a person obliges him to adequately reflect the objective reality, to correspond to it. Otherwise, everything that goes against reality dies. Hence the process of cognition is that

Thus, the theme of Lenin's study of Aristotle, Heraclitus, Hegel, etc. was supposed to solve an important practical problem of the coming revolution - the ideological isolation of the conciliatory parties: the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Cadets, and the removal of the broad masses of workers and peasants from under their influence.

There was another important issue, for the sake of which the leader, sparing no time and effort, was engaged in philosophy. Understanding that the possible victory of the revolution would move the Bolsheviks from opposition to power, to the concrete leadership of the multimillion-strong masses, would put them before the problem of putting into practice those ideas for which the party had been fighting for many years, Lenin foresaw that the transition from destruction to creation would require him to , and from associates of a qualitatively different activity. Realizing that after the victory of the revolution, Russia would have to move along an unknown path, and the Bolsheviks would have to take on the role of conductors of all mankind in building new social relations, Lenin could not allow the place of philosophically educated pioneers to be taken by superficial rogues - people who vaguely imagine

“Without a solid philosophical foundation, no natural sciences, no materialism can withstand the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of a bourgeois world outlook. In order to withstand this struggle and carry it through to the end with complete success, the natural scientist must be a modern materialist, a conscious supporter of the materialism that is represented by Marx, that is, he must be a dialectical materialist, ”- V.I. Lenin.

That is why, in order to scientifically develop the models and formulas of actions developed over the years, in order to introduce into them the flexibility of unexpected and verified decisions that were so useful in the revolutionary struggle, the leader thoughtfully and patiently, as before in Shushensky, studied the dialectical method of thinking. It was precisely the diamatic approach that allowed Lenin, in contrast to the same Plekhanov, to correctly define the strategic task, to set the correct direction for his theoretical activity, to concentrate his efforts (and most revolutionaries were categorically incapable of doing this without outside help) on a deeper understanding of the forms of motion of matter, on communication thinking with reality and rightfully become the one who, three years later, at the head of the revolutionary masses, will overthrow the provisional government and, for the first time in the history of mankind, establish progressive Soviet power.

It can be argued that over the past hundred years, much in the world has changed beyond recognition, and in science as well. That in the 20th century alone such metamorphoses took place in the life of mankind that after all the experience that we have - the creation, development, decay and collapse of the USSR - it is doubtful that modern communists need to take up the study of the "Science of Logic". It is all the more doubtful that the book was written 200 years ago in the intricate and pretentious language of an idealist, with a mass of bizarre, in many respects already obsolete words and terms. And is it worth it to wade through this heap of zaum and mysticism, and is it even possible at all? Isn't this a substitute for revolutionary practice, which is so necessary today, when the world is heading towards a third world war?!

But all the classics of Marxism have repeatedly warned about such a danger of refusing to study diamatics, and Lenin directly pointed out:

“It is impossible to fully understand Marx's Capital, especially its first chapter, without having studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, none of the Marxists understood Marx ½ century later.

One might think that this aphorism, left by the leader on the margins of the Philosophical Notebooks abstract, should not be taken literally. They say that Marx and Engels, followed by Lenin and Stalin, in their works have already separated the wheat from the chaff, put Hegel upside down, took from the rubbish of the idealism of the German philosopher what is applicable to life. Or do you want to surpass Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin in the knowledge of dialectics, in the development of a method that they have already developed? Maybe then it’s worth writing a new “Capital” on your own, why waste time on trifles?

If you do not know about the trap into which the Social Democrats of the Second International once fell, having failed the revolutions in Germany and Hungary in 1918, if you do not understand the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, when the formal approach to the study of Marxism triumphed in the CPSU, the academic attitude of graduates party card carriers to diamatics, which resulted in the spread of non-dialectical, vulgar materialism (idealism), which had an extremely detrimental effect on the worldview of the masses, and that sad state of affairs in the left spectrum today; if one is guided in theory by positivism, having brought into practice the opportunism of actionism, tailism, economism, reformism, etc., then, indeed, calls for the study of dialectics according to Hegel will seem like a whim of wise theoreticians. An attempt to translate Marxism into the category of elite knowledge,

In fact, the entire history of the communist movement shows that the cognition of objective reality is inextricably linked with the cognition of thinking, its diamatic understanding as a reflection of reality, which is constantly changing. And if so, then the actualization of Marxism is impossible without the assimilation of dialectical-materialist thinking in full. Therefore, it was no coincidence that Lenin pointed out in his work “On the Significance of Militant Materialism” that

“Based on how Marx applied Hegel’s materialistically understood dialectic, we can and must develop this dialectic from all sides, publish in a journal excerpts from Hegel’s main works, interpret them materialistically, commenting on the examples of the application of dialectics by Marx, as well as those examples of dialectics in the field of economic and political relations, examples of which modern history, especially the modern imperialist war and revolution, provide an unusually large amount. The group of editors and staff of the magazine Under the Banner of Marxism should, in my opinion, be a kind of 'society of materialistic friends of Hegelian dialectics' .

Lenin's ultimate responsibility, expressed in the form of exceptional scientific conscientiousness, the main quality of a researcher, served the Bolsheviks as a criterion for the truth of his theoretical research, repeatedly confirmed by practice. Because of this, the leader's works became a sign of quality, a standard for the analytical work of a revolutionary in the study and comprehension of reality. But selfless service to the truth bears fruit in the form of workable solutions only through hard intellectual work. And Lenin made a lot of efforts to, starting from the already known, to go beyond the boundaries of knowledge, defining the principle that allows this to be achieved:

"You can become a communist only when you enrich your memory with the knowledge of all those riches that mankind has developed."

Therefore, the breakthroughs are firmly convinced that without a diligent study of the Hegelian method, which absorbed all the philosophical wealth of pre-Marxist thought, without the practical application of diamatics in the struggle, our reflection of reality cannot be adequate, and our materialism will not so much fight as fight.

D. Nazarenko
23/06/2023

https://prorivists.org/82_hegel/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Sun Aug 13, 2023 6:13 pm

Study Hegel's "Science of Logic"
2019 - 2023

Introduction
Do not arm yourself with the well-known words of the poet: “We did not teach dialectics according to Hegel,” because practice has shown that learning dialectics according to Marx, Engels, Stalin, or, even more so, “running under bullets” is more difficult than using the main methodological manual on dialectics - “The Science of Logic ". It is not for nothing that hundreds of thousands of people have been reading the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism and studying the history of Bolshevism for a hundred years, but only a few have mastered diamatics, that is, the dialectics of materialism. To become a materialist, it is enough to recognize the primacy of matter, there is nothing unbearable in this. But in order to become a diamatician, one must also master dialectics, and the main help in this matter is the study of the "Science of Logic".

So, I offer the reader some of my thoughts on the study of the greatest philosophical work "The Science of Logic" by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. A series of notes is planned, written with the aim of helping our supporters to master Hegel's dialectic and language.

First of all, a few more general remarks.

Remark one: why do we need philosophy?
Philosophy arose at the dawn of class society as a form of understanding by the exploiters of practical guarantees for strengthening their domination. And only within the framework of this task was the consideration of the laws of being, including social. At the same time, philosophy, as a result of the allocation of mental labor, was based on the natural desire of a person to understand the world around him.

Professional philosophers have a millennial tradition of serving the ruling class. Students are often taught the well-known formula that in the Middle Ages philosophy was the servant of theology, but this is only a distraction, because in other eras philosophy was the servant of the ruling classes.

The partisanship of philosophy is manifested not only in the fact that philosophers were supported by the ruling class and were forced to develop recommendations for strengthening its power, not to contradict its interests, needs and goals in their conclusions. The partisanship of philosophy is manifested not even so much in the fact that the philosophers themselves were entirely representatives of the ruling classes in terms of worldview or closely adjoined them. The partisan nature of philosophy is manifested primarily in the fact that, having arisen as a product of the isolation of mental labor, it has erected an artificial separation of theory from practice into one of the fundamental principles . To paraphrase the classic: philosophers only explained the world in various ways that were beneficial to the exploiting classes.Our task, the task of the revolutionaries, is to explain it as adequately as possible and, on this basis, change it forever, destroying the relations of private property .

In the pre-capitalist history of mankind there was not a single revolutionary class that would have sought to scientifically cognize the laws of social existence. Moreover, all thinkers who encroached on the connection of scientific theoretical conclusions about the relations of private property and the practice of public life were persecuted in all epochs, even when they dreamed of utopian projects.

Official philosophy has been and is still engaged in bringing the content of religious dogmas in line with the level of development of the basis and the enlightenment of the masses. Revealing that the old religious dogmas lost their former splendor and grandeur, philosophers compose new ones, moving from the biblical Yahweh, rushing over the void, to the singularity point and the big bang theory.

The most difficult thing in this work is to overcome the tendency of the exploited masses to assimilate spontaneous materialism, including in connection with the development of production technology, industry and the conquest of the forces of nature by mankind. Materialism is always expressed in the natural striving of healthy thinking for knowledge adequate to reality . Therefore, any official science, any thought about society, one way or another, began with the resolution of the fundamental question of philosophy in favor of idealism.

Encyclopedias usually write that, they say, idealism is one of the two main trends in philosophy, which takes the spirit as the primary given, considering the external world to be secondary, derived from consciousness, and so on. And then discussions begin about the "epistemological roots of idealism" with the obligatory citation of Lenin's well-known quote from the synopsis of the "Science of Logic" about the "process of a series of abstractions" as an exemplary reflection of reality by consciousness.



From the point of view of most modern writers of the Marxist persuasion, it turns out that thinking itself seems to contain some necessity of idealism as a subordinate moment. And the fundamental reason for idealism is the contradiction between the finiteness of consciousness and the infinity of being, that is, as it were, the impossibility of “putting” cognizable objects into the brain. Thus, it is concluded that from the process of cognition itself there arises a tendency to drift into idealism. This conclusion is supported by Lenin's quotation from the synopsis of Aristotle's Metaphysics.

However, Lenin's famous quote refers exclusively to the possibility of idealism, and not to its cause:

“The bifurcation of human cognition and the possibility of idealism (=religion) are already given in the first, elementary abstraction of “house” in general and individual houses. The approach of the mind (of a person) to a separate thing, the removal of a mold (= concept) from it is not a simple, direct, mirror-dead act, but a complex, bifurcated, zigzag one, which includes the possibility of fantasy flying away from life ; not only that: the possibility of transformation (and, moreover, an imperceptible transformation, unconscious by man) of an abstract concept, idea into fantasy (=God). For even in the simplest generalization, in the most elementary general idea (“table” in general), there is a certain piece of fantasy.”

There is no doubt that the possibility of idealism follows from the possibility of an inaccurate reflection of reality, but idealism and an inaccurate reflection of reality are not the same thing, in the sense that idealism is always “an inaccurate reflection of reality”, but not vice versa. This point is often overlooked even by supporters of the Leninist theory of reflection.

Idealism recognizes the objective world as derived from the idea, spirit, God. Of course, one can use idealism only in the presence of an infinite amount of the unknown. But is this very act - the transformation of the spirit into the demiurge of matter - natural for thinking that stumbles upon the unknown? On the contrary, thinking is materialistic in nature , and the unknown gives rise to curiosity and inquisitiveness in a person, and not the desire to “explain” it with mysticism and believe in this “explanation”. This latter is the work of philosophical sharpers.

Let the reader pay attention to the fact that an animal, faced with the unknown, will, under favorable conditions, examine it, and will not sit down to create the myths and legends of Ancient Greece. So the knowledge of the world is also characteristic of man, and not obscurantism and religious creation.

In clarifying the causes of idealism, most modern authors of the Marxist persuasion stubbornly turn the inaccuracies of knowledge and the still unknown into a path leading to God, that is, they refuse to think in a materialistic interpretation of the unknown and insufficiently known. Although there is nothing difficult in the judgment “I don’t know this yet” or even “I will never know this again” for either modern or ancient people, this is a completely banal train of thought.

Consequently, knowledge, for example, under full communism, as in prehistory, will have the possibility of idealism, but its cause will be absent. The reason for idealism is exclusively the social-class factor. In short, the possibility of idealism in thinking is consciously activated by the ruling class. Therefore, in a society of mature communism, idealism will have no objective foundations. On the contrary, in a class society of any formation, the requirement that the exploited masses be infected with mysticism and illogical thinking is objective, since only in this way can the exploiting class exercise the spiritual domination it needs. In turn, the liberation of the exploited class from the stupefaction of mysticism is the condition for its final victory in the class struggle.

History gives us many examples when liberation from one mysticism took place in favor of another, even more sophisticated mysticism, marking the replacement of some oppressors by others. For example, the transition from polytheism to monotheism. Or from Catholicism to Protestantism, from church religion to pantheism, from religion in general to subjective idealism and the modern bourgeois "scientific picture of the world." These spiritual transformations were associated with the formational transformations of society.

Modern people still poorly understood the well-known ingeniously accurate and precise formulation: " Religion is the opium of the people ." The fact is that religion, as the earliest form of idealism, is in the truest sense of the word an opium, that is, a narcotic intoxication, for the people. And the production of this drug was deliberately put on a grand scale. The same thing is being done today with other forms of idealism.

The thinking of a slave, serf or worker, in which no one would mix the basic question of philosophy, would turn them into revolutionaries in a historically short time. It is the spirit, as a universal explanation of everything unknown and, most importantly, as an explanation of the social forces dominating a person, that paralyzes thinking. If the thinking of a slave, faced every day with slavery, was not constrained by philosophical ideas about the divine origin of power, then sooner or later he would have guessed that his master, like him, consists of skin and bones, therefore, they are identical in its essence. If the thinking of the worker had not been fettered by the brilliance of the idealism of bourgeois law, the mysticism of fate and religion, then he would have very quickly come to the main conclusions of Marxism and would have instantly destroyed hated capitalism and set about building communism.

The invention of religion was the product of one of the first scientific and philosophical discoveries - the opposition of faith and knowledge . The rudiments of logic, which any healthy person possesses, can be effectively limited in development if all ignorance is clothed in the clothes of faith. An atheist differs from a believer primarily in that he never writes off ignorance as the machinations of the spirit or higher beings.

Having appreciated their discovery, the ruling classes with great zeal have been imposing a religious and idealistic dope on society for five thousand years for the sake of “maintaining stability” and cultivating moral values ​​and guidelines that do not threaten their domination. In this case, the meaning of faith is to teach the masses not to think about the cannibalistic nature of the exploitative formation. And it doesn't matter if it's a belief in an almighty God or in democratic values.

The most common mistake in interpreting the essence of philosophy is the opinion that philosophy is a direct product of the basis, as if a direct projection of production relations into the theory of explaining the world. Whereas in reality philosophy, being an element of the superstructure, is a product of the superstructure, a consequence of politics, and indirectly depends on the basis. It is politics, that is, the struggle of classes, that gives rise to an objective need for philosophy. And philosophy, in turn, arises and develops on the basis of all socio-historical experience, is the result of the development of all economic relations, all formations that have already taken place.

When it is said: “this is proletarian philosophy”, “this is bourgeois philosophy”, “and this is feudal philosophy”, what is meant is not that these philosophies directly grow out of the production relations of the indicated formations, but that they serve them politically. In fact, the difference between, for example, slave-owning and bourgeois philosophy is so insignificant that this characteristic is rather a shade of differences. Capitalism successfully uses for its defense all kinds of philosophy, often quite primitive.

In the era of literacy by the exploited, in contrast to the process of imposing idealism, a well-founded reputation for philosophy as abstruse rubbish spontaneously developed in the minds of workers, employees and engineers. Hence the most harmful idea for the proletariat that the proletarian is a practical person, and that a practical person does not need any philosophy, he supposedly proceeds “from facts” and “reality”, therefore he acts as if without any philosophy. This attitude is aggravated by the fact that all philosophical systems, except Marx's, are erroneous, are various, sometimes to an extremely sophisticated degree, forms of delusion.

Modern bourgeois philosophy has definitively degenerated into speculative demagoguery. Instead of studying the thinkers of the past, the masses are invited to read collections of "wise thoughts", "quotations", "aphorisms" and a narrow list of philosophers like Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Plato. In universities, the philosophical systems of the great thinkers of the past are taught in isolation from the historical epochs, of which they are the expression, without regard to isolating the true from them. And the philosophy of Marxism - diamatics - as the only scientific philosophy that has critically reworked all philosophical thought and absorbed all the best, true that humanity developed before Marx, is, firstly, officially hushed up, and secondly, totally distorted and discredited by opportunists.

Bourgeois scientists and journalists have succeeded in instilling in the public consciousness many misconceptions about communism, but the main thing is that the vast majority of people as a result do not know that Marxism is a systemic, harmonious, integral worldview, irreconcilable with any superstition, which is a diamatic processing of all the best that created humanity. Many still do not know that Lenin and Stalin were outstanding thinkers, philosophers, and their theoretical heritage must be studied no less carefully than studying the practical victories of communism in the USSR.

Joseph Dietzgen, an outstanding worker-theorist, wrote about the importance of philosophy for the proletariat:

“Philosophy should be close to the working class... The high importance of mental work is still insufficiently appreciated by people of physical labor. Instinct tells them that the people who set the tone in our bourgeois society are its natural enemies. They see that under the guise of mental labor, cheating is being carried out. We must also add a completely understandable tendency on their part to underestimate mental labor and overestimate physical labor. Such crude materialism must be opposed.

... Mental labor should not frighten the worker, who is accustomed by the sweat of his brow to obtain not only his own joys, but also to create the opportunity for ten times more joys for others. When at first I could not understand the works of our philosophers, I told myself again and again: what others know, you must also know. Thinking is not the privilege of professors. It requires, as for any occupation, only the usual exercise. But a huge mass of workers is finally beginning to understand that there is no salvation outside of exercises in independent thinking.

The diamatics of the development of philosophy is such that, together with the solution of the class tasks of the exploiters, it was also the development of the cognitive, logical potentials of mankind. It was the accumulation of scientific (dialectical) grains in the trash of speculations of idealism that allowed Marx to rework the intellectual heritage and create Marxism with a sober materialistic view.

So, to put it bluntly:

I. If philosophy is unscientific, it is the philosophy of the exploiters, philosophy to strengthen the power of the exploiters. Such a philosophy is based on the separation of theory from practice, on speculation, and is metaphysics.

II. If scientific philosophy is hushed up, distorted, this is done in order to strengthen the power of the exploiters so that the practice of the exploited remains blind or erroneous.

III. Scientific, true philosophy is the philosophy of the exploited, it is the expression of the entire socio-historical practice of mankind and requires its application in the revolutionary struggle.

Such, in brief, is the essence of the partisanship of philosophy.

The situation is somewhat different with regard to the partisan nature of logic.

“The word “logic” denotes a system of techniques, ways of understanding a phenomenon, an order of intellectual operations (“bifurcation” of the single, movement from the general to the particular, from the singular to the general, from the simple to the complex, from the concrete to the abstract, from analysis to synthesis, etc.). two. diapers.

Philosophy declared a kind of monopoly on logic, while the masses, deprived of elementary literacy, were asked not to think, but to believe. That is, they have been instilled with illogical thinking for thousands of years.

At the same time, as the literacy of the population and its interest in logic grew, official science made an artificial separation of logic from philosophy, that is, a separation of the laws of thinking and the laws of being, which is also a product of the separation of theory from practice, in this case, the practice of thinking. Gradually, official logic was reduced to formalism, serving the intellectual vanity of narrowly read specialists. Today, in bourgeois science and bourgeois education, under the guise of logic, a set of dead descriptions of “forms of the movement of thought” diligently recorded in all textbooks lives on. Not a single textbook of formal logic, as well as not a single “holy scripture”, has brought closer to the discovery of any objective truth. Studying the textbooks of formal logic, like the Bible, the Koran, the Tripitaka, the myths of Greece and Rome, develops only memory, but not thinking.

So, to put it bluntly:

I. If logic is replaced by faith, this is a conscious process of brainwashing the masses in order to strengthen the power of the exploiters, instilling intellectual blindness.

II. If logic is emasculated to formalism, this is a conscious process of philosophical disorganization of the worldview of the masses in order to isolate Marxism.

III. Scientific, true logic is the dialectical method of materialism (diamatics), which underlies Marxism-Leninism, the communist worldview, and is the only methodology that objectively serves the exploited.

Thinking from the point of view of diamatics is a property of highly organized matter and therefore is subject to the universal laws of the existence of matter. The subjective logic of thinking is a reflection of the objective logic of the movement of the external world. Thinking and being are identical in the sense, firstly, that thinking is a property of matter, and secondly, that scientific thinking (cognition) adequately reflects the laws of the objective universe.

Consequently, scientific logic, theory of knowledge and philosophy (ontology) are inseparable from each other, they represent a single logical single crystal .

Consequently, scientific knowledge, combined with the movement of the masses, is a force that transforms nature and society. Scientific knowledge itself is part of the revolutionary and industrial practice of mankind .

The revolutionary working class needs not just a "political doctrine", but scientific philosophy as the basis of its worldview. Philosophy is the basis of any theory in any case. Any theory is always based on some extremely general provisions. No matter how much philosophical refuseniks claim that they think without philosophy or form theories, for example, physical ones, without philosophy, in fact, philosophy is still at the basis of their mental activity. The only question is what kind of philosophy it is.

Here it is time to recall the famous statement of Engels, which should be applied to all people in general:

“Whatever pose the natural scientists take, philosophy rules over them. The only question is whether they want to be dominated by some bad fashionable philosophy, or whether they want to be guided by a form of theoretical thinking that is based on acquaintance with the history of thinking and its achievements.

Therefore, wittingly or unwittingly, any person chooses some philosophy as a guide, even if it seems to him that he definitely cannot have anything philosophical in his life.

Philosophy represents methodology for thinking and any theory - the most general philosophical categories and way of thinking. Method is a way, a way of research, thinking, the subject of just logic. As a rule, the method of thinking in most people today is metaphysical, that is, considering particulars without a big picture, exploring any "separateness" without their general connection, thus losing the opportunity to see the real development. As mentioned above, metaphysics is based on the main principle of the philosophy of the exploiters - the gap between theory and practice, which results in the opposition of induction to deduction, analysis to synthesis, empiricism to rationalism.

Methodology is a method that starts any movement of thought from the established fundamental categories of being. If one characterizes diamatics as a method, then it is a synthesis of useful qualities of all known non-scientific methods of thinking. The principles are as follows.

First. Consideration of the universe in unity, as a connected single whole. From this follows an approach to phenomena as organically connected, dependent on each other and causing each other.

Second. Consideration of phenomena exclusively in motion, development, namely from the point of view of their emergence and death. Moreover, development is a qualitative leap as a result of the gradual accumulation of regular quantitative changes.

And the third one . The reason for the self-movement of all phenomena of the universe is the internal opposition immanent to them of the obsolete and the developing, the positive and the negative, in short, the unity of opposites.

Therefore, the most important task of every revolutionary communist: theoretician, writer, propagandist, agitator, organizer - is to master Marxist philosophy .

Practice has shown that studying ready-made philosophical definitions is insufficient and does not lead to mastery of diamatics. In this matter, the most important role is played by the study of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and the history of the communist movement, above all Bolshevism. In this sense, the political victories of geniuses are a study of the objective logic of the movement of society, and the works of geniuses are a study of the subjective logic that leads to these victories. It must be remembered that without a thorough study of The Poverty of Philosophy, Anti-Dühring, Capital, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, and so on, one cannot become a full-fledged communist.

However, with regard to logic, the classics did not leave us a single work, the creation of such a work is the task that confronts us, modern Marxists. Just like a hundred years ago, a great help to mastering diamatics is the study of the entire wealth of theoretical achievements of mankind. In this sense, one can either study all the great philosophers of the past, which will take even a trained person decades, or study just one brilliant book - The Science of Logic by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

One must read Hegel in order to understand, first of all, on what complex material Marx became a dialectician and guessed the need to combine dialectics with materialism, the rudiments of which he seized from Feuerbach.

Second remark: how to master the "Science of Logic"
I want to categorically warn the reader against a dismissive and swaggering attitude towards Hegel and his dialectics. For example, Marx famously wrote:

“My attitude to Hegel's dialectic is very simple. Hegel is my teacher , and the chatter of clever epigones who believe that they have done away with this outstanding thinker is simply ridiculous to me. However, I allowed myself to treat my teacher critically, to remove the veil of mysticism from his dialectic and thereby significantly change it, etc., etc.

Marx is the greatest teacher for all working people. My teacher's teacher is my teacher . Such is the Marxist formula of attitude towards Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his philosophy.

Everyone knows that in order to become an excellent artistic creator, it is necessary to have not only an ardent unquenchable desire and a strong will, but also some inclinations known for each artistic field. Perhaps, it is possible to become a good painter, writer, composer, musician without significant natural inclinations, on the basis of mastery honed over the years, but it is unlikely that it will be possible to reach the heights of true magnificence of creativity. Nevertheless, people are born significantly different in relation to the inclinations for certain types of artistic activity, since much in artistic art depends on the innate biological characteristics of the organism. Even more depends on the conditions of the initial period of growing up of a person, the influence of which is still a huge mystery for science.

It is quite another matter with the development of the apparatus of thinking. All physiologically healthy people from birth are equally endowed with all the necessary inclinations for thinking. In the course of socialization, all newborns quickly acquire an unlimited power of the gift of thinking. Moreover, mental abilities practically do not depend on the biological characteristics of the brain. If there is any slight difference in the formation of the brain, then it is completely erased in the course of the social development of a person. Therefore, raising the level of human thinking to the scientific and theoretical level is a high road for the development of human intellect, literally everyone can do it.

However, in the public mind there is a frivolous attitude to mental work, especially to self-education. It is obvious to everyone: in order to become a skilled master in any business, you need to train hard for a long time, repeat thousands of times what does not work the first, second and third time. But for some reason, when it comes to mastering theoretical thinking, most people forget this well-known truth and do not show due perseverance and desire.

Meanwhile, Engels noted that he knew only one guaranteed method of self-education to think scientifically and theoretically - to study the history of philosophy. Hegel's "Science of Logic" in this sense saves time considerably, since it represents a critical generalization of everything that is methodologically valuable in the philosophical thought of mankind. The genius of Hegel worked like no other in this matter for all future generations.

Engels:

“To learn dialectics from Kant would be needlessly tedious and thankless work, since in the works of Hegel we have an extensive compendium of dialectics, although developed from a completely false starting point.”

Therefore, it often happens that Hegel's dialectic causes rejection because of the complexity of the presentation and the complexity of the very depth of the material, and this rejection results in a dismissive swaggering attitude.

This vicious attitude is manifested in the desecration of Hegel by idealism. Say, since Hegel is an idealist, why study him? Marx, Engels, and Lenin responded to this with the most caustic comments. To paraphrase Lenin, an intelligent idealist is closer to an intelligent materialist than a dull materialist.

Or even worse, they begin to read The Science of Logic and, without understanding the meaning of what is written, start cursing about the various initial categories. What is this "Hegelian nothingness"? Where did you see "nothing"? This is idealism. "Nothing happens"! It is not fitting for us materialists to read about "nothing". All this is nonsense, sophistry, mysticism and so on.

I want to warn all readers - do not think that since you call yourself materialists, it means that you are smarter than Hegel. Believe me, Hegel is far from being a fool, and there is no need to teach him your "materialism" out of hand.

Such "stupid materialists" like to cite well-known quotations from the classics that the diamatic method is the opposite of the Hegelian, that Hegel must be read in a materialistic way, that the Hegelian mystical husk must be discarded, and so on. But few people can clearly and clearly explain what specifically needs to be discarded in the Science of Logic and what exactly it means to read the Science of Logic in a materialistic way. We will gradually deal with this in this series of notes, but let's fix what is known for sure right now .

The first and grossest mistake of the "stupid materialists" is that by Hegelian idealistic husks and mysticism they understand the very categories of the Science of Logic. They, following the lead of their own mental laziness, interpret the quotations of the classics of Marxism-Leninism in this way.

However, if we generalize the statements of Marx, Engels and Lenin about the Hegelian dialectic, it will be clear that Hegel's idealism, which must be discarded, consists only in the fact that "Hegel's dialectic stands on its head, but it must be put on its feet . " What does this mean? Only that it is not necessary to take into account the Hegelian demiurge - the absolute idea .

Engels elaborated:

Hegel's perversion of dialectics is based on the fact that, according to Hegel, it must be the "self-development of thought", and therefore the dialectics of things is only its reflection. But in fact, dialectics in our head is only a reflection of the actual development that takes place in the world of nature and human society and is subject to dialectical forms.

Generally speaking, there is a well-founded opinion that Hegel deliberately inscribed the absolute idea into his philosophy to please the prevailing order, thus signing himself up as an objective idealist. Few will argue that the justification of the Prussian monarchy by the great edifice of Hegelian wisdom is a sophisticated philosophical and political anecdote. Let the reader consider what other objective idealists he knows whose philosophy would give the world culture at least something of truly enduring value.

It is impossible, therefore, to confuse "Hegel's system" and his dialectical method, which is expressed precisely in the derivation of the categories of the "Science of Logic". Stalin warned:

How do anarchists view the dialectical method? Everyone knows that Hegel was the founder of the dialectical method. Marx refined and improved this method. Of course, this circumstance is also known to anarchists. They know that Hegel was a conservative, and so, taking this opportunity, they scold Hegel with might and main as a supporter of "restoration", they enthusiastically "prove" that "Hegel is a philosopher of restoration ... that he praises bureaucratic constitutionalism in its absolute form, that the general the idea of ​​his philosophy of history is subordinated to and serves the philosophical trend of the Restoration era,” and so on and so forth… True, no one argues with them about this, on the contrary, everyone will agree that Hegel was not a revolutionary. Marx and Engels themselves were the first to prove in their Critique of Critical Criticism that that the historical views of Hegel fundamentally contradict the autocracy of the people. But in spite of this, anarchists nevertheless “prove” and consider it necessary to “prove” every day that Hegel is a supporter of “restoration”. Why are they doing this? Probably in order to discredit Hegel with all this and make the reader feel that the "reactionary" Hegel's method cannot but be "disgusting" and unscientific. In this way the Anarchists think of refuting the dialectical method. We declare that in this way they will prove nothing but their own ignorance, Pascal and Leibniz were not revolutionaries, but the mathematical method they discovered is now recognized as scientific method. Mayer and Helmholtz were not revolutionaries, but their discoveries in the field of physics formed the basis of science. Nor were Lamarck and Darwin revolutionaries, but their evolutionary method set the biological science on its feet... What is certain is that anarchists confuse Hegel's metaphysical system with his dialectical method. Needless to say, Hegel's philosophical system, based on an unchanging idea, is metaphysical from beginning to end. But it is also clear that Hegel's dialectical method, which denies any immutable idea, is scientific and revolutionary from beginning to end.

Thus, we know for sure that we must discard the "Hegelian system" and ignore the absolute idea. At the same time, it is proposed to first understand the categories of Hegel, in their derivation "as is", as Hegel himself understood it, albeit with a vicious absolute idea. At least Lenin, judging by his synopsis of the Science of Logic, did just that. And this will allow us to put the dialectic on its head. Of course, this does not mean that we will not critically approach the categories of the Science of Logic, it just needs to be done wisely and appropriately.

Many frivolously expect to make progress in mastering the "Science of Logic" in a short time. These are empty and naive hopes. Engels calculated that the period of the beginning of Hegel's understanding was more than six months:

“If, while reading Hegel, you wander into “marshy soil”, don’t let that stop you: in six months you will find reference points in the same swamp, along which you will safely get out onto the road.”

Therefore, the chapters of the "Science of Logic" will have to be re-read literally hundreds of times .

It should also be noted that the structure of the construction of the text in the "Science of Logic" differs from the classical presentation. Hegel resorts to the reception of the theorem, that is, first he gives a conclusion, and then offers its logical derivation. In addition, one should not get hung up on multiple notes, the history of their appearance in the text of the Science of Logic is shrouded in fog, since they were introduced by Hegel's students after his death.


So, in some places, if necessary, I will cite not only Hegel's quotations, but also links to the pages of his works "The Science of Logic" and "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences" according to the 14-volume edition . The second work is a more popular exposition of the categories and may serve as some clarification. I recommend reading these books. I urge you to find support points in Hegel's texts using all such references.

The primary task of the presentation below is to lead the reader along a logical path parallel to Hegel's. Therefore, read Hegel, then read my text, read Hegel again, then read my text again, and so on until a clear understanding comes. To understand means to assimilate the path of knowledge, derivation .

It is necessary to read Hegel verbatim, to strive to understand his text directly (EFN 152), nothing needs to be thought out, invented, no need to look for hidden meanings, secret meanings or hints.

I. BEING
A summary of the doctrine of being is presented by Hegel under the heading "The General Subdivision of Being" (NL 64). The main thing that we must now, that is, preliminary, take out of it is the understanding that the sphere of being is, as it were, a layer (actually a moment) of objective reality, which embraces only that it is being, that is, that what she is. Not in the sense of eating today, yesterday or tomorrow, but eating in general, regardless of any particulars. The sphere of being is exhausted by being itself and its certainty, that is, a) quality , b) quantity , their unity - c) measure . Realm of being, thus opposite to the realm of essence.

At first glance, such a division seems somewhat far-fetched and even mystical, but in reality, when discussing anything, we must consider, or at least keep in mind, first of all, the universal, in particular, that the subject of our consideration is , then is his sphere of being . In the future, this position will become more understandable, especially when we deal with the main categories of being and see the transition to essence, and now the main thing is to remember that the sphere of our mental movement in the first section is the sphere of being, some abstraction based on the fact that the universe There is.It seems paradoxical that our being (what we are) and our essence are opposites. But this is true, because the infinite variety of forms of matter is first of all (a certain being), and only then is it as concrete , filled with content. This division is not only important from the point of view of logical exposition, but also expresses the truth that the universal determines the individual and prevails over the individual .

We thus, as it were, move in our thoughts following Hegel from the surface (what is directly there) deep into, from being to essence.

So where does philosophy begin?

The dialectical method of materialism (diamatics) requires, as is well known, consideration of the objective existence of matter, for it recognizes matter as primary in relation to consciousness. From the point of view of diamatics, the exposition of the universal (philosophy) is the exposition of the being of matter itself, which moves in space and exists in time. Being in three objective realities - space, time and matter - therefore, is an axiom that constitutes the beginning of the exposition of philosophy, the recognition of which necessarily follows from the entire socio-historical practice of mankind. In other words, materialism requires starting and considering the universe as a whole.

Hegel, being an objective idealist, seeks to avoid placing axioms at the basis of philosophy, in particular in the form of any principle or empirical fact (“sensory consciousness”). At the beginning, he, as it were, verbally denies the need for philosophy to rely on practice, believes that “logic is pure science, pure knowledge in the entire scope of its development” (logic = philosophy), insofar as he puts the axiom of thinking at the foundation of philosophy.

Therefore, Hegel begins philosophy with the only reasonable thing - with the concept of the indefinite immediate . What is this? Imagine something as indefinite as possible, something about which it is impossible to say anything definite, concrete at all. Imagine that this indefinite is completely unmediated, that is, there is nothing else besides it, it is all-encompassing. In our conception there is neither space, nor time, nor matter, nothing but this indefinite and immediate, in which we cannot distinguish anything, but it is everywhere. However, we will still have to say something about this indeterminate immediate quite precisely and even definitely, namely, that it is .

The word "is" means "to be", therefore the most indefinite is being, about which we can say nothing, except that it is. Since it is not mediated by anything (immediate) and due to its pure indeterminacy, such being is, as it were, PURE BEING . "Pure being" is, in terms of philosophy, the indeterminate immediate. The abstraction with which Hegel begins philosophy.

Hegel also calls pure being simple immediacy (NL 52) in the sense that it is an abstraction of the perception of what is present without any filling, further definition.

1. Certainty (quality)
Thus, we have before us the indeterminate immediate, that is, pure being. There is nothing to contemplate in it, it is, in the words of Hegel, only our "empty thinking". And since we cannot distinguish anything in it, if it is absolute emptiness, then how does this being differ from the fact that there is nothing ? That is from "nothing". We, as it were, took this indefinite immediate (pure being) directly as it is and received NOTHING. In other words, pure being taken directly is nothing (EFN 148).

Being, by virtue of its pure indeterminacy, is nothing. And nothing is as much an absence of certainty as pure being. Pure being and pure nothing, it turns out, are one and the same .

At the same time, nothing was revealed, which means it exists, which means it is already being. True, here we already understand that this being is not pure, because nothing is now visible in it.

It is important to note that we are not looking at two different "things", as if lying side by side or fastened together, but we are looking at the same thing , just peering deeper. First we saw pure being, then we looked deeper into it as pure nothingness, then we realized that it is still being, but indistinguishable from nothingness, concluding that they are one and the same and they are not the same.

The key question is: what, then, is the difference between being and nothing? Maybe there is no independent nothing? Moreover, when we say “nothing,” we already assume some kind of being in this, because “nothing” means nothing of something . “There is nothing” means that something could be, but this is not. In this sense, Hegel's remark is interesting that if we take nothing as a separate principle, then its highest form would be freedom (EFN 150), since such an absolute nothing is absolutely free from anything, from any being. By the way, this kind of idiotic freedom is preached by anarchists, not realizing that the subject of their thoughts is not nothing at all, but a person who is himself a manifestation of society with all its “non-free” qualities and connections.

In order to reveal the difference between being and nothing, Hegel resorts to posing the question of the illegitimacy of this difference. He's writing:

“Being and nothing as yet only have to be different, that is, their difference exists so far only in itself, but it has not yet been posited . When we speak of a difference at all, we are implying two things, each of which has a definition that the other does not. But being is just that which is completely devoid of definitions, and nothing is the same absence of definitions. The difference between them is, therefore, only an imaginary difference, a completely abstract difference, which at the same time is not a difference. With all other differences, we always also have something in common, embracing these different things” (ENF 150).

The difference between being and nothingness in the non-posited difference and the posited difference that will occur later looks mystical. But do not rush to lament, in this logical device a very important thing is revealed - being and nothingness, their difference and their unity express the axiom of diamatics about the movement of matter as a form of its existence, that everything changes. Hegel, as you know, said that there is not a single proposition of Heraclitus that would not find a corresponding continuation in his philosophy. Moreover, further we will also see that the difference and unity of being and nothing express the axiom of diamatics about the internal source of self-movement of matter.

Hegel, on the other hand, deciphering the illegitimacy of the difference between being and nothing, in fact, gives an excellent understanding of it:

“It would not be difficult to show the presence of this unity of being and nothing by any example in any real thing or thought. With regard to being and nothing, we must say the same thing that we said above about immediacy and mediation (which the latter contains a certain relationship with each other and, therefore, negation), namely, that there is nothing either in heaven or on earth , which would not contain both, both being and nothing . Since at the same time one begins to speak of some definite something and real, then, of course, in this something the indicated determinations are no longer present in that perfect untruth in which they appear as being and nothing, but in a certain further determination they are understood, such as positive andnegative; the former is posited, reflected being, and the latter is posited, reflected nothing; but the positive and the negative contain, as their abstract basis, the first, being, and the second, nothing” (NL 70).

If we discard this "complete untruth" and the reference to the "abstract basis", then this is an absolutely normal diamatic position about the presence of its own negation in everything. This provision is expressed, for example, in the famous Stalinist quotation:

“Dialectics considers nature not as a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but as a state of continuous movement and change, continuous renewal and development, where something always arises and develops, something is destroyed and outlives its age.”

In other words, diamatics considers matter (by nature, Stalin means precisely the forms of matter) not as a state of rest and immobility, that is, without negation, but as a state of continuous movement and change, renewal and development, where something always arises and develops, something is destroyed and outlives its age, that is, with negation. The only disadvantage of this formulation is that it does not focus on negation precisely within the things (processes) themselves.

But let's get back to our thought movement according to the categories of the "Science of Logic". So far, there is no change, movement and other things. So far, we have established that positive and negative are what distinguishes being and nothing within the framework of our logical approach.

How arbitrary is it that being is positive and nothing is negative? It is as conditional as it will be when considering any real process. The diamatic destruction of the being of capitalism as the last class formation, that is, its transformation into nothing, is the diamatic emergence of communism, that is, its transformation from nothing into being. And there is no other way capitalism can be destroyed. It is possible to smash the factories and kill all the capitalists, but in their place there will arise not communism, but capitalism again.

But in our mental movement, since we are still on the very surface - in the sphere of being (and not just being, but still indeterminate being), this convention of assigning a positive title to being and a negative title of nothing is so far due to the fact that being is taken to be that which subject to our immediate consideration. What we "took". If we place it in the area of ​​our attention, then this is being, because we have precisely established thereby that it is. This rejects, among other things, the objection that the beginning of the universe in Hegel is some kind of pure being. In reality, the universe has no beginning and no end, since it is infinite, and Hegel does not argue with this, if you read it carefully.

Usually, when reading the Science of Logic, paragraphs about being, nothingness and becoming (especially the notes) run very quickly, they seem very understandable, although not without a fog of mysticism. And thus it is overlooked that the unity and difference of being and nothing lie at the basis of all further categories (NL 71). This thesis must be remembered, because further on we will constantly look for nothing in the various levels of being, and negative in the positive. And what awaits us in the sphere of essence is a song in general.

So, peering into the inseparability (unity) of being and nothing, but remembering their difference, we must understand being more deeply and understand nothing more deeply. We have discovered a certain certainty of their unity, namely, that in this unity there is both being and nothing, because they are one and the same. This unity tells us nothing else. We must raise the question of what is being and what is nothing, given the nature of their unity, that is, that they are one and the same. This may seem like sophistry, but only because it is obtained by us in such pure abstract brightness. We can take any example of diamatic unity and we will find the same features in it. Thus, life and death are such a unity. Life is the onset of death, dying, and death is the withering of life. Means, life and death are not only opposites, but also some identity. Or, for example, knowledge and ignorance. Cognition simultaneously destroys ignorance and expands it, that is, ignorance is generated by cognition. Or, for example, that the bourgeoisie finds in unity with the proletariat the growth of its wealth and, at the same time, of its gravedigger. True, all such examples nevertheless demonstrate the unity of phenomena, the differences of which are expressed much more definitely than the difference between being and nothing, therefore they are significantly inferior, so to speak, in terms of brightness of mutual negation to the latter.

Hegel puts it very precisely:

“Since each of them, both being and nothing, is inseparable from its other, then they do not exist. They are, therefore, in this unity, but as vanishing, only as sublated. They are lowered in their rank, they lose that independence which, as it originally seemed, was inherent in them, and they turn into moments still distinguished, but at the same time sublated” (NL 97).

In short, there is only a unity in which only being and nothing are distinguishable.

(To be continued on following post, tomorrow. An extensive Q&A will be included, we need every bit of help we can get...You didn't think one post could cover this topic, didya?)))
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Mon Aug 14, 2023 11:07 am

(Continued from previous post. I am having doubts about the usefulness of Google Translator in this endeavor...)

Thus, a deeper understanding of being, which we directly consider in this unity, is that it is a being that passes into nothing . And a deeper understanding of nothing, which we directly consider in this unity, is that it is nothing passing into being . We now see being and nothing only as overflows in their unity.

The direction of the transition of nothing into being is called APPEARANCE, the direction of the transition of being into nothing is TRANSITION (from "to pass" means to disappear, to pass - "this is a transient phenomenon").

But is it now possible to call the unity of being and nothing, in fact, a unity? We have established that the fact that they are one and the same clearly dominates their difference. Their difference is imaginary, completely abstract, which at the same time is not a difference (EFN 150). Being and nothing have turned in our understanding into a kind of plus and minus in something monolithic.

At the same time, any unity is the unity of the different (the unity is formed only by two or more things). It follows from this that the “unity” of being and nothingness is not their connection, but BECOMING, the moments of which are the emergence and passing (the term “becoming” is taken here, at first glance, rather arbitrarily, in ordinary speech, becoming means the emergence and growth of something ). This is a deeper understanding of their “unity”, based, on the one hand, on the weakness and abstractness of their difference, on the other hand, on the unambiguousness and affirmativeness of their transition into each other.

Hegel sums up the thought path we have traversed remarkably:

“Becoming is the first concrete thought and therefore the first concept, while being and nothingness are, on the contrary, empty abstractions. If we are talking about the concept of being, then it can only consist in the fact that it is becoming, because, as being, it is empty nothingness, and, as empty nothingness, it is empty being. In being, therefore, we have nothingness, and in the latter, being. But this being, which remains in nothingness, is becoming. In this unity of becoming, we must not lose sight of difference, for without the latter we would again return to abstract being. Becoming is only the positedness of what being is according to its truth” (EFN 154).

All our further movement of thought will be an unfolding of becoming, as it were, into the depths of being and nothingness, the layers of which will be the filling with certainty, the growth of tension of the object received with ever greater concreteness.

Thus, we have before us becoming, defined as passing and arising. What can we see in it? First of all, the balance in which its moments are located, because being and nothing are equal (for they are one and the same ), which means that the passage and the emergence are equivalent moments of becoming. However, they are opposite in direction, absolutely exclude each other . We can take directly only one moment, either passing or arising, but not both.

Of course, we cannot consider becoming metaphysically as a whole, the parts of which are being and nothingness. Being and nothing are not components, they are only moments, they have already lost their logical independence.

There is only one way out - to take the formation directly as it is, but forcedly as something abstractly defective. We take becoming as something simple (that is, not one, because unity is the unity of something different, as already mentioned above). But at the same time, we know that becoming contains “anxiety” within itself, and we will have to keep these moments of it in memory for further unfolding.

Therefore, taking becoming itself directly, we get something calm and simple, something one-sided and very boring. Of course, we take becoming from the positive side, that is, as being, and nothing will turn out to be for us, as it were, from the back side, we keep it in mind. It turns out the result of formation - CASH BEING . "Being", because we took it as it is, in other words, as something positive, something that is. "Present", because it is present to us, but we remember that behind it lies its negation, which, therefore, is not present. Determinate being is what has become . Becoming posited in the form of one of its moments, in the form of being (EFN 156).

The dialectical procedure that we have done is called in philosophy " REMOVAL ", that is, negation with retention . Definite being with all its appearance shows that it has nothing to do with anything, it is being, moreover, strengthened by the fact that it is present. But this “presence” of it at the same time indicates that nothing in it is in a retained, hidden state, as if somewhere behind.

Removal is a characteristic of diamatic negation, however, when we talk about the removal of things filled with concrete content, then only the useful content of the negated is retained, and not all of it, as in the case of nothing.

Now it is clear why Hegel used such a seemingly strange word as "becoming", the meaning of which at the stage of its introduction did not explicitly express the unity of being and nothingness. Transition and emergence, as two opposite movements in one, must lead to something, come to some kind of result. Such a result of becoming is existence. But, again, we must remember that becoming does not go anywhere, nothing happens to it, we just look into it more carefully, in particular, we take it as being, which is immediately in front of us. Such a takeshows that becoming, therefore, can be considered as having become, and in this case it has the form of a one-sided, immediate "unity" of its moments—determined being. Nothing here is indicated, as it were, by the reverse side of the characteristic "cash". Similarly, when we say “daughter,” for example, we automatically assume parents. Or saying "wife", we assume a husband. If we say that existence is present, it means that this existence also has an underside, a denial hidden from us.

Hegel writes that since being disappears into nothing, and nothing disappears into being, therefore, both of them disappear, which destroys becoming and turns it into actual being. Hegel also writes that becoming is an unstable restlessness that settles down, turns into a result - calm simplicity (NL 98). This is nothing more than an attempt to explain the derivation of determinate being from becoming, which in essence is the taking of the internally mutually mediated by its equal moments of becoming directly as being, which hides its negation behind itself. All Hegelian “transitions”, “occurs”, “transforms”, “settles”, “falls away” are nothing more than explanations for our movement of thought into the depths of becoming. Therefore, “become” is not in itself, but as if it has become for us. We saw the formation in a new logical form.

Thus, we have before us the existence of being - one-sidedly taken "unity" of being and nothingness, or "simple unity of being and nothingness." If becoming is internally mediated (being is indirectly nothing, and vice versa), then we see existence as something immediate, simple. What can we see in it? It is obvious that we are faced with the task of “equalizing” the one-sidedness of existing being and seeing the formation with the equality of its moments at a new level of penetration into the depths. But first we must simply draw out nothing. We must first of all find the nothing hidden from our eyes. But it will not be that original nothing (like emptiness and empty thinking), it is nothing, as follows from its new role that has been revealed, it belongs to existing being.. It is no longer just nothing, but the nothingness of existence. This means that a more precise name will be required - NON-EXISTENCE . Non-existence is not just nothing, but the nothing of existence.

What is the best way to describe the relationship between the one side of becoming (existent being) that we have posited, as it were, and the non-being inherent in it? Here you just need to understand that insofar as non-being is hidden behind the existing being, removed in it, to the extent that it lies deeper. And what in general can reflect the depth of penetration from category to category? It can only reflect the growth of tension, the fullness of the object. At the same time, we must not forget that being and non-being are one, they are inseparable.

Thus, non-being accepted into being (present) in such a way that the concrete whole has the form of being, immediacy (present being), constitutes DEFINITENESS . Non-existence in the presence of existence, as it were, determines it, thereby the concreteness of existence as a whole is acquired . The positive, that is, the presence of being, tells us what it is, and the negative , that is, its determinateness, tells us what kind of being it is. We note for ourselves that this line of the relationship between positive and negative will be further developed.

[Let's return for a moment to the question of the opposition between the presence of existence and certainty. From the point of view of everyday thinking, this opposition seems incomprehensible and far-fetched. That is, something is and what it isis, is the opposite. I offer this simplified thought experiment as a metaphor. Imagine, for example, a piece of land. We see before our eyes a certain surface of the earth, it is (being). What can we say about what is one meter below it? Maybe there is an archaeological rock, maybe rubbish or a treasure is buried. Or maybe it's just land. We don't know this, we don't know what the certainty of this section is. Suppose we dug up the earth and found that it was ordinary soil. This is a certain certainty of the piece of land we have taken. In this approach, it still seems completely incomprehensible why the surface surface of the site (being) is opposed to the soil (certainty). But if we imagine, for example, that we mentally took this very certainty, let's say, we decided to describe the soil of our site in a letter. We now write about the soil, that it is such and such, dry or wet there, with or without worms. If you abstract this taken certainty in itself, do you feel that it is, as it were, indifferent to its being? When we mentally tear out certainty, we intuitively understand that it is, as it were, cold to its being. Yes, without existence, that is, the fact that it is a land plot, it belongs to him, it would not exist at all. But it exists, and when it exists, it, being the definition of this section, is in fact opposite to its being, negative for it. Of course, this example is very conditional and extremely metaphorical, because the present being is not a thing, not an integral object, not a plot of land and not the surface of the earth, but only our abstraction, reflecting universal being in some very distant approximation. But still, I guess

Thus, we have obtained certainty, that is, we have discovered the sought-after nothingness in the present existence. But we still have not got rid of the one-sidedness of taking becoming as a determinate being, since we do not see anything equal in rights, we have only noticed that non-being determines the determinate being. Hegel therefore writes that becoming (“the whole, the unity of being and nothingness”—NL 102) is not yet posited in itself.

Insofar as determinate being has at last become something concrete for us through determinateness, several relations of its moments have been revealed in it.

First of all, it should be noted that the determinateness, with the help of which we will consider these moments, is not something separate from the presence of existence. We remember that existence is only our one-sided abstract "taking" of monolithic becoming, therefore, the negation in it - its certainty - is only a moment, considering which, we must simply develop its understanding more deeply. So Hegel writes:

“In view of the immediacy in which being and nothingness are united in being, they do not go beyond each other ” (NL 103).

Thus, if being in itself tells us only that something is immediately there, then determinateness as the negation of the “availability” of being should give us much greater depth, namely, what kind of something it is—how it is internally mediated. At this depth, as on a foundation, all further definitions unfold, and they appear to us as negative. But at the same time, I will note once again that the existence and its certainty are inseparable, one. We are looking at the same thing . We find the positive and the negative in one object, and then the negative in the positive and the positive in the negative, peering more attentively.

Let's look at certainty. First of all, let us take it as it is, that is, in isolation, as, therefore, a kind of being. (For reference: if we take being in the same way, then we will not get anything interesting, because being is by its nature indefinite, which means we will find nothing and return to the sphere of already passed categories). Certainty, taken in isolation, as a real certainty, is QUALITY . This is a completely simple immediate being (positive), which we saw, mentally wresting the determinateness (negative) from the existing being. With this, in principle, no difficulties are observed, since having received existence, we already then realized that it had become concrete, and therefore qualitative. In this case, we simply developed this characteristic to a specific term.

However, here the perspicacious reader should note that since the quality we have considered is also being (after all, it is, it is not nothing as such), therefore, we are obliged to investigate the question of what kind of being it is . It may simply be a being, or it may be just as much a present being as its maternal being. It is clear that it cannot be simply being or pure being, since we are already in the sphere of being, enriched by negation, therefore, this is also present being . Hence the conclusion that the quality contains the moment of negation.

Therefore, the quality, taken from the side that it is being (being), is REALITY , and taken from the side that it is non-being, is NEGATION in general.

Reality is a view of existence as a quality . Negation is the view of existence as a defect. Reality therefore looks like something devoid of negativity and imperfections. Negation thus looks like some pure limitation. Generally speaking, quality is something completely simple, immediate (NL 103).

One can give an infinite number of examples of how the same thing is something important and positive, and at the same time limited and negative, but all these examples, due to their fullness, will to a greater extent express categories that we have not yet reached, but which will develop precisely out of the reality and negation already obtained by us. In a language, for example, a quality taken as a reality is available in the form of any non-negative characteristics - kind, intelligent, cheerful, and a quality taken as a negation - in the form of any characteristics from the opposite - kind, not stupid, cheerful. That is, in the first case, say, a smart person means that he does smart things and has smart thoughts (something affirmative and, as it were, devoid of flaws), and in the second case, a smart person means

Reality, therefore, means that we have an existing being, which acts as a positive quality. The negative aspect of this present being (the quality taken as nothing) is a simple negation, and it is, as it were, hidden in reality, but it exists. Therefore, the quality can be taken both as positive (as being) - reality and as negative (as nothing) - negation. Quality, taken negatively, is limitation.

Quality, as an essential certainty, in contrast to the negation contained in it, but different from it, is reality (EFN 157).

[From what has been said, it is clear that the diamatic categories “objective reality” and “quality” and the Hegelian categories “quality” (as an isolated determinateness) and “reality” (as a positively taken quality) do not coincide in their direct meaning. The materialistic categories, as it were, absorbed the Hegelian ones and embraced: the first - all being with negation, the second - all certainty as a quality. But more about this will be below, after the entire analysis of the "Science of Logic"].

It should be noted that we cannot yet use the category “quality” to put forward any set of specific qualities, because we still do not have in the full sense even that which could have these qualities. In addition, the quality itself cannot be taken in the plural. We are still in the sphere of determinate existence, the definiteness of which has only just begun to become clear to us. The quality we have achieved is still a very distant abstraction, here we cannot get ahead of ourselves.

In the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, Hegel explains that by quality in nature he understands, for example, chemical elements, and in "the realm of the spirit, quality is found only in the form of something subordinate" (EFN 157). Such a narrow understanding of quality is seen as a victim of the need for illustrations at a rather superficial categorical level of consideration. It is better to refrain from examples, since the diamatic category of quality covers not just quality as an isolated determinateness, but in general all qualitative certainty in its entirety, which we will fully analyze after completing the first section of the Science of Logic.

Thus, we have found determinateness as a quality in determinate being. The difference between reality and negation has been considered as a quality, taken as a determinate being. Since reality and negation (as a quality) are sublated in determinate being (after all, they belong to determinateness, that is, negative, sublated non-existence, or nothing), since, moreover, determinate being is inseparable from its determinateness, therefore, we have only refined our view of determinateness present existence.

Now we can say that before us is a very definite, qualitative existence, or SOMETHING . The root “what” expresses being, and the prefix “not” is its inherent negation, which gives depth to certainty. Similarly, the synonym for the word "something" - "something" - contains these two elements. The root “what” expresses being, and the postfix “that” is demonstrative, defining negation. The question "What?" suggests that there is something, and the answer "That!" points to the concrete that is, in other words, to its determinateness.

The something we have received is the first negation of negation (NL 108) in the sense that we first denied determinate being as non-being, having obtained determinateness, then we denied determinateness by the fact that it is also determinate being, having finally seen something as a determinate determinate being.

Something is not a concrete thing, but only a superficial view of something as an existing being. We have received something in a sphere where there is not yet sufficient tension, depth, where there is still nothing but the present being, enriched by its own negation. Something is only the beginning of an object. We have not yet even fully balanced the moments of formation, because we still look at the existence of an abstract, one-sided. Nothing (negation), having turned into non-being, then into certainty, then into quality as reality and as negation, is still not equivalent to being (positive), which unduly dominates it. Therefore, further we will continue to dig out negation, but already at the level of something.

Definite existence, something - that which is and that which is. In other words, it is (positive, being) and it is something (negative, nothing).


So, we have before us something in the sphere of existence as such. The latter means that we look at becoming (the "unity" of being and nothingness) one-sidedly, as being.

“In determinate being a) as such, one must first of all distinguish its determinateness b) as a quality. The latter, however, must be taken both in one and in the other definition of determinate being, as a reality and as a negation. But in these determinatenesses, determinate being is also reflected into itself, and posited as such, it is (c) something that exists" (NL 101).

So, firstly, something is being, and secondly, it is a determinate being, for it is taken as a whole, as becoming (the “unity” of being and nothing) or, in other words, as being enriched by its inherent non-being, in- thirdly, the internal moments of this unity are mutually mediated, they gave us certainty - a quality in the form of reality and simple negation.

We need to continue the logical search for the disclosure of the negative (nothing) in order to balance the becoming. As Hegel writes, before that we considered cash being as a definition of being, in which negativity (determinacy in the form of quality - reality and negation) was only negation in general, "the first negation", and now we have to define it further to "inside-itself- being something, to the negation of negation” (NL 111). This just means to find in something an equal, inherent, negative moment in something in order to balance the formation.

However, the study of nothingness as the reverse side of existing being has exhausted itself. We have found certainty - quality, but further development of our view of certainty (as we understand it) turns out to be impossible. There is nothing else to do, looking into something does not give us anything. But at the same time, we remember that the negative (nothing) must acquire an equivalent position, we will inevitably find two opposites equal to each other, similar to the original being and nothing, but on a new level. The only way to continue the movement of thought is to take something itself as nothing , as negative.

Something taken as nothing is another something or simply another (=other). The Other is something devoid of certainty. Seeing before us the original something and another something, we now find out what their difference consists in. [The word "DIFFERENCE" is too early to use, it, in my opinion, implies a difference in certainty, differences, and we don't have them yet. Comparing two somethings does not produce any definite difference between them.]

The first thing to note is that it doesn't matter what you take for something. If we took for "something" the original something, it means that something else is "other". If they took something else for "something", then the original something is "other". The same is true and vice versa, if the original something is taken as "another", it means that another something is taken for "something" (NL 111). The only logical way out is to take the other only as "other" . This means that if we mentally imagine that the other we have taken is retained precisely as another, does not become something for us, then it is equal to itself and not equal to itself .

To simplify understanding, you can imagine three things. We take something 1 and something 2. Something 1 is “other” something 2, and something 2 is “other” something 1. But we will make a trick, we will take something 3 as “other” in relation to something 1 and something 2. In this case something 3 is simultaneously “other” in relation to something 1, in relation to something 2 and at the same time is equal to something 1 as “other” something 2, and also equally with something 2 as “other” something 1. It turns out that something 3 equal to itself and not equal to itself. In fact, this relationship is also revealed with two somethings, the third something is given only for clarity.

Within the framework of our logical path, there is still no quantity, we consider only qualitative certainty, therefore, even the two somethings found are not two “things”, but only the “other” we saw in a certain existence. I would say that this is similar to when a child at some point begins to realize that he will not remain the same, tomorrow he will become a little different, and for example, after graduating from school - in many ways different, adults.

It is clear that Hegel reveals the form of the existence of matter - movement, change. He, without introducing the axiom of the motion of matter, considering only the first approximation of objects in the form of existence, from the mere fact that the basis of all objects is the opposition of two principles (being and nothingness, positive and negative), he deduces the category of change.

For clarity, I propose reasoning based on real things. Let's take something simple. Let's say there are a lot of stones. What conclusion can a person draw from this on the basis of ordinary or formal thinking? That all stones are different, but they are all stones. That's all. Or even worse, that each stone exists, as it were, as an individual, and their commonality is just a mental convention. Hegel, on the other hand, from this multitude of stones finds out that each stone is equal to itself and not equal to itself, that is, it is constantly changing. How does he discover it? Taking one stone for something (that is, abstracting from everything that is defined in a stone, except for the fact that it is a present being), another stone for another and further, as we did above, finds out what the “other” actually is, why the other stone is generally different , why are not all stones something absolutely uniform and monolithic? Since there is a difference between them, it means that each of them is the embodiment of this property of being [matter] to distinguish, that is, he is what he is, and he is not what he is. Moreover, this logic works with any objects, they do not have to be homogeneous. Since we see a house and a person, we observe their difference, it means that a person is equal to himself and not equal to himself, a house is equal to itself and not equal to itself. This is what dialectics teaches. This position requires that you carefully, slowly reflect on it. Since we see a house and a person, we observe their difference, it means that a person is equal to himself and not equal to himself, a house is equal to itself and not equal to itself. This is what dialectics teaches. This position requires that you carefully, slowly reflect on it. Since we see a house and a person, we observe their difference, it means that a person is equal to himself and not equal to himself, a house is equal to itself and not equal to itself. This is what dialectics teaches. This position requires that you carefully, slowly reflect on it.

Thus, the other, taken in isolation, is the other of itself (NL 112). Or, as some like to say, the other of the other is the other (that is, it is the same and different). So, considering something in isolation as other, we found that change is inherent in it. But not a change in the formal sense, that something ceases to be itself, becomes absolutely qualitatively different, but as a moment of this something, that is, it becomes different, remaining itself.

The reasoning about change refers to every something, to our original something and to the something that we introduced when we took something as nothing.

However, in order to draw a conclusion from what has been said, we need to pay attention to the fact that reasoning about something and another something (otherness), about revealing the moments of equality and inequality of something with itself, was made in relation to the existence and did not affect the certainty of something. When we took something as nothing, we reasoned about something only as about the presence of being. Consequently, we have received conclusions only about the existence of something.

The moment of inequality of existence with itself, the change of this existence is called BEING-FOR-ANOTHER . The moment of equality of existence with itself is called IN-ITSELF-BEING .

Hegel describes the inequality of existence with itself in this way:

“Determinant being as such is immediate, irrelevant; or, in other words, it is in the determination of being. But determinate being, as including non-being, is a determinate being that has undergone negation within itself, and then, in the closest way, another; but since it is at the same time also preserved in its subjection to negation, it is only being for the other” (NL 113).

Thus, determinate being, as we remember, is a one-sided positively taken "unity" of being and nothing, or "simple unity of being and nothing", it includes certainty as negation, the development of which (negation) gave us the concept of "other", therefore , determinate being in this case is only being-for-the-other. Definitive being exists, as it were, only in change, in the transition into something else .

Further, Hegel describes the moment of equality of existing being with itself in the following way:

Determinate being, which we have seen only as being for the other, “is preserved in its lack of presence of being and is being; but not being in general, but as a relationship with oneself in contrast to its relationship with another, as equality with oneself in contrast to its inequality. Such being is being-in-itself.

Why, when we found such a powerful negation as "other", did not our entire existing being become this other? Or, in other words, why is it possible to step into the same river twice? A change in existing being cannot lead to a qualitatively absolutely different existing being, at least because this changing existing being does not contain another existing being, and there cannot be other external sources of change, therefore, with its essence, it seems to resist being for another (change ). Consequently, determinate being is also being-in-itself .

It is important, by the way, that Hegel put change in the first place, and defined “selfhood” only from the opposite, as resistance to change. This again expresses the priority of the universal, because to remain oneself in the absolute process of change is only a moment of this very change. While vulgar philosophy and everyday consciousness do exactly the opposite, they consider the world as a set of things that, if they change, then only under the external influence of each other, do not have a reason for self-change within themselves.

Hegel:

"Something is in itself, in so far as it has gone out of being-for-other, has returned into itself."

The expression "in itself" means that we look at being as immutable, as if from its own point of view, from its own logical disposition. The word “being-in-itself”, generally speaking, expresses a certain “selfhood”, inner immediacy (as, for example, “thing-in-itself”) and does not correspond to the fact that being-in-itself is formed, starting from being-for -other. This name reveals induction, so Hegel later clarifies it.

It follows that being-for-others and being-in-itself, as we understand them, constitute two moments of the determinate being of something, thereby transforming it in our eyes into a changing something. The truth is so far only in the plane of existence. As we remember, the development of our view of the negative, after the establishment of a certain existence (something) as a one-sidedly posited becoming, led us to the idea of ​​the “other” (something). This, in turn, made it possible to reveal the two opposite moments of existence indicated above. These moments themselves together are not the product of negativity, on the contrary, each of them expresses its side - positive (being) or negative (nothing). Hegel writes:

“Being and nothingness in their unity, which is existence, are no longer being and nothingness. They are such only outside their unity. In their restless unity, in becoming, they are arising and passing. — Being into something is being-in-itself. Being, relation to oneself, equality with oneself, is now no longer immediate, but is relation to oneself only as the non-being of other being (as a determinate being reflected into itself). And in exactly the same way, non-being, as a moment of something in this unity of being and non-being, is not the absence of determinate being in general, but another, and, more specifically, in distinguishing being from it, it is at the same time a correlation with its own lack of determinate being, being- for the other” (NL 114).

Now the same thing, but a little different. The “other” (something) is a kind of new form of negation for us, the otherness of our something. The quality of this otherness differs from the quality of something in that it constitutes, as it were, the breadth of the existence of something and is being-for-other. In turn, the being of the quality (determination) of the original something, in contrast to this relationship with another, is being in-itself (EFN 157-158).

Being-for-other and being-in-itself are obviously opposed and at first glance are immediate to each other. But if we take a closer look, we will discover their identity, which manifests itself precisely in the repulsion of the moment of equality with oneself (in-itself-being) from change (being-for-other) and is expressed approximately as follows: what is not in itself passes into that, what is in itself (NL 116). Being-in-itself is mediated by being-for-the-other. Being-in-itself is the exit from being-for-other "into itself". That is, conditionally, for example, we are what we are, because we are not others. And the same way: we become different, that is, those that we are not, but at the same time remaining ourselves.

It can be seen that considering being-for-other and being-in-itself, we fix in their connection a certain new understanding that being in-itself is not just a moment of equality with itself, but a moment of equality with itself, mediated by all that, what something is not, that is, as it were, everything else. And I remind you again that we do not yet have a quantity, therefore, by “other” we mean not other things, like other things, but other states of this something, its change. And something with us is not some concrete, not some thing, but something in general, an abstraction that embraces any thing.

So, a new understanding of the moment of equality, that which was "in itself", Hegel changes to "in it", IN-IT-BEING . This means that the moment of equality with oneself is not a “selfhood”, not a “thing-in-itself”, not a mystical inductive individual, but being in itself. That is, this is the same being, but not for another, but in itself . Being-for-other is in him. We, as it were, got out of the logical disposition of the immutable existence and saw a wider picture, now it is clear that the moment of immutability is relative, mediated by the thrust of the transition to something else. It generally exists only because we have fixed the “other”.

Now we must find out the significance of these moments for the certainty of something. Determinate being, to which they have been related in our consideration so far, is inextricably linked with its determinateness. We, as it were, fill these moments with certainty - equality and inequality something with ourselves.

By the way, in the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, Hegel generally omits the derivation of the moments of equality and inequality with oneself for existing being, immediately writes about their significance for certainty (EFN 157 - 158).

First of all, let us clarify that being-for-other as the breadth of the existence of something belongs to this something itself;

Considered through the prism of the moments of equality and inequality with itself, certainty is no longer just an abstract certainty of something, but a real certainty , which we put “reflected into itself”, that is, already fully developed, as if reflected from these established moments of existence.

To business. In what form have we left certainty? The certainty of a changing something is first of all a reality, that is, a quality enriched by its own simple negation. Hegel also calls such determinateness being. Further, as we remember, we revealed the "other". What does this "other" mean for the existing reality, given the data obtained about the moments of equality and inequality with oneself? First of all, this means that the “other” is some kind of otherness of our quality, our reality. But at the same time, the “other” and our something are one and the same, they are inseparable. This means that this other being (“other”) is, as it were, the breadth of our something, and not something from outside. In turn, our quality, our reality, the existence of our quality as such, is only a product of correlation with this otherness.

Hegel calls this quality, the reality, determinateness in-itself . Next, you need to introduce a separate name for this quality, reality, “put it as this determinateness reflected into itself” in the words of Hegel (NL 118).

How could one call such a quality, reality, which, as it were, is a reflection from everything else, retains itself in contrast to the transition to something else? - Appointment of something or its DEFINITION .

“The quality which is “in itself” (das Ansich) in a simple something, which is essentially in unity with another moment of the latter, with being-in-it, can be called its definition, insofar as this word is distinguished in its exact meaning from determinateness in general. . Determination is affirmative determinateness as being-in-itself to which something in its determinate being, struggling with its intertwining with that other by which it could be determined, remains corresponding, holding itself in its equality with itself and manifesting this latter in its being-for. -other. Something fulfills its definition (destination) because further determinateness, growing in a diverse way on the basis of its relation to another, becomes corresponding to its in-itself-being, becomes its fullness. The definition implies that what something is in itself

Since this segment of the text is quite popularized, we will analyze in more detail all its components.

First, why quality and not reality? The fact is that an isolated certainty is taken, and it is called, first of all, quality. Is the definition real? Yes, of course, it is in general a whole definite existence, and therefore reality - we will come to this below.

Second, what does quality mean in itself? This means that Hegel begins the "setting of thought" with being-in-itself, with that kind of "self" quality, with its certain isolation and immediacy. After the word “quality”, he describes something like a logical arc – being-in-itself, being-in-itself, filling with certainty (“being essentially in unity”).

Thirdly, this chain can be deciphered, roughly speaking, as follows: a quality that is invariably what it is, but opposite to its other into something, making this something itself qualitative in accordance with its certainty, is a definition. Below Hegel gives an example of thinking - a person is thinking "in itself" in the sense that thinking is inherent only in a person. We look, as it were, from the “selfhood” of a person, that is, thinking, we take it in isolation, directly, therefore it is “in-itself”. However, thinking did not fall from heaven, but is a reverse reflection (negation) of the biological in man, opposite to it, therefore thinking is seen not only “in itself”, but already in itself. Therefore, thinking does not sit in a person somehow isolated, it is the person himself, thinking as a whole, thinking in him. That is, this "in-itself", as it were, repelled from the whole being-for-other in man and determined everything in general.

Two comments must be made on the concept of definition (appointment).

First. The Hegelian category of definition is not the same as the scientific meaning of the term "definition". Some are armed with the above quotation from the Science of Logic in an effort to define various phenomena. They say, for example, that since a definition is a quality, then you need to take “one quality” of the phenomenon and dance from it. In fact, the quality that constitutes the Hegelian concept of definition is not any particular quality, as in the example of thinking. This is the whole certainty of something, taken in the moment of equality with itself. Moreover, there are no “other qualities”. Below there will be an “other” determinateness—in the sense of the determinateness of something, taken in the moment of inequality with oneself, of being-for-another. The concept of "definition" is a concept from the sphere of being, a synonym for purpose, the purpose of something. It is generally paired, it cannot be taken by itself. AND,

[Scientifically, a definition is a verbal formulation of the current level of a concept. The true concept for each specific phenomenon or connection of phenomena is always one, and there can be several definitions, that is, formulations of the concept. The definition is always brief, only roughly formulates the current level of the concept, while its detailed presentation includes the entire movement of scientific thought. For example, the book “Capital. Marx's Critique of Political Economy is a detailed exposition of the scientific concept of "capitalism".

The true concept changes only in the sense that there is a transition from the truth of one order to the truth of the next, deeper order. There are, of course, true concepts, which, having exhausted their depth through cognition, have become absolute complete truths. This concerns the fundamental categories of being, the most general laws of society and history, as well as the whole mass of phenomena that disappeared in the course of the development of nature or society, but were nevertheless known.]

Second. So far, we have considered the moments of equality and inequality as a change in existing being or something. Therefore, they brought out a changing something. However, in the course of reasoning about the significance of these moments for certainty, it turned out that the moment of inequality with oneself (being-for-other) can express not only a change in certainty, but also that side of it, which, as it were, does not relate to the meaningthis something. Take the same example with a person. The spiritual (thinking) in a person is "in itself", then deeper - "in him", which is the opposite of his being-for-another - bodily. Here, the corporeality of man as something is the being-for-other of his determinateness, although it is impossible to represent the spirit and the body as unchanging and changing. Here, as equality and inequality with themselves, they express the main and the secondary, the important and the unimportant, the primary and the secondary. And this is generally understandable, equality with oneself should cover, first of all, what is important, and inequality with oneself - what is not important.

The definition (appointment) of something is an expression of positivity, an elucidation of certainty, posited only as being. Yes, we remember that the definition (appointment) was, as it were, repelled, formed from the opposite - from the negative definition of the "other", but this is hidden, not on the surface. On the surface, we have a definition (appointment) as a definite existence, that is, a whole something. As if the imbalance of positive and negative in becoming has intensified even more. We urgently need to increase the depth of the negative moment of certainty as being-for-other.

In this case, Hegel writes:

The filling of being-in-itself with determinateness is also different from that determinateness, which is only being-for-other and remains outside determination. For in the realm of [categories] of quality, differences retain, even in their sublation, a direct qualitative being in relation to each other. What something has in it is thus divided, and in this respect it is an external determinate being, something whose determinate being is also its determinate being, but does not belong to its being-in-itself. Determination is thus character” (NL 119).

The second sentence is translated somewhat clumsily. This means that the difference between being-in-itself and being-for-other, filled with certainty, is already a difference in quality, and not just in a more abstract, present being.

Thus, determinateness as being-in-itself (and, consequently, “in it”) is determination (purpose). With this, everything is clear, we are interested in certainty as being-for-other. In this case, firstly, it is also “in it”, and secondly, expressing the moment of inequality of something with itself, it means change and something unimportant or external. Hegel called this "external existence" - CHARACTER . This is the certainty that does not determine the essence of something, alien, but belonging to it . It is this certainty that is the source of change and something is subjected to external influence on it. She seems to be something else.

However, it is important to remember that there are no two certainties, we are looking at the same certainty, just now we understand its negative side much more deeply. For example, the division of thinking in a person and his corporeality is very arbitrary, because he thinks through biochemical processes, that is, through the body. It cannot be said that this is where the corporality of a person ends and that he is thinking begins, and vice versa.


So something is equal to itself and not equal to itself. The change into something takes place in its determinateness, namely, in its character. Character is that moment in something which becomes something else. Hegel calls character the impermanent surface of the otherness of something (NL 119). Something remains unchanged in its definition (purpose), that is, in a moment that remains itself. In this opposition of definition (appointment) and character lies their difference. Moreover, both the definition (appointment) and the character of something are one and the same determinateness of it—that is, in this they are identical.

One should take a closer look at the identity of definition (purpose) and character. Does it consist only in the fact that they are both one and the same determinateness? Not only. The fact is that the moment of being-in-itself (equality with oneself), the filling of which with certainty gave us the definition (purpose), was established, as we remember, as a repulsion from the moment of being-for-other (inequality with oneself ) , which Hegel called "in-it-being", therefore, at the level of certainty, that is, definition (purpose) and character, he must manifest himself in a similar way. At first glance, the definition (purpose) does not care about character, but if we take the definition (purpose) not just as being-in-itself, but as being-in-itself (as being-for-other is in ititself), it is obvious, firstly, that the definition (appointment) itself was once a character, secondly, that the character is able, as it were, to penetrate into the definition (appointment), changing it, thirdly, that the definition may be reduced to character.

The result was a monstrous philosophical garden (NL 120), which Hegel himself, for example, in the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, generally misses, apparently in order not to completely confuse students. Lenin did not consider it necessary to comment on this fragment in his summary. If we look at the Hegelian proposition not from its logic, but from a diamatic point of view, then its essence becomes clear.

So, Hegel unfolds the system of categories from the axiom of abstract being, therefore, he deprives himself of the opportunity at the stage under discussion to operate with the categories of change, the movement of matter and the interdependence of its forms. He generally argues about being outside the category of matter. But at the same time, Hegel’s dialectical logic strives for the most reliable reflection of the logic of the real existence of matter, therefore he understood that in-itself-being and in-itself-being, filled with certainty, that is, definition (purpose), does not fall from the sky, is not "self", given out of nowhere, but is the result of repulsion from the other. Something is what it is, not because God created it that way, but because it is nothing else. Hegel cannot, within the framework of his logic, explain this in any other way, except by introducing this separate moment of the identity of "in-it-being", which entails a link between definition (purpose) and character, their transition into each other. This is such an inevitable mystical outgrowth that covers Hegel's prediction of the real diamatics of movement, change as a form of existence of matter. In the future, this mystification will develop in depth, expressing the universal connection of the elements of being.

So, definition (appointment) and character are opposite, being one and the same certainty. Moreover, this determinateness is inseparable from the present being, therefore, in their opposition, they form, as it were, two things. It turns out that the definition (appointment) and character are two somethings in one, the original something. It seems that we have finally brought determinateness in present being as an expression of negativity (nothing) to its fuller disclosure. Now a determinate existence (something) is posited as a changing something, the moments of which are two somethings—determination (purpose) and character. If earlier we fixed something and something else as some abstractions, only assuming that in the future their qualitative difference would be revealed, now the difference in definition (purpose) and character appeared before us asquality change . Here, perhaps, Hegel could be satisfied with the resulting beautiful philosophical symmetry, because he is often just accused of "schemes". So, by the way, do some contemporary epigones of Hegel, who interpret this fragment in the spirit of the equality of definition (purpose) and character as two moments of something. However, Hegel himself does not do this, but starts, on the basis of the relation of definition (appointment) to character, an argument about something as a whole, writes that something is something precisely as the removal of its other.

“The negation of one’s other is only the quality of the given something” (NL 121, note that in the seventh line on this page the typo is not “nothing”, but “something”).

Thus, the being-within-itself, that is, the whole content of something, is the “non-being of other being,” or, to put it more simply, the negation of the entire external universe. Something is unique not because it is unique in itself, but because it is different from everything else. This is a normal diamatic position, following from the axiom about the unity of the world and the defining role of the general in the individual, but presented in a mystical way. For example, idealists argue that an individual is such because he was uniquely created or, for example, is the product of a set of genes. Diamatic, without denying the biological role of heredity, argues that the individual is created by circumstances, that is, he is "the non-existence of his otherness."

Therefore, Hegel presciently writes that something preserves itself through the cessation of some other. Which brings us to a new understanding of the certainty of something as a qualitative BORDER .

“It is only in its limit and because of its limit that something is what it is. It is impossible, therefore, to consider the boundary as merely external to existing being; it, on the contrary, penetrates into all existence” (EFN 159).

Certainty in this case acts as the boundary of quality , not quantity. In the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, Hegel cites a piece of land as an example. Its quantitative boundary is the area and geometric shape, and its qualitative boundary is what kind of plot it is, say, arable land, onion, forest, pond, or a combination of the above. The qualitative boundary is the reality of the existence of something, its certainty .

The concept of the boundary of quality embraces both definition (purpose) and character; in general, it became possible in our consideration due to the opposition and identity of definition (purpose) and character. The role of the category of character, in fact, comes down to connecting the content of something with the external, with the other, so that the boundary is not only a limitation of this something for itself, but also a limitation of this something for another. In the future, this will make it possible to assert that any border, by its very essence, entails overcoming, overstepping, because it is partly related to something else. All this intricacies serves simple axioms about the movement (change) of matter and the material unity of the universe (the mutual connection of everything with everything).

As we remember, we were faced with the task of “equalizing” the one-sidedness of existing being and seeing the formation with the equality of its moments. We looked at nothing through the chain: 1) non-existence - 2) certainty (quality) - 3) identity and opposition of definition (purpose) and character, and, finally, 4) qualitative border. It is precisely the border that has gained equality with existing being.

Whatever we take, it is, therefore, it is being. At the same time, it is limited in its definiteness , which means that it is nothing in the sense that the boundary, on the one hand, shows that its definiteness is only the negation of the other, on the other hand, it leads to a transition into the other. The latter allows, among other things, to speak of something as changing.

If something is taken away from certainty, that is, its boundary, then one empty being will turn out. If you take away being from something, then you get one empty nothingness, that is, the same empty being, but taken as negativity.


The boundary is one of the deepest and most interesting categories of the realm of being.

The transition of character into definition (appointment), that is, the transition of something into another, that is, overcoming the boundary of something, becomes in Hegel a consequence of self-movement, which we discovered, even seeing nothing in being. Hegel very poetically writes that something, like the other, is the other (NL 121).

Let's repeat an important point. The certainty of something, taken as within-itself-being (the boundary, taken as if from the inner, limiting side), is the non-being of other being, that is, the denial of everything else. And this otherness, as we remember, is contained in the same certainty something in the form of character. One can, perhaps, say that the content of something is both its uniqueness (distinction from everything), and everything that affects it from the outside, from which its definition (purpose) is repelled and its character is formed. Something is always a negation in the sense that it is the cessation in it of every other (Hegel writes "some other", but I think it would be more accurate to say "any other" - perhaps these are translation errors).

Considering earlier being-for-other, filled with certainty, we found out that this is character, then we found out that certainty as a whole is the boundary of something, therefore, we deepen our understanding and now we have the right to call being-for-other already non-being- for- another . That is, character within the category of boundary appears as a qualitative negation of the other. The boundary in this sense is the non-existence-for-other.

And this is understandable, because the other is also some something, therefore, the boundary of our something is also a boundary in relation to another, is also its boundary. Therefore, the boundary is the non-existence of another something. But since the boundary of our something for another something is also a boundary separating them, it means that this boundary is also non-being for our something, as for the other in relation to the second something. Hence, the boundary is the non-existence of any something in general .

At first glance, this conclusion looks paradoxical, because it turns out that the certainty of something manifests itself as its own non-existence and as the non-existence of all something in general. But what is really paradoxical here, if, as we remember, determinateness as a whole is “non-being taken into being in such a way that the concrete whole has the form of being”? This we already know and we have learned by heart. And at this stage, we must understand that no matter what the certainty is, no matter what couples of something we take, if we are talking about a qualitative border, that is, about a sufficiently deep understanding of certainty, it still remains non-existence, and no matter what something is being said. The determinations of all somethings are identical, just as the non-existence of every something, if these definitions are already considered as a boundary. I will give an extensive extract from the NL (122) to consolidate what has been said:

“Something, therefore, is immediate determinate being in relation to itself, and has a boundary in the immediate way as a boundary in relation to another; it is the non-being of the other, and not of the something itself; the latter limits its other in it. But the other is itself something in general; therefore, the limit that something has in relation to another is also the limit of the other as something, the limit of this something, by which it does not admit the first something as its other, or, in other words, it is the non-being of this first something; thus, it is not only the non-existence of the other, but is the non-existence of both one and the other something, and, therefore, the non-existence of [every] something in general. But it is also essentially the non-being of the other; thus something is at the same time due to its boundary. Being limiting, something, however, is lowered to the point that it itself turns out to be limited, but its limit, as the cessation of the other in it, at the same time is itself only the being of this something; the latter is due to it what it is, has its quality in it. This relation is the external manifestation of the circumstance that the boundary is a simple or first negation, while the other is at the same time the negation of the negation, within-itself-being-given something. Something as immediate, present being is, therefore, a limit in relation to another something, but it has it in itself and is something through its mediation, which is also its non-being. It is that mediation through which something and the other are as much as they are not.

It should be noted that we consider qualitative certainty not in the fullness of real things, as is customary in everyday thinking, but only as a difference from another. That is, the certainty of something at a given level is not the certainty of a chair, table, or closet, but only an abstract idea that certainty, as non-being (nothing) of existing being, as a qualitative boundary, distinguishes between something and another something.

(Continued on following post.)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Request Line: Why, "Plato was a jerk"

Post by blindpig » Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:59 pm

(Continued from previous post. Is it getting any easier?))

The perspicacious reader should already understand what Hegel is getting at. It turns out that something is and is not in its boundary . Something beyond its borders, that is, beyond its determinateness, is unlimited, only present being without negation, without nothingness. This is the road leading back. Something in its border, due to the fact that its border is the non-existence of any something, reveals in itself self-movement, a transgression of the border. Something, together with an immanent boundary, posited as a negation (Hegel writes "contradiction") of itself, by virtue of which it is deduced and pursued outside itself, is the FINITE (NL 125).

The main point to be made clear here is that the finitude of something means not only limitation—its beginning and end—but also, which is often overlooked, constant change . And this is understandable, because something that is finite always has stages of existence, to put it simply: emergence, formation, flourishing, withering, death.

Thus, every quality of something is always limited .

Once again: we were faced with the task of “equalizing” the one-sidedness of existing being and seeing the formation with the equality of its moments. We looked at nothing through the chain: 1) non-existence - 2) certainty (quality = reality and negation) - 3) identity and opposition of definition (purpose) and character, and, finally, 4) qualitative border. It is the border that has gained equality with the existing being. And now we finally saw this full-fledged something with an equal being and nothing, that is , something in which quality is its limit , as finite .

“When we say that things are finite, we mean by this that they not only have some determinateness, that quality is not only a reality and a determination that is-in-itself, that they are not only limited, but as such they are they still have a determinate being outside their boundaries, but that, on the contrary, non-being constitutes their nature, their being. Finite things are, but their relation to themselves consists in the fact that they are related to themselves as negative, that it is precisely in this relation to themselves that they drive themselves beyond themselves, beyond their being. They are, but the truth of this being is their end. The finite not only changes, like something in general, but passes; and it is not only possible that it passes, so that it could be without passing, but the being of finite things as such consists in the fact that they bear in themselves the germ of passing,

Speaking materialistically, the movement of infinite matter gives rise to an infinite number of its finite forms. The finite nature of all elements of the material world is itself infinite and absolute matter, the form of being of which is movement.


To consolidate what I have analyzed, I draw attention to the following quote from Hegel from the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences with a simplified presentation of the transition from something to the finite:

“Negation in determinate being is still directly identical with being, and this negation is what we call a boundary. It is only in its limit and because of its limit that something is what it is. It is impossible, therefore, to consider the boundary as merely external to existing being; on the contrary, it pervades all existing being... Looking closer to the boundary, we find that it contains a contradiction and, consequently, turns out to be dialectical. On the one hand, the boundary constitutes the reality of existence, and on the other hand, it is its negation. But, further, the boundary, as the negation of something, is not an abstract nothing at all, but an existent nothingness or what we call some other. The thought of something entails the thought of another, and we know that there is not only something, but also something else. But the other is not what only we find, so that something could also be conceived without it, but something is in itself the other of itself, and in the other its own limit becomes objective. If we now ask the question, what is the difference between something and something else, it turns out that both of them are one and the same; this sameness finds its expression in the Latin language in the designation aliud = aliud (other = other). The other, the opposing something, is itself something, and that is why we say: something else. In the same way, the first something opposite to another, also defined as something, is itself something else. When we say: something else, we first imagine that something, taken in itself, is only something, and the definition "other" is given to it only by purely external consideration. We think, for example, that the moon, which is something other than the sun, might be even if there was no sun. But in reality the moon (as something) has its other in itself, and this constitutes its finitude. Plato says: God made the world from the nature of one and the other; he combined them and formed from them a third, which has the nature of one and the other. These words generally express the nature of the finite, which, as something, does not indifferently oppose another, but is in itself the other of itself and, therefore, changes. Change reveals an internal contradiction, which suffers from the very beginning and which forces the latter to go beyond its limits. To the conception, existence appears at first as simply positive and at the same time calmly dwelling within its limits. It is true that we also know that everything finite (and such is existence) is subject to change. This variability of present being seems, however, representation only as a possibility, the realization of which has no basis in itself. In reality, however, determinate being changes in its very concept, and change is only a manifestation of what determinate being is in itself. The living dies, and dies simply because, as such, it carries within itself the germ of death” (EFN 160).

It can be seen that in a later exposition for a less prepared public, Hegel is quite ready to proceed from the axiom of the motion of matter and avoids the garden with the category of character.

So, before us is finite , that is, something, the certainty of which is considered as a boundary . Beyond this something is only another something, the boundary of which, in turn, is also the boundary for the original something. It turns out a rather vague picture, because the level of our immersion is limited to the sphere of being, we see everything only as the same things. They are connected by a boundary, and we must look closely at this connection, already in the aspect of the finitude of something.

The finitude of something means that it has a beginning and an end. What does the border mean in this sense? In this sense, its boundary is the LIMIT . The limit is the own limit of something, posited as negative . The limit is not some external, but its own limitation.

The finitude of something also means that it moves, changes towards its end and beyond. What does the border mean in this sense? In this sense, its boundary is OBJECTIVE . The obligation is the negative relation of something to itself as a limit .

We can say that the definition (appointment) of something is its obligation, and the boundary, taken only as a negation, is its limit. The identity of the obligation and the limit lies in the fact that the limit is also a definition (appointment) of something, since it is inherent in it. The opposite of the obligation and the limit is that the obligation obviously transcends the limit, since something is finite, has an end.

“As an obligation something, therefore, is above its limit, but vice versa, only as an obligation it has its limit; both are inseparable. Something has a limit insofar as it has a negation in its definition, and the definition is also the sublation of the limit” (NL 131).

The duty and the limit are two moments of the finite. Their relationship is itself finite (NL 135). These manifestations of the definition (appointment) of something are qualitatively opposite, the limit is the negation of the obligation, and the obligation is the negation of the limit, its transgression. Thus, the finite is "internal self-contradiction, it sublates itself, it passes away."

Now our foggy picture with the same something is saturated with dynamics. If before it seemed that there was nowhere to continue the logical movement, now we see a glimpse. The finite, by the very meaning of this concept, cannot be absolute, because the finite always has an end. What follows after this end something to which it is driven by duty? Something else. Beyond the end of another something? Something else again. And so on ad infinitum. A new concept of infinity arises before us as an endless movement from the finite to the finite, through the transgression of the limit.

The important thing follows from this - that the finite contains not only the end (and, naturally, the beginning), but also the infinite . The infinite as the negation of the finite.

The infinite, understood as an endless transition from the finite to the finite, Hegel calls the rational or bad infinite. Such an infinite, when viewed, turns out to be the boundary of the finite, that is ... a finite infinite , insoluble contradiction (NL 140). There is some meaningless otherworldly emptiness beyond the finite, expressed by the phrase "and so on ad infinitum." Such an infinite cannot be freed from the finite, it is logically elusive. This representation is characteristic of formalism.

In order to get out of this predicament, it is necessary to consider the unity of the finite and the infinite, which we have formally fixed.

Let us return for a moment to our logical process of movement as a whole. Becoming, which was first seen as being and nothing, then as something and other, now manifests itself as finite and infinite. We remember that in the finite, we finally fixed the equality of two moments - positive and negative - being and nothing. Now we again have a pair, reflecting the formation - finite and infinite. Can the finite and the infinite be equal to each other? Obviously, this is impossible, because already the finite, that is, something with an immanent boundary, expresses the equality of being (something as a determinate being) and nothing (certainty as its boundary). This is also why bad infinity, taken as an equal negation of the finite, as nothing, comes to its own finiteness.

This is followed by a conclusion that destroys the vulgar notions of dialectics as a "spinning top" of becoming. Almost all perverters of dialectics pass it off as the principle of the struggle of two equal principles. They do not read the Science of Logic to the category of the infinite, so it seems to them that becoming is the main category of dialectics. This approach turns dialectics into relativism. Thus, in fact, he denies not only the presence of a leading side in any identity of opposites, but also the absolute in general. If the existence of the universe is only the ratio of positive and negative, “plus” and “minus” in everything, as the unfortunate dialecticians imagine, then there is neither absolute space, nor absolute time, nor the absoluteness of matter taken as a whole. The methodology of dialectics degenerates into subjective idealism,


The announced conclusion is simple and elegant, like everything truly ingenious. There is only the infinite, and the finite is a moment of the infinite . This diamatic axiom, actually adopted by Hegel, has the speculative wording of "proof" and "deduction" in the NL:

“In fact, the infinite, taken as it truly is, is a process in which it lowers itself to being only one of its determinations, to oppose the finite, and therefore to be itself only one of the finite, and then sublates this distinction of oneself from oneself transforms it into an affirmation of oneself and is, through this mediation, truly infinite” (NL 151).

Hegel comes to this formulation after analyzing the concept of “the unity of the infinite and the finite” (we touched on this above in the text) and a separate consideration of the infinite and the finite (this was omitted so as not to overload the reader). He rejects both options and comes to the above conclusion.

Of course, infinity, the absoluteness of being cannot be proved by such philosophical reasoning. Infinity, the absoluteness of being is an axiom of diamatics, adopted from a materialistic consideration of all socio-historical practice . Roughly speaking, if we comprehend the totality of the facts and laws known to science, then a different state of affairs is impossible and unthinkable.

Therefore, Hegelian dialectics is not a “swing” of equal moments of formation, plus and minus, but the formation of infinite, absolute being, in which being (what is) is immediately infinite, and its certainty (as if “nothing” in Hegel ’s terms ) is finite, existent.

Such a consideration of infinite being leads Hegel to the idea that it is the true REALITY . The "reality" that we saw above, when considering the quality, was only an abstraction, an approach of thought.

“True infinity, thus taken in general as determinate being, posited as affirmative as opposed to abstract negation, is a reality in a higher sense than the reality that was simply defined before; she got some concrete content here. The finite is not the real, but the infinite” (NL 152).

In turn, Hegel called the finite not very well - idealized, trying to express the fact that the finite is not an independent entity, but a moment of the infinite. First, Hegel thus wanted to challenge the common misconception that the finite is reality, and the infinite is, as it were, ideal, something unobservable and controversial. Secondly, Hegel sought to designate any philosophy as idealism:

“The ideality of the finite is the basic position of philosophy, and every truly philosophical doctrine is therefore idealism. It is only important not to accept as infinite that which, by its very characteristics, immediately turns us into special and finite. Therefore, we have paid more attention to it here and developed this distinction at length: the basic concept of philosophy, truly infinite, depends on it” (EFN 164).

Unfortunately, the language does not have a suitable word for this category, but, in my opinion, the term OBJECT is better . All objects are finite, but the matter of which they are moments is absolute and infinite.

Some interpret the Hegelian category of reality in a purely idealistic way, citing as an example that humanity is infinite (reality), and individual people are finite (idealized or ideal) or nature is infinite (reality), and its individual manifestations are finite (ideal). Consequently, the category of infinity is reduced to the category of the general. In my opinion, this is incorrect.

Thus, the whole picture of categories, which Hegel unfolded before, and after him, we, as it were, turned upside down. It turned out that it was impossible to look the way we looked at existence, certainty, quality, and so on. It was only an approach to introducing the category of infinity. Now it has become clear that, for example, something is not just a vague formation of “unity” and mutual negation of being and nothing, but an abstraction expressing, on the one hand, the inviolability of being (more precisely, the being of matter, we say, as materialists) , on the other hand, the concrete definiteness of this being, which has a boundary, that is, a beginning and an end. Naturally, the transgression of the limit leads only to a new certainty, because being is absolute and infinite. The fact that the Hegelian system is based on infinite being, becomes clear precisely at this stage of the study of NL. Hegel himself, by the way, calls the category of the true infinite "the basic proposition of philosophy" (EFN 164).

The reader will easily notice that we, as materialists, have put Hegel's famous "absolute idea" out of the brackets. But it should be noted that Hegel himself introduces his “absolute idea” at the very end of the IL quite artificially, but at this most important stage it does not exist.

Hegel, driven by the desire to be superior to philosophers who introduced arbitrary axioms, seriously confused the presentation and perception of categories. What is left on his conscience. However, what a training of thought!

So, we have reached the absolute true infinite, which is reality. It contains two moments: infinity itself and the finite as a kind of idealized (objective), in the sense of non-independent. There is nowhere to move logically, it would be necessary to proceed to the consideration of the fact of the difference in the certainty of individual material objects (something), but Hegel cannot afford to rely on facts, therefore he makes one of the most mystical transitions from infinity to being-for-itself. And since infinity is absolute, that is, being-for-itself and there is nothing else, then we get ONE. Go to quantity.

Lenin wrote about this purely speculative transition "Dark water ...", and it is difficult to disagree with this.


Thus, it turned out that Hegel led us in circles, as he himself puts it, through "the imperfect incorporation of negation into being" (NL 161).

I repeat once again: this moment is key in understanding the system of categories of the "Science of Logic", paving the bridge to the diamatic understanding of the fundamental categories of being. However, they will be presented later at the end of the logical journey through the first volume.

We return to being-for-itself.

The term "being-for-itself" expresses, according to Hegel, the true infinity , which, by virtue of its absoluteness, has no other, is only for itself. He formulates this position for clarity through the concept of "something":

“We say that something is for itself, insofar as it removes otherness, its relationship and its community with another, pushed them away from itself, abstracted from them. The Other has being for him only as something sublated, as its moment. Being-for-itself consists in going beyond the limit, beyond its own otherness, so that, as this negation, it is an infinite return into itself. Consciousness already as such contains the determination of being-for-itself, since it represents to itself the object that it senses, contemplates, i.e., has its content within itself, which content is thus given as idealized; in its very contemplation and in general in its intertwining with its own negative, with the other, it is found with itself. Being-for-itself is polemical,

The visibility is highly controversial. Probably, from the point of view of the philosophical language characteristic of Hegel, one can say that infinity is perceived as an endless return of objective reality into itself, but in Russian it can be said in a simpler way: the achieved understanding of being as true infinity embraces everything, therefore everything else is only its moment . Being-for-itself has no limit itself, but contains within itself the limit of all infinite somethings . Consequently, determinate being, i.e., qualitative determinateness up to the finite, is negation. And if we take this denial at allin the aspect of consideration of being-for-itself, then this qualitative characteristic of it (after all, this is negation) can only be understood as being-for-one - that very one.

It can be said even more simply: since being is for itself , then this being leads us to the idea that it is one. From the point of view of qualitative content, there is nothing more than itself.

Taking being-for-itself as being-for-one, we naturally have to emphasize that it is real, immediate, which is why Hegel introduces the third term "being-for-itself", which expresses this.

If being-for-itself, taken from the qualitative side (as negation), is one, then what negation contains this one itself? After all, it has absorbed the whole range of categories already known to us and thus contains a tendency to go to another (certainty / quality / boundary). How should we go from one to many? First we come to the "abstract relation of the negation to itself", that is, we fix that one (negation) is somehow related to itself. If we take this second negation into the focus of our attention, that is, that with which the one relates (and, generally speaking, it has nothing to relate to, but it must relate), then we get the existence of nothingness or emptiness .

“One and emptiness constitute being-for-itself in its immediate, present being. Each of these moments has negation for its determination and, at the same time, is posited as a kind of determinate being. Taken from the perspective of the former, one and emptiness are the relation of negation to negation as the relation of some other to its other; one is negation in the definition of being, emptiness is negation in the definition of non-being. But the one is essentially only self-relationship, as a correlative negation, i.e., it is itself what the void must be outside of it. But both are also posited as affirmative determinate being, one as being-for-itself as such, the other as indeterminate determinate being in general, and both are related to each other as to some other determinate being” (NL 174).

If, in fact, the category of emptiness is introduced as a logically necessary transition from "being - true infinity - one" to quantity. It is necessary to find a place for the other in the system of categories of “being-for-itself”. And how can the other coexist in one? It is very simple: if being-for-itself is considered as one and emptiness, from which the content of the one will be repelled, that is, it will appear to the other.

It should be noted that emptiness is not something independent, it is one, taken as an abstract relation of negation with itself. One and emptiness are considered by Hegel as moments of being-for-itself (NL 174).

“The one, correlated, contains the negative as a ratio and therefore has this negative in itself ... The own immanent ratio of the one; and ... inasmuch as this ratio is negative, and one is at the same time being, to that extent the one repels itself from itself. The negative relation of the one to itself is therefore repulsion. This repulsion as the positing of many one through, the one itself is the own exit of the one outside of itself, but the exit towards those lying outside it, which themselves are only one. This is a repulsion according to the concept, a repulsion that exists in itself” (NL 175).

In short, one is seen, firstly , as absolute infinity , and secondly , by virtue of the richness of its negativity, as MANY one (plurality). The latter is expressed through the category of REPULSION, because since one is the existent, then its negative relation to itself is at the same time a relation with some existent. But what is the relation of the one to itself as being (i.e., immediately given) if not repulsion? There is no other way to somehow distinguish between these two beings, except to consider them repulsive from each other.

In this Hegelian logical twist, a materialistic axiom can be traced about the ratio of an infinite set of elements of infinite matter that are in motion. They collide with each other in the form of various interactions (however, these interactions may well be covered by the concept of repulsion).

Hegel notes that the category of repulsion, as a negative relationship of one with itself, outwardly resembles becoming, but this similarity is deceptive. Repulsion is fundamentally different from the category of becoming in that the moments of becoming - being and nothingness - are not existent, that is, they are not given directly, but are still extremely abstract; while one and emptiness are precisely the essence, because one contains negation - the whole system of categories of quality (or, more simply, certainty).

Repulsion is the positing of many through one, the exit of one outside of itself to the same ones . Since the relation of the One to itself is the relation to the void, the relation of the Many Ones is defined as the absence of any relation. Therefore, the plurality of the one is the proper positing of the one.

One is negation (being-for-itself, taken from the qualitative point of view), and the relation of the negative to itself is a negative relation, that is, in our case, the distinction of one from itself or the positing of many. This is repulsion. At the same time, these many are not some distant abstraction, but existent (remember the existent-for-itself), therefore, the repulsion of the one that exists = the repulsion of the many from each other.

For a better assimilation of repulsion, I offer an intelligible fragment from the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences:

“When we talk about one thing, many immediately come to mind. Here the question arises, where do many come from? In representation we do not find the answer to this question, since it considers many as immediately present, and one is considered only one among many. According to the concept, the one, on the contrary, forms the presupposition of the many, and the thought of the one already implies that it posits itself as the many. The one-for-itself, as such, is not precisely devoid of correlation, like being, but is a correlation, like determinate being; but it is not related to another, like something, but, as the unity of something and another, it is a relation with itself, and this relation is precisely a negative relation. Thus, the one turns out to be completely incompatible with itself, repels itself from itself, and what it considers itself to be is many. It is possible to designate this side in the process of being-for-itself with a figurative expression: repulsion. Repulsion is spoken of first of all when considering matter, and this expression means precisely that matter, as a certain many in each of these many ones, behaves as excluding all others. However, the process of repulsion should not be understood in the sense that one is repulsive and many are repulsive, but rather, as we noted above, it consists only in the fact that one excludes itself from itself and posits itself as many, but each of the many is itself one and, since it behaves as such, this all-round repulsion turns into its opposite, into attraction” (EFN 167).

The introduction of the category of ATTRACTION in the "Science of Logic" as a pair of repulsion has an archi-foggy character. Hegel describes in detail and in detail that one is equal to itself and not equal, but at the same time one and many are one - being, therefore “the self-positing of many into one is attraction.” In general, he deduces attraction as opposed to repulsion as a necessary consequence of the fact that the repelling ones are exactly the same, and, moreover, it is only self-repulsion of the one (“self-splitting” - NT 182). And since it essentially remains one and is one, it means that many alone must not only repel, but also attract. Hence it is logical that repulsion turns into attraction, and many are one - into a single one .

The category "many one" differs from the category "something - another something" in that many alone are devoid of any distinction, even such that one can take one and oppose the other to one, even mentally. They are always a single one containing the unity of repulsion and attraction. One, having no border, passes into many ones, but at the same time they remain one . (This is easy to understand and imagine, if you substitute the "one" number as such, then the "one one" will appear as ∞).

Repulsion and attraction expresses the difference between one and many, repulsion acts as a definition of one, and attraction - many.

“The repulsion of the existing ones is the self-preservation of the one by mutually excluding the others, so that (1) the other ones are denied in it… (2) the one is in itself, without relation to the others… therefore, as the negation and production of the One, it sublates itself, and as the positing of the One, it turns out to be the negation of itself in itself, turns out to be a repulsion” (NL 187).

Roughly speaking, repulsion and attraction are found in the category of true infinity (being-for-itself) when considered as "one".

This completes the unfolding of the system of categories of quality; the following must be said about the transition to quantity.


The transition from quality to quantity in the "Science of Logic" is given by Hegel in a rather complicated language through the final development of the category "one". It seems to sum up the logical movement. The one relates to itself in an infinite way and thus mediates itself, which gives us the category "many one". Further, such a one is considered as a becoming, the moments of which are beings one, which gives us repulsion and attraction. Thus, one is a process in which it contains itself as something sublated, due to which the moments of becoming turn out to be unstable and as a result “fall off” and “merge” in balance with each other, passing into simple immediacy, indifferent to the boundary, then there is no certainty (NL 187-188). This is the quantity.

Somewhat clearer is the exposition of Hegel, given at the beginning of the chapter "Being-for-itself" as its summary:

“In being-for-itself, qualitative being is completed, it is infinite being. The being with which we began is devoid of definitions. Determinate being is sublated, but only directly sublated being. Thus it contains for the time being only the first negation, which is itself immediate. Being, it is true, is also preserved, and in determinate being both (i.e., being and negation) are united in a simple unity, but precisely for this reason they are not yet equal to each other in themselves and their unity has not yet been posited. Determinate being is therefore a sphere of difference, of dualism, a region of finitude. Certainty is certainty as such, a kind of relative, not absolute, determinability.

In being-for-itself the distinction between being and determinateness or negation is posited and reconciled; quality, otherness, boundary, like reality, being-in-itself, obligation, etc., are imperfect incorporations of negation into being, in which the incorporation still underlies the difference of both. But since in finiteness the negation passed into infinity, into the posited negation of negation, it is a simple relation with itself, it is, consequently, in itself a reconciliation with being—absolute determinateness.

Being-for-itself is, first, immediately existent-for-itself, one. Secondly, the one passes into the multitude of the one — into repulsion, which otherness of the one is removed in the ideality of the latter; it is attraction. Thirdly, it is the mutual determination of repulsion and attraction, in which they plunge together into balance, and quality, having brought itself to the last sharpening in being-for-itself, passes into quantity” (NL 161).

And, one might say, the same thing is written relatively clearly in the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences:

“Each of the many is the same as the other many, each is one or one of the many, they are therefore the same. Or, if we consider repulsion in itself, we shall have to say that, as the negative position of many ones relative to each other, it is just as essentially their relation, and since those to which the one is related in its repulsion are one , then it correlates in them with itself. Repulsion is, therefore, equally necessary attraction, and that which excludes the one, or being-for-itself, sublates itself. Qualitative determinateness, which has reached in its own in-itself and for-itself-determined being, has thus passed into determinateness as sublated, i.e., into being as quantity” (EFN 167).

As you can see, QUANTITY , firstly , is being, secondly , not just being, but quality, however, as a removed certainty, thirdly , it means that quantity is a certainty of a special kind, a certainty indifferent to the boundary .

The main thing here is not to confuse the quantity and the output of the finite beyond the border to the infinite. This means that, as we remember, the boundary is a certainty and quantity is also a certainty, but removed in such a way that it is indifferent to the boundary, that is, to its quality. In other words, we have an extremely pronounced removal of quality to the level of complete indifference to it . We take some well-defined object, for example a table, and deny its quality (with retention = withdrawal) to an extreme degree . We can't turn the table into nothing, because we still have to keep its quality at least in some form. And what could be the view? Only the most complete negation of quality, which means that we will get a quality that is indifferent to its own certainty. But the determinateness in our object is already present in the form of a boundary, so the quality (or determinateness) is indifferent to its boundary. This will be the quantity. Such a table, indifferent to its own boundary, will turn into some quantitative certainty, in this case a table. But this example should stop there, no further questions should be raised for the time being, because the categories of quantity will be further, and without them there will be a lot of confusion.

Hegel also gives a new reading to the old categories through the prism of the transition from quantity to quality (NL 187-188). First, he characterizes the quality of something as being and immediacy, in which the boundary, that is, certainty, is so identical with being that with their change something itself “disappears”, it already becomes something finite . This means that the something under consideration is no longer just something, but something finite. Thus, the mental difference between the boundary and being in the finite disappears, that is, the difference between the fact that something simply is (being) and its certainty (boundary) disappears, now we already have something finite in front of us. Consequently, a deeper difference between being and nothing is already manifested outsidefinite, namely in the infinity of being-for-itself. Being-for-itself, or one, realizes this difference between being and nothingness as one and many , and consequently also by their relation, unity. The unity of the one and the many appears in three forms: 1) as being with all its removed boundaries (one might say, as a whole), 2) as an actual being, though a negative existence — a determinateness related to itself (one might say, as nothing) , 3) as the original being.

It should be understood that the “unity of one and many” is not different “essences”, but the same one (being-for-itself, taken as one). Next, this is one

“At the same time, it is defined as having gone beyond itself and as a unity; therefore, one, i.e., an unconditionally determined boundary is posited as a boundary that is not a boundary—as a boundary that exists in being, but is indifferent to it” (NL 188).

Simply put, according to Hegel, quantity is a qualitative limit (certainty), but in which the quality itself is hidden, it is indifferent . Paradoxical? Then he will expand this idea into transitions of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, and the paradox will disappear.

(To be continued on following post.'Read this one hundred times to understand it'? I dunno, man.)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply