Conference "Hegel, Engels and Natural Sciences"
03/11/2021
Report with a foreword
Below is a text that is very different from the materials of our site. There is not a word in this text either about the class struggle, or about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or about the communist or workers' movement in Russia and in the world. Moreover, the text published below is a simple report on a scientific conference, which may be of interest at first glance only for narrow specialists with higher education.
But this is only at first glance, because the following report deals with Hegelian and Marxist dialectics in connection with the development of science over the past 200-250 years. What has this history of the development of human knowledge proved?
One Pakistani communist wrote the humorous Anti-Communist Handbook, in which he ridiculed all the anti-communist propaganda techniques. And one of the first and main provisions of this Guide was the advice: often say that Marxism is outdated, and then you will receive a good salary for the rest of your life. The idea is simple: in the bourgeois world no one will pay a salary to prove the obvious. It is difficult to find a university in which professors would be engaged in the proof that the earth revolves around the sun, and twice two makes four. Even if the bourgeoisie will pay scientists a salary, it will be either for the discovery of something new, or for the distortion of old truths in their, bourgeois, class interests. One of such perversions is the assertion that, they say, Marxism is outdated. And the bourgeoisie is really ready to pay big money not just to lie stupidly, as if the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin are outdated, but to lie smoothly, with great persistence, worthy of better application, with art and with the appearance of plausibility. The bourgeoisie does not mind money to present the specter of communism as a corpse, and those people from science who agree to do this will not be left without a salary. But would the bourgeoisie, people to put it mildly, thrifty, begin to spend money on proving what is already clear to everyone? those who agree to do this will not be left without a salary. But would the bourgeoisie, people to put it mildly, thrifty, begin to spend money on proving what is already clear to everyone? those who agree to do this will not be left without a salary. But would the bourgeoisie, people to put it mildly, thrifty, begin to spend money on proving what is already clear to everyone?
But let's leave the bourgeois anti-communists for their hard work and just ask ourselves, is it true, is not Marxism-Leninism outdated? And isn't the bourgeois counter-revolution of 1991-1993 a practical refutation of it? After all, since the time of Lenin, not to mention Marx and Engels, science has gone far ahead, so are the positions of Marxism still true?
The following report provides important evidence that this is the case. I will not tell you for the whole of Odessa, that is, for all the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism, but with regard to materialist dialectics, the situation is just like that. Yes, the letter of Marxism, inevitably limited by the specific state of scientific knowledge of the times of Marx and Lenin, is largely outdated, and this is completely natural, but the revolutionary spirit of Marxism has become stronger.
How can it be that an idea, theory or method that arose on a scientific foundation two hundred years ago is still modern? Very simple. The fact is that Marxism-Leninism is an open scientific system that arose and developed not just from specific scientific hypotheses and discoveries of its time, but from an understanding of the general laws of the development of science as a form of cognition; laws that arose as a generalization not of certain conclusions, but of the entire pathdevelopment of science and society. And in this regard, the following report is interesting in that it shows how advanced modern scientists see the connection between modern science and materialistic dialectics. Many scientific concepts have changed since the days of Marx and Engels. They changed during the life of the classics. But what is important is that all these changes did not destroy the Marxist-Leninist theory, but strengthened and clarified it. If today we turn to the works of Friedrich Engels on dialectics and nature, it becomes clear that the development of science, that is, all scientific revolutions over the past 200 years, do not refute dialectics, but, on the contrary, develop it, do not kill the revolutionary soul of Marxism. but make it stronger .
From this report it is clear that materialist dialectics, in contrast to other philosophical approaches such as the skepticism of Hume and Kant or from natural philosophy and vulgar materialism, is open for further development . For this reason, it is Marxism in the broad sense of the word that has such a potential for creative development.that no other doctrine or school of thought has. Therefore, creative minds will inevitably come to dialectics, and precisely to materialistic dialectics. Yes, these terms are not in honor of the official Russian science today. Yes, many modern scholars recognize dialectics in a half-hearted way, limited and in many respects contrary to official approaches. But dialectics still makes its way in modern science, because with all the variety of modern theories, there is still no other approach that could explain the development of the modern world as a whole, in its essence. And the more people turn to materialist dialectics in the knowledge of nature, the clearer will be many problems in the development of society. In particular, in relation to the bourgeois counter-revolutions of the end of the last century, it is increasingly obvious thatspecific revisionism that penetrated the leadership of the communist and workers' parties and was a direct ideological result of their degeneration. But that is another topic. Until then, read the following report. And even if not everything in it will be clear to you, nevertheless, you will find in this report many reasons to think about dialectics, about modern knowledge of nature and society, and about how to find a way out of the global impasse in which modern capitalism finds itself.
Sergey Novikov ,
head of the Ideological Commission of the MK RKWP
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
On March 1, 2021, the Moscow Society of Nature Experts (MOIP), together with the "Alternatives" movement , held a conference "G.F.V. Hegel, F. Engels and Natural Sciences " dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the birth of GFV. Hegel and the 200th anniversary of the birth of F. Engels. The conference was held online. It was attended by philosophers and researchers in the field of natural sciences.
Considering the large number of reports, it was decided to discuss them not at the conference itself, but at subsequent sessions of the MOIP sections.
The conference was opened by the vice-president of MOIP, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Yulianovich Dgebuadze . He noted the important role of G.F.V. Hegel and F. Engels in shaping our views on nature and society and called on philosophers and naturalists to unite their efforts for a joint search for truth.
With a report on the methodological significance of the works of G.F.V. Hegel, Doctor of Psychology, Chairman of the section on Philosophical and Methodological Problems of Natural Sciences of MOIP O.S. Anisimov . He noted that the work of Hegel and, above all, "Science of Logic" played an important role in the formation of the modern style of thinking.
On the natural scientific background of the philosophical works of G.F.V. Hegel and the classics of Marxism, the candidate of biological sciences S.V. Bagotsky . He noted that one of the roots of Hegel's philosophy was the natural-scientific revolution of the early 19th century, as a result of which it became clear that outwardly completely different phenomena can turn into one another and that behind all the diversity of the world lies a small number of "entities". This revolution has captured physics, chemistry and biology. Its culmination was the Law of Conservation of Energy.
At the time of Hegel, the natural sciences (with the exception of astronomy) were not yet evolutionary, which explains Hegel's unwillingness to talk about the development of nature by itself.
Marxism and the works of Engels - have their roots in the next scientific revolution, which led to the formulation of evolutionary and statistical concepts in a variety of sciences. These ideas made it possible to speak not only about the development of ideas, but also about the development of nature.
Friedrich Engels
The classics of Marxism realized that every law of nature has limits of its applicability, which was seriously understood by natural scientists only in the 20th century.
In his report, the chairman of the Coordinating Council of the "Alternatives" movement, Doctor of Economics. A.V. Buzgalin emphasized that dialectics teaches to see the problems and the limits of applicability of certain statements. Both in science and in public life. Than opposes ordinary thinking, inclined to conformism and the desire to conceal problems and contradictions. Therefore, the propensity of some researchers to dialectical thinking is not approved by those in power.
In a number of examples A.V. Buzgalin illustrated the connection between science and social processes in society.
In conclusion, the speaker asked his favorite riddle: "Is one plus one always equal to two?" It turns out not always. If you add one mouse to one cat, you get not two animals, but only one. But well-fed ... Such is the dialectic.
The speech of Doctor of Biological Sciences S.A. Borinskaya from the Institute of General Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. She introduced the audience to the rich factual material obtained by researchers in the 20th and early 21st centuries.
S.A. Borinskaya especially noted that the most important factor in anthropogenesis was not just labor in itself, but the collective labor of our ancestors. It is thanks to the interactions associated with collective labor that the most important human qualities were formed. The ability to work in a team has become an essential prerequisite for the evolutionary success of Man.
Hegel "Science of Logic"
The report of the candidate of biological sciences V.A. Skobeeva and candidate of biological sciences S.N. Lysenkov from Moscow State University examined the development of evolutionary theory and the relationship of this development with the ideas of Hegel and Engels. Unfortunately, the excessive bias in the history of science did not leave enough time for the speakers to consider the problems of the modern theory of biological evolution, which caused regret among the audience.
In the report of the candidate of physical and mathematical sciences and polar explorer, honorary member of the Moscow Society of Naturalists Yu.P. Chukova considered the ideas of quantum thermodynamics of irreversible processes and its applications to various areas of natural science. It was noted that the conclusions of this scientific discipline can be well stated in the language of dialectical logic.
In the report of Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences G.G. Malinetskiy from the Institute of Applied Mathematics, modern theories of self-organizing processes (thermodynamics of irreversible processes, synergetics, etc.) were considered. The approaches proposed by these theories open, according to the speaker, tempting prospects for a Great Synthesis of various scientific disciplines.
Doctor of Technical Sciences, Honorary Member of MOIP I.G. Abramson from St. Petersburg spoke in detail about the scientific revolutions that took place in physics at the beginning of the 20th century. According to the speaker, two scientific revolutions took place during this period, one of which led to the formation of the theory of relativity, and the other to the formation of quantum mechanics. In the course of these revolutions, it became clear that the laws of classical physics have a limited area of applicability, beyond which the properties of objects in our world become very unexpected. This is exactly what the classics of Marxism foresaw.
At the same time I.G. Abramson did not agree with the previously expressed opinion that there were revolutions in science in the early and middle of the 19th century. According to the speaker, the 19th century should be viewed as a period of gradual and smooth formation of classical science.
In his speech, Candidate of Biological Sciences, Honorary Member of MOIP B.G. Rezhabek contrasted the views of Hegel and the classics of Marxism and expressed doubts about the applicability of dialectics to the analysis of the development of nature. According to the speaker, dialectics should be limited only to the sphere of thought, as did G.F.V. Hegel.
Report by AA Ivanova from the Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences was devoted to the problem of the origin of life. The speaker presented a rich experimental material on the study of complex physicochemical systems, which can be useful for understanding the processes leading to the emergence of the first living beings.
Engels "Dialectics of Nature"
In his report, the chairman of the section of hydrobiology and ichthyology of the Moscow Society of Naturalists, Doctor of Biological Sciences S.A. Ostroumov from Moscow State University spoke about the theory of the Biosphere, developed in the works of V.I. Vernadsky. It is based on the idea of the relationship of all processes occurring on the surface of the Earth. The concept of the Biosphere fits well with the ideas of G.F.V. Hegel and the classics of Marxism. It should be considered one of the cornerstones of modern materialism.
Honorary member of Moscow Society of Naturalists, Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences G.S. Bisquet from St. Petersburg talked about the connection of the ideas of Hegel and Engels with modern earth sciences. In the 19th and 20th centuries, two revolutions took place in geology that made these sciences evolutionary. This is the revolution made in the 1830s by Charles Lyell, and the revolution associated with the emergence of plate tectonics in the 20th century.
The idea that the continents are moving and their current interposition is the result of history was expressed by various authors since the 18th century, but it began to be seriously discussed in science at the beginning of the 20th century after the works of A. Wegener. Wegener's views were initially criticized by physicists, which required their serious modification, which was carried out in the middle of the 20th century. Only after this, ideas about the movement of the continents were accepted by the scientific community.
According to G.S. Bisquet's classification of the forms of motion of matter, proposed by F. Engels, became very important for the development of science. Various researchers proposed to single out one more, geological (in a more general formulation, planetological) form of motion of matter. There are different points of view on this matter.
In conclusion, the oldest member of the Moscow Society of Naturalists, Honorary Member of the Moscow Society of Naturalists, Veteran of the Great Patriotic War, Doctor of Chemistry Yevgeny Davydovich Yakhnin spoke . He stressed the importance of preserving the best traditions of science and culture and passing them on from the older generation to the youth.
After the reports, a brief discussion of the conference results took place. Its participants found the conference interesting and useful and expressed a desire to make such conferences traditional. And also actively involve student youth in these conferences.
Video recording of the conference can be viewed here .
Scientific secretary of MOIP S.V. Bagotsky
https://www.rotfront.su/konferentsiya-g ... i-estestv/
Google Translator
