Among the universal methods, the most ancient are dialectical and metaphysical.

Metaphysical(from Greek - what follows physics, after physics) the philosophical method met the requirements of the development of natural science in the 17th-18th centuries, which dealt mainly with individual objects, as with something complete and unchangeable, and natural science itself was a collecting science.

Therefore, for this level of development of science, the metaphysical method was completely unacceptable, characterized by the following features:

1. Nature was considered as a random accumulation of objects and phenomena, isolated and independent from each other;

2. Nature was considered in a state of rest, immobility, stagnation and immutability, as a complete system of connections;

3. The development process was considered as a simple process of growth - a decrease and increase, a repetition of the past, where quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative transformations;

4. The presence of internal opposites in objects and their self-development was denied; only the collision of external opposing forces was recognized as the only source of development.

Having played a positive role in the process of collecting, describing and classifying facts by the middle of the 19th century, the metaphysical method became a brake on scientific progress. As F. Ngels correctly noted then, this method, “although it is legitimate and even necessary in certain areas, more or less extensive, depending on the nature of the subject, sooner or later, each time reaches the limit beyond which it becomes one-sided , limited, abstract and gets entangled in insoluble contradictions, because behind separate things he does not see their mutual connection, behind their existence, their appearance and disappearance, because of their rest he forgets their movement, for the trees he does not see the forest " (Engels F. Anti-Dühring. - K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. 20. - p. 21).

From the middle of the 19th century, the metaphysical method was gradually ousted from natural science by the dialectical method.

In the literature, there is often a point of view according to which the dialectical method is considered:

a) the doctrine of universal laws, properties and connections of the surrounding world;

However, neither one nor the other is a method. In all sciences, methodology is aimed not at fixing existing knowledge, but at implementing new cycles of cognition and achieving new knowledge. The initial category of methodology - method - reflects the principles and requirements, operations and procedures, rules and norms that ensure the acquisition of new knowledge in scientific research, its verification and confirmation.

In other words, the dialectical method and methodology should be reduced not to a description of the ontological content of categories and laws (in philosophy, ontology is the doctrine of the most general laws of being), but to the presentation of cognitive regulations, various methodological principles and requirements that ensure the achievement of the goal. ...

Dialectical method- a system of interrelated and interdependent principles, requirements, attitudes and rules prescribing a certain procedure for the implementation of actions aimed at cognition or transformation of objects.

It should be emphasized that the dialectical method is universal, universal in nature, it covers the highest levels of abstraction in methodology. Therefore, its principles and requirements do not have a direct impact on the course of a specific scientific research. The main task of the dialectical method- development of a general search strategy and regulations in the construction of research programs.

Underestimation of the optimal solution to such a problem cannot lead to the main goal of the research, since “an error on the higher levels of cognition can lead the whole research program to a dead-peak. For example, erroneous general initial attitudes (mechanism - vitalism, empiricism - a priorism) from the very beginning predetermine the distortion of objective truth, lead to a limited metaphysical view of the essence of the object under study "(Kravets A.S. Methodology of Science. - Voronezh, 1991. - P. 15).

Special studies have shown that the following can act as the principles of the dialectical method:

1) the principle of reflection;

2) the principle of activity;

3) the principle of comprehensiveness;

5) the principle of the relationship between qualitative and quantitative characteristics;

6) the principle of determinism;

7) the principle of historicism;

8) the principle of contradiction;

9) the principle of dialectical negation;

10) the principle of ascent from the abstract to the concrete;

11) the principle of the unity of the historical and logical;

12) the principle of the unity of analysis and synthesis (Sheptulin AL. Dialectical method of knowledge. - M., 1983. - S. 84-269).

How can one use such a vast methodological ar-senal? Further analysis showed that there should not be too many principles, but enough to ensure the dialectical movement of thought. At the same time, the fundamental principles are first chosen, and the rest are built in the order of subordination, i.e. vertical subordination.

As a result, there were three levels; principles:

1. The main principles or simply principles(beginnings, foundations, foundation).

2. Requirements, concretizing the main principle or imperatives (urgent requirements).

3. Installations, rules that concretize imperatives (Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. Theory of knowledge and dialectics. - M., 1991. - S. 304-305).

Among the main ones, most often distinguish principles: objectivity, consistency, historicism, dialectical inconsistency(See, for example: Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. - Ibid. - pp. 305-328, etc.).

MARXIST DIALECTIC METHOD

Professor M. ROSENTHAL

HIGHER PARTY SCHOOL under the Central Committee of the CPSU (b)

(lecture notes compiled by A.Ya. Zuev, a member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Leninsky district local branch of a political party, Perm Territory)

1. Marxist dialectics as a science.

1.1. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on dialectics.

MDM is an essential and integral part of the worldview of the Marxist-Leninist party. In 1888, in his work Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels wrote: the materialistic dialectic of the ball is "our best tool of labor and our strongest weapon." At the heart of the whole revolution accomplished by Marx in political economy lies the dialectical method worked out by Marx.

“... The application of materialist dialectics to the processing of the entire political economy, from its foundation — to history, to natural science, to philosophy, to the politics and tactics of the working class — that is what Marx and Engels are most interested in, this is where they bring the most essential and the most recent is their brilliant step forward in the history of revolutionary thought. "

Lenin calls dialectics the soul of Marxism. Lenin was the greatest master of revolutionary dialectics. His works constitute an entire epoch in the development of Marxist philosophy. Having an excellent command of dialectics, he resorted to her help in order to understand the difficult and complex issues of social life. At the age of 44, during the First World War, Lenin carefully studied Hegel's Science of Logic. His works are presented in "philosophical notebooks". All of Lenin's theoretical work was always connected with the fundamental and current needs of the struggle of the working masses. Lenin devoted himself without reserve to this struggle.

1.2. Historical preparation of the Marxist dialectic.

Marxist dialectics arose naturally at a certain historical stage in the development of society as a result of the entire preceding development of human thought. One of the most important principles of Marxist dialectics: every phenomenon is always in the process of development and, at the same time, is the result of previous development. Every phenomenon is movement towards the result and the result of movement at the same time.

Marxist dialectics is not an accidental discovery of a genius mind. It is based on all the conclusions, on all the successes of specific sciences and is a theoretical generalization of the achievements of natural science and social sciences, the result and generalization of the historical experience of human society. Method is a way of knowing reality. It depends on the level of knowledge. The dialectical method also has specific (social) roots. The struggle of classes is a struggle of methods, ideologies. Society is changing - the method is also changing (improving). “... The science of thinking (ie the method of cognition), like any other science, is a historical science, a science of the historical development of human thinking” - F. Engels.

Stages of the historical path of development of the dialectical method.

First step - it is ancient Greek philosophy and science. Heraclitus: "Everything flows, everything changes, like a river." He removed peace and immobility from the universe. Aristotle also considered nature in movement and development. He said that ignorance of movement entails ignorance of nature. In ancient Greek philosophy, dialectics was understood as the art of finding TRUTH in disputes, in the dialectical struggle of opinions. The dialectic of the ancient Greeks appeared "in primitive simplicity" - Engels. The naive dialectic of mankind at the time of his childhood grasps only the general picture of the world, without particulars and details, not yet penetrating deep into the phenomena.

The second stage is the accumulation of knowledge. During this period, individual knowledge was not yet and could not be collected into a single picture of the world, where all parts would be interconnected by an internal connection, interact with each other, develop from each other. And this goes without saying, since analysis task - the decomposition of nature into parts and the knowledge of its individual parts did not make it possible to see the internal connection of phenomena and the general laws of the development of nature.

If an individual phenomenon is considered in isolation, one-sided (abstract), it inevitably breaks out of the natural connection in which it is with the rest of the world. The consequence of this approach is a limited point of view, unable to see an object or phenomenon in their development and change. Dialectical logic does not allow analysis without simultaneous synthesis.

Thus, the ancient Greeks were stronger, thanks to their dialectical ideas, the understanding that nature changes and develops, and this process is endless. Due to the general nature of science in the second stage and a limited approach to nature a metaphysical method of cognition arises. Engels wrote that this “... way of studying has left in us the habit of taking objects and phenomena of nature in their isolation, outside their great common connection, and because of this, not in motion, but in a motionless state, not as substantially changing, but as eternally unchanging, not alive, but dead. "

Metaphysical method not an accidental misunderstanding, not the fruit of erroneous constructions of this or that philosopher. He, according to Engels, had a great historical justification and was an expression of that approach to reality in science, which was caused by historical necessity. “It was necessary,” says Engels, “to study objects before one could begin to study processes. It was necessary first to find out what a given subject is, and then study the changes that are taking place in it. "

The metaphysical worldview was inexorably displaced by a new, dialectical one. By this time, enormous changes had taken place in the social life of the peoples. With the victorious capitalism, social contradictions have significantly aggravated. The class struggle now clearly acted as the engine of events. The class contradiction provided the key to understanding the dialectics of social development not only in the present and past, but also in the future.

Historians of France - Thierry, Guizot, Mignet - "... could not help but recognize the struggle of classes as the key to understanding the whole of French history" - Lenin. The utopian socialists (19th century) - Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, although imperfectly, reflected in their views the features of the dialectic of the development of society in modern times. Thus, both in the field of natural science and in the field of the science of society, objective prerequisites have emerged for replacing the outdated metaphysical method with a new, truly scientific, dialectical one.

Dialectical views in philosophy in the second half of the 18th century are presented by German philosophers - Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and especially by Hegel. However, their idealistic dialectic was limited, half-hearted, inconsistent, and combined with vague metaphysical principles. These were the ideologues of capitalism. Hegel's idealist dialectic, like the materialism of that time, was the pinnacle of bourgeois philosophy. Bourgeois philosophy could not rise above this peak.

Moreover, after Hegel, bourgeois philosophy falls deeply from the peak reached, ignores the valuable that was in Hegel's philosophy, replaces dialectics with metaphysical theories - positivism, irrationalism, Machism, etc. It gives rise to rotten fruits, such as the philosophy of Nietzsche, Spengler, etc.

The Marxist dialectical method arose as a natural result and result of the centuries-old development of science, as a theoretical generalization of this development, as well as the development of human society, as the worldview of the most progressive and revolutionary class in the history of society - the proletariat.

1.3. What is the Marxist dialectical method?

Dialectical philosophy is the science of the most general laws of nature, society and thought. Lenin wrote that dialectics is "... the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest form, free from one-sidedness, the doctrine of the relativity of human knowledge, which gives us a reflection of eternally evolving matter." This is the science of the laws of every movement. Concrete science is not concerned with the laws of ANY movement. Concrete science studies certain forms of movement inherent in specific phenomena.

However, laws that are quite appropriate in one area of ​​science have no application in another area of ​​life. Why are the laws of development that make up dialectics are valid for all phenomena of social life, nature and thinking? Because these laws are a generalization of the most essential and general, which is characteristic of every phenomenon, any specific form of movement. "This means," wrote Engels, "that its laws must be valid for movement both in the field of physical nature and human history, and for the movement of thinking."

The picture drawn by a particular science is only a part of the whole. But this part is connected with other parts by the necessary internal connection, and the laws of each part are subject to the laws of the whole. Therefore, in order to correctly establish the laws of development of each separate area of ​​nature, knowledge and life, one must know the general laws of nature as a whole. You can, of course, independently, without knowing the general laws, after a long wandering and wasting time, come to an understanding, but the initial knowledge of these laws of development will facilitate the search for the right solution, give firm confidence in the truth of knowledge.

The great Russian writer - dialectic Chernyshevsky explained what it means to be able to be guided by the laws of the whole in public life. Its explanation contains the triumph of philosophical dialectical optimism. Let, he said, it is hard now, let the present now weigh heavily on people's lives, let life still be far from ideal, but there is a great law according to which everything changes and develops. New and better forms of life will, with iron necessity, replace the existing ones. He wrote: “Who has understood this great, eternal ubiquitous law, who has learned to apply it to every phenomenon, - oh, how calmly he calls for the chances that others are embarrassed by ... ”. Hence his famous conclusion: "Let it be, what will be, but, in the end, there will be a holiday on our street."

My comment (A.Z.).

The materialistic dialectical method is a universal method of cognition, an irreplaceable instrument of scientific research, a guide for action, self-improvement and perfection of the world around us. It reflects the objective dialectic of life. He is a universal method that gives the only correct angle of view on reality, the correct way of studying, approaching reality.

1.4. Dialectics and scientific knowledge of nature.

Engels concluded that "dialectics is becoming an absolute necessity for natural science." By 1900, natural science - mainly physics - found itself in a state of deepest crisis. Lenin pointed out that the essence of the crisis is that physicists have not been able to "directly and immediately rise from metaphysical materialism to dialectical materialism." “This step (towards dialectics - M.R.) is and will be made by modern physics, but it goes to the only correct method and the only correct philosophy of natural science not directly, but in zigzags, not consciously, but spontaneously, without clearly seeing its“ ultimate goal ", And approaching her by groping, staggering, sometimes even backwards. Modern physics lies in childbirth. It gives birth to dialectical materialism. "

1.5. Dialectics and Social Science. Dialectics is an instrument of revolutionary practice.

The connection between the practical activities of the Bolshevik Party, its policy and Marxist dialectics, as well as Marxist-Leninist theory as a whole, is organic. This is a decisive feature of the entire history of our Party. The development of society is a natural-historical process governed by material laws, independent of the will and consciousness of people, but manifested through their consciousness and will.

Developing the teachings of Marx, Lenin put forward the thesis about the possibility of building communism in a single country, and Stalin - the thesis about the need to preserve the communist state in a capitalist environment. Taking into account the specific historical situation, this was the creative development of Marxism on the basis of the Marxist dialectical method. Lenin and Stalin, like the founders of Marxism, emphasized that their Teaching is not a dogma, but a guide to action, which requires development and addition, based on historically progressing practice.

2. THE OPPOSITE OF THE MARXIST DIALECTIC METHOD AND HEGEL'S IDEALISTIC DIALECTICS

2.1. The meaning of the question.

The founders of the Marxist worldview not only borrowed their method from Hegel, but created a new, only consistent, strictly scientific dialectical theory of development. The dialectical theory of Marx and Engels arose and grew in the struggle against metaphysics and against Hegel's idealist philosophy, against the "mystifying side" of Hegel's dialectics.

“Nevertheless, of all the available logical material, this (Hegel's dialectical method - AZ) was the only one that could at least be used. This method has not been criticized, no one has overcome it. None of the opponents of the great dialectician could breach the proud building of this method. It was forgotten because the Hegelian school did not know what to do with it. Therefore, first of all, it was necessary to subject the Hegelian method to a thorough criticism. But criticism of this method, Engels continues further, was not an easy task, all official philosophy was afraid and now is still afraid to tackle it. "

Marx is the only person who took the trouble to free from Hegel's logic the core that contains Hegel's real discovery, and restore the dialectical method freed from idealistic shells, in the simple form in which it becomes the correct form of the development of thought.“Hegel's dialectic is on his head” - Marx.

Dialectics is not an abstract theory intended for lovers of philosophy, but a military weapon in the struggle for the practical reorganization of society (personality). Failure to understand the difference between materialist and idealist dialectics blunts this revolutionary weapon and leads to the blurring of the line between the proletarian (progressive) and bourgeois (reactionary) worldview.

2.2. Hegel's dialectic is an idealistic dialectic.

"My dialectical method is not only fundamentally different from Hegel's, but represents its direct opposite" - Marx. The merits of Hegel are indisputable. In an idealistic form, Hegel encyclopedically investigated and depicted the forms of dialectical movement, substantiated the principle of development. Hegel's "mystification" did not prevent Hegel from giving the first picture of dialectical forms of movement. Lenin wrote about Hegel's dialectics as the greatest acquisition of modern philosophy. Lenin said that a clever idealist is better than a stupid materialist.

The example of Hegel's philosophy clearly reveals the reactionary character of idealism. Idealism is incompatible with science. It raises insurmountable obstacles to scientific thought and eats into the very fabric of science. Hegel's idealism inevitably gave rise to a contradiction characteristic of his entire philosophy as a whole, contradiction between the dialectical method and the idealistic philosophical system... Hegel's idealism is not accidental; it has class roots.

Hegel's absolute idea(the idealistic philosophical system) is nothing more than human consciousness, divorced from nature and man himself, deified, turned into an absolute that dominates the world. Hegel looks at the world through this a fantastic idea that distorts the world, erecting an impenetrable barrier between reality and science. His dialectic was, though fantastic, but, nevertheless, a reflection of reality itself. For this reason, in the words of Lenin , Hegel "brilliantly guessed in the dialectic of concepts the dialectic of things themselves."

How does Hegel get an ABSOLUTE IDEA, and from it the real world emerges? What is the “secret of speculative construction”? - the first stage.

1. First, separate phenomena and the world turn into an IDEA. 2. Generalizing the properties of real things, Hegel receives abstract concepts. 3. All the threads connecting concepts with real objects are cut off, and concepts acquire that independent divine character that a philosopher needs in order to mold the world from ghostly material.

Having received a mystical idea at the first stage, Hegel at the second stage makes this idea manifest all its supernatural properties.... 1. Here the dialectical nature of the idea comes into play, since, according to Hegel, it contains the diversity and richness of the world in advance. Only in the beginning, all the diversity of the world exists in the idea in an undeveloped form. The absolute idea is not a dead and motionless substance, but a dialectically changing and developing one.

2. The dialectical development of an idea is a process of its self-development, in which all the wealth of its essence unfolds, acquires an outer shell and the usual appearance of things, the form of natural phenomena, human history, etc. Hegel's concept "generates from itself reality as its own reality."

3. Through the struggle of opposites, the transition of quantity into quality, overcoming the contradiction between form and content, the idea develops from simple to complex, from lower to higher, moving towards its main goal - the realization of its inner essence.

4. Thus, Hegel constructs the whole world - nature, society, state, governments, art, law, religion, everything in the world. Everything that we see around us, everything that happens around us, our own body, our hands, feet, teeth - everything is the result of the dialectical self-development of the spirit, idea, a mortal shell through which the "creative power" of the spirit, idea shines through.

The whole history of development according to Hegel is the process of dressing and dressing up the spirit.

1... Circle of SPIRIT. First, SPIRIT (absolute idea) exists in itself. Although it contains all kinds of being, it is still, so to speak, naked. The ethereal idea first goes through the circle of its development within the limits of pure thought, logic.

2. Circle of NATURE. Then the SPIRIT dresses in the dress of nature, that is, gives rise to nature.

3. Circlehuman history. The circle of nature at a certain stage gives way to human development, human consciousness, and the history of society.

4. COMPLETION OF THE IDEA DEVELOPMENT CIRCLE. The idea leaves its material shell and returns to itself. Thus, the SPIRIT climbs to the top of self-improvement, to its goal. The cycle of development of the idea is coming to an end. It ends at the very point from which it began - at the beginning there was a thought, an idea and at the end a thought, an idea. But now the idea is free from everything that constrains its nature, and has reached a blissful state of satisfaction from the work done and completed. The development of the real, external world is only a reflection of the development of an idea.

2.3. Idealist dialectics denies development in nature.

According to Hegel, only the idea develops, and not nature, which falls out of the circle of dialectical laws of development. He deliberately infringes upon the general character of dialectical development in connection with the idealistic basis of his philosophy. His nature is the otherness of SPIRIT, in which the spirit feels most constrained and not free. Idealism demanded that nature, as something inferior to spirit, should be devoid of development, and Hegel's dialectics submitted to this requirement.

2.4. Hegel's dialectic is directed to the past, not to the present and the future.

In history, Hegel recognizes development within a strictly limited framework, which contradicts his own dialectic of development. Hegel's dialectic is bound hand and foot by bourgeois ideology. Already in the starting point of Hegel's philosophy, in his absolute idea, the future logical end of all development is inevitably contained. Hegel uses history to adapt it to his predetermined purpose. Hegel himself establishes the main feature of his dialectics. He says that "... the task of philosophy has already been fulfilled, because it has comprehended its concept and it only has to look back at its development." This is how the dialectician turns into metaphysics.

2.5. "Sham criticism" of idealist dialectics.

Hegel defines the progress of world history as progress in the realization of freedom. History develops not because its material basis is developing, but because the consciousness of freedom develops in a person. Therefore, it is worthwhile for a person to imagine that he is free, so that this imagination becomes identical with the real, real freedom of man.

The existence of slavery, oppression, violence is explained by Hegel by the fact that a person is not yet aware of his freedom. Consequently, the whole misfortune of a slave, raped and oppressed, consists in the fact that he has not yet developed in himself the consciousness of freedom. If he rose in consciousness to this concept, he would cease to be a slave in life.

In my opinion (my comment - A.Z.), here Hegel is both right and wrong at the same time. The psychology of the oppressed in itself generates the psychology of the oppressor, provokes it by its presence. In addition, consciousness is the organizing part of the social form of the movement of matter and, therefore, part of the content of social being. When the consciousness reaches the required level of development, the transition of the "subjective" to the "objective" takes place and the idea becomes a material force. However, in this case the idea does not become a substance or an object, as in Hegel. It goes without saying that the laws of social development are primary in relation to consciousness and constantly push it towards further improvement. It is precisely being with its material objective laws that determines social consciousness.

Hegel criticizes slavery and denies it, but all his criticism boils down to denying slavery in consciousness, in thought, but not in reality. You can deny evil in consciousness as much as you like, but if it is not denied in reality itself, any denial remains imaginary, illusory. Thought evaporates, but reality remains in all its tangible reality. In thought, a person rises into transcendental spheres, in reality he is mired in slavery, in all the disgusting prose of life. This is what Marx calls Hegel's "imaginary criticism".

2.6. Marxist dialectics is a materialist, revolutionary dialectic, a science that addresses not only the past, but also the present and the future.

Marx and Engels distinguished between objective and subjective dialectics. The first reigns in all nature, the second is dialectical thinking as a reflection of contradictory reality. "... The development of contradictions in a known historical form of production," wrote Marx, "is the only historical path of its decomposition and the formation of a new one." In this central point of materialist dialectics lies its explosive, revolutionary force, making it an implacable enemy of everything reactionary and regressive.

Marxist dialectics is closely connected with proletarian socialism, with the theory of the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

3. UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION AND INTERDEPENDENCE OF PHENOMENA IN NATURE AND SOCIETY

3.1. Dialectics and metaphysics about the connection of phenomena.

“... Not a single phenomenon in nature can be understood if we take it in an isolated form, without connection with the surrounding phenomena, for any phenomenon in any area of ​​nature can be turned into nonsense if considered outside of connection with the surrounding conditions, in isolation from them, and, conversely, any phenomenon can be understood and justified if it is considered in its inextricable connection with the surrounding phenomena, in its conditionality from the phenomena around it "- Stalin.

The metaphysical method is the brainchild of the 16th - 18th centuries. Natural science of that time did not reach the understanding of a deep, organic connection between natural phenomena. Science was collecting, not ordering. The phenomena were considered as existing next to each other, as independent from each other. Space, time, movement were taken not in their unity, but in their fragmentation. Space was represented as an empty box in which bodies move, not connected or interacting with it in any way. Time was also viewed as an abstract, abstract time that can exist outside of connection with the real movement of matter. Space-time is a form of motion of matter (my commentary - A.Z.).

In the 19th century, science, according to Engels, became a science "... about the connection that unites phenomena into one great whole." In the "Philosophical Notebooks" Lenin shows what path the historically progressive knowledge of mankind takes: ".

All the diversity of nature constitutes the diversity of forms of a single material movement, transforming one into another, mutually interconnected and not existing one without the other.

3.2. Causality. Causal relationship and conditionality of phenomena. Causal relationships.

Only practical activity and scientific knowledge based on practice, on experiment, are able to give a true understanding of the causality that connects the phenomena of nature. All belief in miracles and superstitions, all religion is based on obscuring the causal connections that exist between things. Under the capitalist mode of production, the actual social relations and their causation are so obscured that the real world looks, in the words of Marx, as a "spellbound, distorted and set on its head."

The presence of a causal relationship and, consequently, regularity and necessity, is the objective basis that enables people to cognize nature and society, to act consciously. Without such a basis, no knowledge and conscious action would be possible. Lenin wrote that the question of causality is especially important for a correct scientific theory of knowledge. For materialists, the objective nature of causality is indisputable.

Bourgeois idealist philosophy took advantage of the crisis in natural science and launched a campaign against materialist determinism, that is, the materialist doctrine of causality and its objective character (Machism). Some idealists replace objective causality with speculative concepts and ideas, others attribute them to a supreme creator.

It is not a "mystical synthesis" or blind fate that rules history, but a legitimate and iron necessity based on the objective interaction of causes and effects. You can deny as much as you like the causal connection of phenomena in nature itself - its objective nature will not disappear, like a ghost from these spells. For this connection is a property of nature itself, of things themselves, and the greatness of a person and his deeds is measured not by the fact that he ignores it, but by the fact that he cognizes it and, knowing it, acts in accordance with the objective course of history.

Idealistic theories of causality are best refuted by practice. Through practical activity, a person proves the objectivity of causality and, on the basis of the laws of nature, lives in harmony with it, in accordance with his goals and interests.

3.3. Universal connection and interaction of phenomena. Nature as a coherent whole.

One and the same phenomenon can be both a cause and an effect at the same time. Cause and effect can pass into each other, change places, they dialectically interact with each other. The chain of relationships unfolds in the direction both back and forth. In objective reality, there is a universal connection and interconnection of phenomena. Each phenomenon is connected directly or indirectly with all other phenomena. If we establish the immediate cause of a phenomenon, we somewhat simplify the actual connection, for we pull this phenomenon out of its general connection with other phenomena. One and the same phenomenon can be the cumulative effect of many reasons (my comment - A.Z.)

Lenin wrote that "... the human concept of cause and effect always somewhat simplifies the objective connection between natural phenomena, only approximately reflecting it, artificially isolating certain aspects of one single world process." Lenin says that CAUSE and EFFECT are only "a small particle of universal connection", "... only moments of world interdependence, connection (universal), interconnection of events, only links in the chain of development of matter."

Engels emphasized the same position. He wrote: “We see further that cause and effect are concepts that are meaningful only when applied to an individual phenomenon, but that if we consider the same phenomenon in its general world connection, then these two concepts are combined and pass into the concept of universal interaction, in which cause and effect are constantly changing places, and what is now or here is the effect, will be there or then the cause, and vice versa. "

From all that has been said, an extremely important conclusion follows that nature is a single coherent whole. Nature is one in all its parts. Every phenomenon, every process is only a part of the whole. Only from the point of view of the whole can the individual, the individual, be understood. With its doctrine of the universal connection and interdependence of phenomena, Marxist dialectics equips scientific knowledge with the concept of the laws of reality. All of the above applies to society as a whole.

3.4. The dialectical requirement for the comprehensiveness of the analysis of phenomena. Dialectics and sophistry.

“The totality of all aspects of the phenomenon, reality and their (mutual) relations - this is what the truth is made of” - Lenin. He continues further: “In order to really know the subject, one must embrace, study all its aspects, all connections and 'mediations'. We will never fully achieve this, but the requirement of all-roundness will warn us against mistakes and from mortification. "

SOPHISTIKA - translated from Greek - means CONTRIBUTION, INTELLIGENCE, the desire "to get around the essence of the matter with evasions." At the same time, one phenomenon or one side of the matter is unilaterally snatched out. For example, Kautsky argued that IMPERIALISM is only a policy that can be eliminated by criticism, desire, demand to replace it with another policy. K. deliberately, sophistically snatched out imperialist policy, ignoring its connection with the "whole," that is, with the economic foundations of this policy.

Lenin calls the analysis of the First World War made by the German Social Democrats, who, wishing to shield and justify "their" German imperialism, declared that the task of all mankind is to destroy British imperialism, which is the main evil, is SOPHISTIC. On this occasion, Lenin makes a remark: “Not dialectics, but sophistry ... everywhere there is a game with the word“ dialectics ”, understood by the archbishop. Not a shadow of versatility. Sophistically snatched one thing: to undermine the English world domination. "

Opposing metaphysics and sophistry with the dialectical method, Stalin in 1929 spoke of the danger of the position of the right-wing opportunists "glossing over" the ambiguity and "two-sidedness" of the NEP: which exclude any kind of freedom of trade ”. This is one side of the NEP. But NEP also has another side.

“The fact is that NEP does not mean complete freedom of trade, free play of prices on the market. NEP is freedom of trade within certain limits, within certain limits, while ensuring the regulatory role of the state in the market. This is precisely the second side of the NEP. Moreover, this side of the NEP is no less, if not more, important than the first side of it ”- Stalin. He relied on the dialectical understanding of TRUTH as the totality of all, including the opposite (contradictory - A.Z.) sides of the phenomenon in their connection and relationships. He took the NEP as a coherent, unified whole and showed all the harm of transforming one part, a side of the phenomenon, into a whole.

3.5. Essential and non-essential, necessary and incidental connections and relationships. Dialectics and Eclectics.

All phenomena (things), interacting with each other, are in relationships of varying degrees of significance. There are relationships SIGNIFICANT, less essential and completely insignificant. The connections between the phenomena can be NECESSARY and RANDOM. Marxism elevated sociology - the doctrine of society - to the level of science, since it gave an objective criterion for distinguishing between "important" and "unimportant" phenomena in society. This criterion is industrial relations.

ECLECTICS - according to Lenin's definition - “Formal logic ... takes formal definitions, guided by what is most common or what is most often striking and limited to this. If at the same time two or more different definitions are taken and combined together completely by chance ..., then we get an eclectic definition, pointing to different sides of the subject and nothing more. "

ECLECTICS - there is a purely arbitrary and random connection of different sides of an object or process, connection, which ignores the distinction between important and unimportant parties, does not highlight the essential connections and relationships of the subject, in contrast to the "insignificant".

A dialectician, in contrast to an eclectic, understands (according to Lenin): “To really know a subject, one must embrace, study all its aspects, all connections and 'mediations'. But this is still not enough, since "... the purpose of the object, its use, its connection with the surrounding world are changing." Therefore, you need to see the main, decisive connection of the object with the surrounding world. The point is also that "... human practice should enter into the complete" definition "of an object both as a criterion of truth and as a practical determinant of the connection between an object and what a person needs."

3.6. Historical approach to phenomena. Abstract and concrete truth.

What yesterday, in some historical conditions, was the truth, today, in a changed situation, becomes the opposite of the truth. Truth is concrete. Truth is strongly tied to place, time and circumstances (my commentary - A.Z.).

4. MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT IN NATURE AND SOCIETY

4.1. Metaphysical theory of the immutability of nature.

4.2. Dialectics about movement and development. The withering away of the old and the growth of the new is the law of development.

Movement is a form of being of matter. Understanding movement is not limited to mechanical movement, it manifests itself in many forms: heat, chemical reactions, biological life, feelings, emotions, thinking - all this movement (my commentary - A.Z.). Motion as applied to matter is change in general.

4.3. Movement and rest. Movement and balance.

Any balance (rest) is relative and temporary, absolutely only movement. Movement, ultimately, always destroys the state of rest, balance and leads to the formation of new objects, new phenomena (M.R.). (My commentary - A.Z.) - FORMATION includes two moments of contradictory movement, that is, it "removes" the restless unity of its moments with the emergence of balance, clarity and peace. Is there peace and balance? - Yes and no at the same time.

Rest is considered as a special case of movement, but movement is imperceptible. Peace is always relative.

4.4. The irresistibility of what arises and develops.

That which arises and develops is irresistible just because such is the objective tendency of the movement and development of matter. However, in the contradictory whirlpool of the movement of life (matter) there is another irresistible tendency - transition. Everything grows old, dies, disappears. This trend can also be made to work for us (my comment - A.Z.).

“For the dialectical method, it is important, first of all, not what seems to be strong at the moment, but is already beginning to die away, but what arises and develops, even if it looks fragile at the moment, because for him only what arises is irresistible. and is developing ”- Stalin. The future belongs only to the new and progressive. Probably (my comment - A.Z.) this is not the whole truth.

Historical centuries-old experience shows that in the fierce battles that make up history, the triumph always belongs to the side whose forces grow, increase and which expresses the progressive tendencies of the time. Let these forces at the beginning of their appearance be small, insignificant, even if at first they look fragile in comparison with the old forces - victory, one way or another, will be theirs. The old, still firmly feeling itself, always "boasts" before the shoots of the new, exposing its strength and doing everything in order to destroy what is emerging and growing.

The irresistible power of history- these are millions and tens of millions of working people who do not see salvation from poverty on the basis of the old society, striving for a new life. “It is difficult to imagine a more decisive defeat than that suffered by the revolutionary party, or rather the revolutionary parties of the continent, at all points of the battle line. But what of this? .. Long gone are the days of that superstitious view, which considered the cause of revolutions to be the malice of a handful of agitators. Nowadays everyone knows that every time revolutionary upheavals come, behind them always and everywhere there is a certain social need, the satisfaction of which is hampered by obsolete institutions. This need may not yet be felt so strongly, it may not yet enter the general consciousness so much as to ensure an immediate victory; but any attempt to suppress it forcibly only makes it appear with increasing force until, finally, it breaks its shackles. Therefore, if we are broken, we have no choice but to start over. "- Marx and Engels.

The definition of the reasons pushing the masses to revolution, to a progressive war and making their struggle an irresistible force, we find in Lenin: “... tens of millions of people do not go to the revolution by order, but go when a desperate need arises, when the people find themselves in an impossible situation when the common pressure, the determination of tens of millions of people, breaks down all the old partitions and, indeed, is able to create a new life. "

These are the reasons for the irresistibility of what arises and develops. In the very essence of development, as change, as the disappearance of the old and the emergence of the new, is laid the irresistible force of the new, progressive. The irresistibility and victory of the new is not a smooth and straightforward process. The dialectic of Marxism-Leninism has nothing in common with flat evolutionary theories, which simplify the picture of objective development, do not notice all the complexity, contradictions and depict it as a straight line, without zigzags, without temporary deviations.

Opportunists believe that the path of development of society, of the class struggle, should not be aware of any difficulties, no obstacles, no zigzags. They are ready to "fight", but on condition that there is a guarantee in advance against any defeat and that, as Lenin wittily ridiculed them, the revolution train rolled along the rails easily and smoothly until the conductor announced to these "revolutionaries": "socialism station, get out." ...

It cannot be imagined that once a new thing has arisen, it immediately has a free path in front of it and can develop freely. This has never happened in the history of society. On the contrary, no matter how large a segment of history we take, we will always see that the new arose and developed in the struggle, and in this struggle it knew both defeats and victories.

The new in fact of its birth is not quite new yet. By the fact of birth, it is only a NEW OPPORTUNITY. However, in this NEW OPPORTUNITY, there is a tendency of INISONABILITY, since the MOMENT OF ARISE is the ETERNAL movement. This movement, as a MOMENT OF FORMATION, is neither new nor old (although, however, it is both new and old at the same time), that is, precisely, ETERNAL ( My comment is A.Z.).

Further, the new is evaluated already by the fact of DEVELOPMENT as a PRODUCT OF EDUCATION AND CIRCUMSTANCES. Only after that does it become REAL, that is, mature, fulfilled and progressive ( My comment is A.Z.).

Such NEW can hardly be called OLD afterwards, since it becomes solid, fundamental - ETERNAL, from which even more NEW is formed - progressive (A.Z.).

REALLY NEW - the progressive must raise the "DEVELOPMENT PLAN" higher and have enough strength to keep it at a high level. For NEW, not only a qualitative, but also a quantitative criterion is applicable. The NEW makes its way through the number of attempts as well: the eternal tendency of the emergence of the NEW is the insurmountability of the NEW (My commentary - A.Z.).

Justifying at the 10th Congress of the RCP (b) the correctness and necessity of the NEP, Lenin said: “One thing is clear to us: the resolution of the 9th Congress assumed that our movement would proceed in a straight line. It turned out, as it turned out all the time throughout the history of revolutions, that the movement went in zigzags. " "To imagine," wrote Lenin, "world history going smoothly and neatly forward, without giant, sometimes, leaps back, is nondialectical, unscientific, theoretically incorrect."

The laws of dialectical development in society, revolutionary development, act through the conscious activity of knowledgeable and persistent people who know how to defend their interests, know how to live and enjoy life in the process of struggle, despite difficult life circumstances (my commentary - A.Z.).

4.5. Marxist dialectics and a sense of the new.

Dialectical understanding of development (My comment - A.Z.)

how the denial of the old (denial with retention - creation) and the emergence of the new as the objective invincibility of everything that arises and develops, puts forward a very important requirement for practical activity, the vector of movement of which must coincide with the vector of development of society.

This requirement means: to see the new (progressive) arising in life, to feel this new, in any case not to lose the perspective of movement, to look at the present not only from the point of view of the past, but also from the point of view of the future, from the point of view of what the present transforms, that it gives birth. Dialectics helps to penetrate the shell of the existing and detect the emergence of new phenomena, development trends.

The Marxists were guided by what was new in Russian reality, by the workers who created the Soviets of Workers' Deputies in 1905.

4 .6 . Possibility and reality. The role of practical activity in the formation of something new.

The doctrine of Marxist dialectics about the irresistibility of what arises and develops, does not mean that every progressive phenomenon wins automatically, without the conscious activity of people. The embryos of the new may not develop and not spread if, as Lenin said, not to take care of them, if not to help their growth. New, only emerging in public life, at first it presents only a potential opportunity for development. But possibility by itself cannot become reality.

The experience of history proves that the development of society, putting certain tasks on the order of the day, requires their solution through the practical and conscious activity of people. The new always (in nature) first exists as a potential possibility, which can become reality due to a spontaneous coincidence of circumstances. The new, as an opportunity in the development of society, becomes reality through the consciousness of people and their active life position, acquiring the property of an irresistible tendency (My commentary - A.Z.).

Hence follows the recognition of the greatest role of the subjective forces of history - peoples, classes, parties, leaders. The possibility (emergence) of a new phenomenon is only a necessary prerequisite for its development, while reality is a realized possibility. Opportunity cannot turn into reality by "gravity". It turns out that a situation may occur in which there are opportunities for victory, but we do not see them and therefore cannot use them, then instead of victory, we get defeat.

Now we know the answer to the question why the USSR collapsed, and why did the CPSU die? The party failed to make proper use of the opportunities and advantages provided by the Soviet system. It did very little to turn these possibilities into reality, thus ensuring maximum success for communist construction. The party and society did not pass the test of "satiety." The party neglected the dialectical need to develop a theory that would be capable of capturing the minds of the masses (my commentary - A.Z.).

In public life, the development, the formation of the new, the irresistible force of what arises and develops, is realized in the practical activities of classes, parties, leaders.

5. DEVELOPMENT AS A TRANSITION OF QUANTITATIVE CHANGES INTO ROOT QUALITATIVE

5.1. Metaphysical theory of quantitative development.

In metaphysics, a quantitative process is an increase or decrease in finished objects. Metaphysics is multifaceted, it manifests itself in various forms. Metaphysicians are creative in their reasoning. Metaphysicians deny the development and the possibility of the transition from one quality to another.

5.2. Subject as a qualitative and quantitative definiteness. Measure. Transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones.

It is inherent in every subject to be qualitative definiteness. What is the quality of an object, in that is its certainty. The dialectical understanding of the quality of objects reflects the unity of the world, the connection that exists between qualitatively different objects and phenomena. Quality is inherent in items. If you take away quality from an item, it will cease to be a given item. The quality of an object is its essential inner certainty.

Quantitative certainty is also inherent in any subject. Molecules are made up of atoms, etc. All qualitative differences in nature are based on the amount of matter and the forms of its movement. The same is found in the phenomena of social life. The subject is the unity of qualitative and quantitative certainty. This unity expresses the concept "MEASURE". Measure expresses the important circumstance that each object as a certain quality has not just any, whatever, but a certain quantity, and a certain quantity can be combined only with the corresponding quality.

Every development process takes place in two stages. First, there is a gradual quantitative development of the object, which does not change the quality (essence) of the object. Development at this stage is slow, imperceptible, quantitative and the object is in a state of relative rest, balance. This period of development is a process of maturation of new, revolutionary, explosive forces, which lead to decisive changes in the second stage.

As the explosive forces mature, the measure overflows and, due to the violation of the measure, the object loses its stability. The second stage begins: a quick and sudden, leap-like transition of the old quality into a new quality. Thus, development includes two time periods of continuous movement of change: evolution and revolution.

5.3. The transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones as a law of development of nature and society.

Quantitative changes contribute to the transition of the old (former) quality to the new (different). However, there is also an opposite effect of the new quality on the quantity, only the quantity is of a different quality. This happens because a new, more developed (complex) content requires a new form, determines the framework in which the emergence (emergence) and direction of development of a new form in a qualitative and quantitative MEASURE ( My comment is A.Z.). Thus, the new quality, in turn, contributes to the further development of MERA relations.

Many types of labor are carried out more efficiently, with higher labor productivity, subject to collective interaction in comparison with individual labor. “Here it is not only a matter of increasing the individual productive force through cooperation, but also the creation of a new productive force, which by its very essence is a mass force” - Marx. This pattern manifested itself in increasing the efficiency of agricultural production when individual peasant farms were united into collective farms. A phenomenon new in its quality, having established itself in life, contributes to further quantitative change within the framework of a new MEASURE.

5.4. Evolution and revolution. Horse racing.

Law"Quantity into quality" determines a two-fold form of DEVELOPMENT movement: slow, gradual quantitative movement of development and fast, radical qualitative development movement. This is evolutionary-revolutionary development. Science only then stood on solid ground when it abandoned a one-sided purely evolutionary view of DEVELOPMENT. All of the above applies to the development of society.

Opportunists deny the objective necessity of revolution or, on the contrary, consider a chain of continuous leaps to be development. These two varieties - reformist and anarchist - revisions of Marxism in philosophy, theory and practice are widespread. In fact, "evolution prepares and gives the ground for the revolution, and the revolution crowns evolution and promotes its further work" - Stalin.

A revolution is a natural phenomenon in society, for without it a radical change in the prevailing, but already lost ground, order, which has matured and prepared by the entire course of evolutionary development, cannot occur. This alone shows how immensely important the dialectical doctrine of evolution and revolution is for defining the program and strategy of the struggle of the proletariat and its party.

Marx and Engels called the revolution the locomotives of history. Lenin said that a high assessment of the revolutionary periods in the history of mankind follows from the essence of the historical views of Marxism. He calls these periods as "... the most vital, most important, significant, decisive moments in the history of human societies."

"The fact is," he writes, "that it is precisely the revolutionary periods that are distinguished by great breadth, great wealth, greater consciousness, greater planning, greater systematicity, greater boldness and brilliance of historical creativity in comparison with the periods of philistine, Cadet, reformist progress."

5.5. Progressive progressive nature of development, Development from simple to complex, from lower to higher.

The emergence of the new occurs in the process of "transition" of quantitative changes into qualitative ones. Marxist dialectics as a theory asserts a forward, progressive movement, movement - development. Stalin writes: “Therefore, the dialectical method believes that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of the past, but as a forward movement, as a movement along an ascending line, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as development from simple to complex, from lowest to highest ”.

Ascending development is an insurmountable and objective law of the development of nature and society. Of course, this DEVELOPMENT is very contradictory and little resembles a straight line, perhaps in a zigzag manner, but the main tendency of development is precisely this. Development takes place within the framework of the next law of dialectics: “negation of negation”. There are different variants of denial: denial as CREATION and denial as DESTROY. Denial as CREATION can be a form of DIALECTIC COMPROMISE ( My comment is A.Z.).

My thoughts (A.Z.).

DENIAL AS CREATION can reflect two positions. First position expressed by the negation of the WHOLE in relation to that part of the whole, which denies the WHOLE. Second position is expressed by the denial of complete and "wasted" denial as a principled setting, as an objective necessity for further development. Lenin says: “Not a naked denial, not a vain denial, not a skeptical denial, hesitation, doubt is characteristic and essential in dialectics - which undoubtedly contains an element of negation and, moreover, as its most important element, - no, and negation, as a moment of connection, as a moment of development, with the retention of the positive ... ”.

THE DENIAL OF THE WHOLE OTHER WHOLE(denial with destruction as a variant of creation and progressive development) manifests itself in an antagonistic contradiction between LABOR and CAPITAL. Here the ABSOLUTE FIGHT must end with the ABSOLUTE (uncompromising) VICTORY OF LABOR over CAPITAL. Only on this basis is a dialectical compromise possible (a compromise without a compromise), that is, a compromise in which LABOR can make any compromise with CAPITAL without a single compromise with itself: no and yes - at the same time(NEP, the modern economy of China).

Denial with rejection can also be constructive. In the antagonistic contradiction between labor and capital, in accordance with the law of dialectics, there is also UNITY, albeit RELATIVE. In the struggle of labor against capital, the fighting qualities of the working people are formed, the weapons of the class struggle are sharpened and ready. In the absence of "EVIL", "GOOD" weakens and degenerates. We must learn to maintain control over "evil", never allowing it to prevail.

Denial of a whole, denying part of it(denial with destruction as a variant of creation and progressive development) manifests itself in an antagonistic contradiction between the destructive form (primitive thinking and behavior) and highly organized CONTENT (social matter) in alcoholism and drug addiction. The CONTENT as a WHOLE preserves itself in the form of BEING, subject to a complete rejection of the bad habit, through the destruction of the primitive - old thinking and the approval of the new - progressive (A.Z.).

Denial of denial as a movement from the whole to the whole (denial with retention) manifests itself in the process of the emergence of the new from the good old as a variant of the absolute unity of the new and the old, for example, the birth of new knowledge on the basis of fundamental old (A.Z.).

A qualitatively new phenomenon arises from the old, denying it, but at the same time, retaining everything positive that was in it, developing this positive. Marxist dialectics instills in the consciousness of people courageous revolutionary optimism and a thirst for the struggle for the true progress of mankind and the development of human relations.

6. DEVELOPMENT AS A FIGHT OF OPPOSITES

6.1. The core of the Marxist dialectic. Two development concepts.

"The dichotomy of the one and the knowledge of its contradictory parts ... is the essence ... of dialectics" - Lenin.“In short, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This will capture the core of dialectics. " The method of dialectics according to Hegel is the awareness of the form of internal self-movement (contradiction) of the content (A.Z.). Dialectics is the doctrine of contradictions as a source of development.

6.2. Subject as a unity of opposites. The struggle of opposites is the source of development.

“The conditions for cognition of all processes of the world ... is the cognition of them as the unity of opposites” - Lenin. “Consequently, life, in the same way, is a contradiction existing in the very things and phenomena, an eternally created and resolved contradiction, and as soon as this contradiction ceases, life also ceases, death occurs” - Engels. "Development is a struggle of opposites" - Lenin.

6.3. Dialectical flexibility of concepts. "The Life Truth of Marx's Dialectics".

"Comprehensive, universal flexibility of concepts, flexibility, reaching the identity of opposites - this is the essence" - Lenin. “Dialectics is the doctrine of how opposites can be and how they are (how they become) identical, - under what conditions they are identical, turning into each other, - why the human mind should not take these opposites for dead, frozen, but for living , conditional, mobile, transforming one into another ”- Lenin.

So that such sharp opposites can be identical, so that there is no chance without necessity, as well as necessity without chance, so that chance is recognized as a form of manifestation of necessity, so that freedom and necessity are also united in their opposites and pass into each other, - to understand all this - too difficult a task that requires dialectical flexibility of the mind, which is not and cannot be in the case of a metaphysician (M.R.).

Freedom and necessity are two opposites that are not possible separately, without each other, by themselves, they are possible only in a restless unity (A.Z.). The more deeply people cognize necessity, the more conscious and free their activity, the more successful their struggle. The most "free" activity that runs contrary to historical necessity, not based on the needs of social development, will inevitably fail.

Consequently, the more closely human activity is connected with historical necessity, the more conscious and free it is - in other words, necessity turns into its opposite - freedom. In turn, such free and conscious activity helps to carry out an objectively necessary historical process - in other words, freedom itself turns into its opposite - necessity.

RANDOM PHENOMENA are such phenomena that may or may not be, may develop in one way or another. NECESSARY PHENOMENA are such phenomena that cannot but be, which must arise due to certain laws of the development of nature and social life. Dialectics requires a distinction between opposites: chance and necessity.

However, there is no gap between opposites, dialectical concepts (opposites) can pass one into another. Engels writes that "chance is a form of manifestation of necessity (content - AZ), and necessity is realized in an infinite sum of accidents (the appearance of various forms - AZ)." Chance, without ceasing to be an accident, is nothing more than a form of manifestation of necessity.

Marx wrote that if there were no accidents in history, it would have a mystical character: everything would be predetermined in advance and automatically realized. Historical necessity manifests itself and is realized through the activities of people (life with meaning - A.Z.). But all people have their own individual characteristics, which are accidental for history, but, nevertheless, must manifest themselves.

Accidents are not the main, but of secondary importance for history, but, nevertheless, they modify and diversify the general law of its realization. No matter how diverse the manifestation of accidents in history (life) is, the objective regularity and the iron necessity of DEVELOPMENT make a powerful way for themselves through all accidents, and the latter turn out to be only a form of realization of historical (vital) necessity.

Darwin drew attention to the fact that random traits, as a result of variability, if they are positive and useful for a given animal or plant, are inherited from generation to generation and, strengthening, spread. Thus, what was at first random becomes necessary (the transition of form into content - A.Z.), the same that was previously necessary, dominant in a given form, becomes accidental until it dies off altogether.

In public life, in political struggle, it is impossible to take a step without showing dialectical flexibility, since the processes taking place in this area are especially mobile, flexible, “contradictory”. How many times the leaders of our party, Lenin and Stalin, had to defend the flexible nature of the Bolshevik tactics against those who shouted about its "inconsistency".

"The dialectic nature of Lenin's formulation of the question of national culture" Stalin expressed in the following words: It is necessary to allow national cultures to develop and unfold, revealing all their potential in order to create conditions for their merging into a common culture with one common language. " This flexibility - flexibility, reaching the identity of opposites (fusion of different cultures into a single common culture through the maximum development of national cultures), this metaphysical mind of opportunists could not digest and assimilate.

Lenin draws attention to the fact that sometimes there is a "subjective flexibility of concepts", which does not reflect the "objective flexibility of reality itself." He says: “Of course, the main thesis of Marxist dialectics is that all facets in nature and society are conditional and mobile, that there is not a single phenomenon that, under certain conditions, could not turn into its opposite. A national war can turn into an imperialist one and vice versa. "

The flexibility of concepts must correspond to the flexibility of reality. The possibility of transforming one phenomenon into another does not give any reason to identify these phenomena. “Only a sophist,” said Lenin, “could erase the difference between imperialist and national war on the grounds that one can turn into another. Dialectics more than once served - and in the history of Greek philosophy - as a bridge to sophistry. But we remain dialecticians, fighting sophisms not by denying the possibility of any transformations in general, but by means of a concrete analysis of the given (phenomenon - AZ) in its environment and its development. " Subjective "flexibility" that does not reckon with reality, based on the bare possibility of any transformation, is sophistry, betrayal of dialectics.

6.4. Dialectical doctrine of contradictions and the policy of the party of the proletariat.

“If development is in the order of revealing internal contradictions, in the order of the collision of opposing forces on the basis of these contradictions in order to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a completely natural and inevitable phenomenon.

This means that it is necessary not to gloss over the contradictions of the capitalist order, but to reveal them and unwind, not to extinguish the class struggle, but to bring it to the end. This means that, in order not to be mistaken in politics, it is necessary to pursue an irreconcilable class proletarian policy, and not a reformist policy of harmony of interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and not a conciliatory policy of capitalism "growing" into socialism "- Stalin.

6.5. Contradictions of the transition period and their analysis by Comrade Stalin.

Contradictions in the party itself. Throughout the entire struggle for the socialist reconstruction of the country, our party waged an irreconcilable struggle against the constantly emerging opportunist groups and trends that revised Leninism and pushed the party onto the path of the restoration of capitalism. One could not even dream of a successful solution of the tasks of the transitional period without a constant struggle against all sorts of deviations from Leninism.

The history of the Communist Party is the history of the struggle of contradictions within the party itself. Stalin shows what are the sources of contradictions within the party: the influence of bourgeois ideology on some of the most backward, least politically hardened strata of the working class and, through them, on some of the least stable elements within the party itself.

Stalin said that “There is, and cannot be, a“ middle ”line in matters of a principled nature. Either one or the other principles should form the basis of the party's work. The "middle" line on questions of principle is the "line" of clogging the heads, the "line" of masking disagreements, the "line" of the ideological degeneration of the party, the "line" of the ideological death of the party. "

Stalin identified two groups of contradictions: internal contradictions and external contradictions. Internal contradictions existed between the proletariat and the peasantry. External contradictions were due to interaction with the countries of the capitalist world. Stalin draws a clear, precise, only scientific conclusion: we can and must build a socialist society in our country, but as long as there is a danger of intervention from the capitalist countries hostile to us, the victory of socialism cannot be considered final.

Production method to as any other phenomenon of Being has a CONTENT and FORM. Content is productive forces. Form - industrial relations. Productive forces are tools of labor and people who own them. Content is the basis and foundation of things and phenomena. PRODUCTION RELATIONS is a form of social production. They connect the elements of the productive forces, establish a definite social type of organization of the productive forces. Without such social organization, the productive forces cannot become an active force. The same is the meaning of form in any process, phenomenon, object.

Form is the internal structure, the internal organization of the content itself. If the CONTENT forms the basis, the material of the object, then without content there can be no form. If the FORM is an internal structure, organization, registration of the CONTENT, then without form there can be no content. Form and content in any subject and process are in a state of close, inextricable connection, interpenetration: content determines its form, form organizes its content.

The form not at all the outer shell of the content, it, corresponding to the content, gives it a certain meaning, direction. Democratic centralism, iron discipline, subordination of the minority to the majority, strict conspiracy — these are all forms that organize, ensure the militant, revolutionary content of the party's activities. Without the adoption of such forms, it was impossible to take a step forward in the development of the content of the revolutionary activity of the party.

Lenin wrote then that the form of the Party's work is so imperfect, “... that it hurts the eyes, causes a color of shame in everyone who does not look at the affairs of his party“ picking his nose ”... The undeveloped and fragile form makes it impossible to take further serious steps in development of content, causes shameful stagnation, leads to a waste of energy, to a discrepancy between word and deed. "

The decisive element in the interaction of form and content is content. The shape of the object, the phenomenon, although it is determined by its content, nevertheless It has some relative independence. If, for one reason or another, this relative independence turns into absolute independence, it can acquire a self-sufficient character, that is " can be filled with content alien to her " (destroy the previous content? - A.Z.).

“Collective farms and Soviets represent only a form of organization, it is true, socialist, but, nevertheless, a form of organization. It all depends on what content will be poured into this form. ”- Stalin. The enemies of communism threw out slogans: "Soviets without communists", "Collective farms without communists". Concern about the correspondence of revolutionary forms to the revolutionary content should be in the foreground before the communists, this is the practical conclusion that follows from this.

Correspondence can only be between a certain content and a certain form. Not every form can correspond to a given content, not every content can be the basis for a given form. There may be a contradiction between form and content, and contradiction is the driving force of DEVELOPMENT. CHANGE of subject always (right? - A.Z.) begins with the content, the basis of the subject. At the same time, the balance between the old form and the new content is disturbed. A conflict ensues and continues until the form is changed.

The CONTENT by itself cannot develop, for this internal self-movement is necessary as a result of internal contradiction, and we do not see this contradiction in the conservative part of the content (My commentary - A.Z.). The content has a mostly conservative beginning. It develops, of course, but thanks to a new form. The problem is that the new form, which has already changed the content, for some time coexists and struggles with the old form, and here the conflict begins between the new content and the still living old form, which still remains a denied part of the content (My commentary - A.Z. .).

7. CONCLUSION

The significance of the Marxist dialectical method for the practical activity of the party of the proletariat.

Marx wrote: "Philosophers have only explained the world in different ways, but the point is to change it." When a bourgeois ideologist says that philosophy is one thing, and politics is another, he thereby wants to impose the opinion that philosophy is superclass, that it is related only to "eternal" and "incorruptible" problems, without stopping to the level of "Prose of life".

No matter how bourgeois philosophers rebel in words against the "pollution" of philosophy with politics, they theoretically substantiate a certain class - namely, bourgeois politics. The very denial of the connection between philosophy and politics is a certain form of affirming such a connection, because the ideas about the supra-class, apolitical nature of philosophical theories are called upon to cover up their openly class and political meaning.

Marxist philosophy not only does not deny the connection between philosophy and politics; it sees the whole raison d'être of its existence in equipping the working class, fighting for a new life, the masses of the people with a clear understanding of the laws governing the development of history and the paths of a victorious struggle. Marxist philosophy provides the policy of the party of the proletariat with scientific foundations, on the basis of which the revolutionary vanguard of the working class determines the line of struggle in accordance with the objective laws of historical development, and foresees the main course of this development for many decades to come.

Marxist-Leninist dialectic brings solid granite soil under conscious activity the party of the proletariat. With what stubbornness and zeal bourgeois philosophy tried to knock this soil out from under the feet of the fighting masses in order to plunge them into the mystical darkness of ignorance and, consequently, inability to act consciously.

Engels wrote: "The materialist understanding of history and its special application to the modern class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie became possible only with the help of dialectics."

The objective regularity of human history and the knowledge of this regularity are the basis of the activity of the party of the proletariat. The entire theory of scientific socialism is based on the fact that socialism, the socialist form of social life, is not an accident, but a natural product of all historical development and contemporary historical conditions. Consequently, the struggle for socialism is the most urgent matter, expressing the objective tendencies of the course of history. This means that this struggle is noble in the best and highest sense of the word.

Dialectical philosophy rewards a person with the ability to foresee the future, makes him an active fighter for this future, a conscious builder of his life and his destiny. She educates and forms a new type of personality - a Person who takes his fate into his own hands and rests in his struggle for a new (HAPPY) life on awareness of the need an active life position in self-improvement and improvement of the world around him (my commentary - A.Z.).

02/19/2013

The site administration is not responsible for the content of the posted materials. All claims should be sent to the authors.

And pre-Socratics).

Idealistic dialectics of German classical philosophy of the 18th - first half of the 19th century. (I. Kant, G. Fichte, F. Schelling, G. Hegel).

Materialistic dialectics (K. Marx, F. Engels, philosophers of the Soviet school E. Ilyenkov, Vazyulin V.A., Gott V.S., etc.)

In a narrower sense dialectics- the name of the epistemological method (methodological principle of cognition), which is implemented according to the thesis-antithesis-synthesis scheme. Following this method, at first the cognizing subject singles out some phenomenon in reality, forms for this phenomenon a concept or formula (judgment), which he considers as a thesis. Then the process of cognition continues with the formation of an antithesis - a formula or concept, the content of which is opposite (opposed) to the thesis. Only after this does the subject move on to the consideration and knowledge of the relationship between the thesis and antithesis - to the knowledge of synthesis. The process can be repeated at the meta-level when synthesis is viewed as a higher-level thesis. In this way the truth is perceived.

Dialectics in Antiquity and the Middle Ages

Initially, this term was used to denote:

• the ability to dispute through questions and answers;
• the art of classifying concepts, dividing things into genera and types.

The concept of dialectics in German classical philosophy

German classical idealism (in contrast to metaphysical materialism) considered reality not only as an object of knowledge, but also as an object of activity. Thus, in the theory of knowledge, Kant develops dialectical ideas in the doctrine of "antinomies". However, the dialectic of reason, according to Kant, is an illusion, and it is eliminated as soon as thought returns to its limits, limited by the knowledge of some phenomena. Later in the theory of knowledge (in the Science Teachings), Fichte developed an “antithetical” method for deriving categories, containing important dialectical ideas. Schelling, following Kant, develops a dialectical understanding of the processes of nature.

Hegel's dialectic

Most of all the term "dialectics" was revealed by Hegel. For him, dialectics is such a transition from one definition to another, in which it is revealed that these definitions are one-sided and limited, that is, they contain a negation of themselves. Therefore, dialectics is, according to Hegel, "the driving soul of any scientific development of thought and is the only principle that introduces an immanent connection and necessity into the content of science ...".

In Hegel's dialectic, the following three main elements can be distinguished:

1. An attempt to get around Kant's refutation of rationalism. This refutation, according to Hegel, is valid only for systems that are metaphysical, but not for dialectical rationalism, which takes into account the development of reason and therefore is not afraid of contradictions. Kant refuted rationalism, stating that it certainly leads to contradictions. However, this argument draws its strength from the law of contradiction: it refutes only systems that recognize this law, that is, they try to get rid of contradictions. This argument poses no threat to Hegel's dialectical system, which is willing to come to terms with contradictions.

2. Description of the development of reason in terms of dialectics. Hegel uses the word "mind" not only in a subjective sense - to denote a certain mental ability - but also in an objective sense - to designate all kinds of theories, thoughts, ideas, etc. Hegel most successfully applied the dialectical method in his Lectures on the history of philosophy ".

Hegel, who saw in dialectics a true description of the actual process of reasoning and thinking, considered it his duty to change logic in order to make dialectics an important - if not the most important - part of logical theory. To do this, he had to reject the "law of contradiction", which served as a serious obstacle to dialectics.

3. Philosophy of identity. If reason and reality are identical and reason develops dialectically (as is clearly seen in the development of philosophical thinking), then reality must develop dialectically. The world must obey the laws of dialectical logic. Therefore, we must find contradictions in the world that are allowed by dialectical logic. It is precisely the fact that the world is full of contradictions that once again clarifies to us that the law of contradiction must be discarded for its worthlessness. On the basis of the philosophy of the identity of reason and reality, it is argued that since ideas contradict each other, facts can also contradict one another, and that facts, like ideas, develop due to contradictions - and therefore the law of contradiction must be abandoned.

Dialectical triad

"Thesis" is an idea, theory or movement.

The thesis is likely to evoke opposition, opposition, because, like most things in this world, it is likely to be controversial, that is, not devoid of weaknesses. The opposite idea (or movement) is called "Antithesis", since it is directed against the first - thesis.

The struggle between the thesis and the antithesis continues until such a solution is found, which in some respects goes beyond the framework of both the thesis and the antithesis, recognizing, however, their relative value and trying to preserve their advantages and avoid shortcomings. This solution, which is the third dialectical step, is called "Synthesis".

Once achieved, the synthesis, in turn, can become the first stage of a new dialectical triad and really becomes it if it turns out to be one-sided or unsatisfactory for some other reason. Indeed, in the latter case, opposition will arise again, which means that the synthesis can be viewed as a new thesis that has given rise to a new antithesis. Thus, the dialectical triad will resume at a higher level; it can rise to the third level when the second synthesis is reached.

It should also be noted that instead of using the terms "thesis", "antithesis" and "synthesis" dialectics often describe the dialectical triad using the terms "Denial (thesis)"- instead of "antithesis" and "Negation of negation"- instead of "synthesis".

An example of using the dialectical method

An example of the use of the dialectical method is a quote from Hegel's "Philosophy of Nature"

Sound is a change in the specific externality of material parts and its negation - it is only the abstract, or, so to speak, only the ideal ideality of this specificity. But by the same token, this change is itself directly a negation of material specific stable existence; this negation is thus the real ideality of specific gravity and cohesion, that is, warmth. The heating of sounding bodies - sounding both from impact and from friction against each other - is a manifestation of heat that arises according to the concept together with sound

Dialectics of Marxism

The concept of dialectics was used in their works by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who translated it into the materialistic plane (dialectical materialism).

So, Marx understands philosophy as a science and tries to build it strictly according to the scientific method. He moves from the abstract to the concrete. Being determines consciousness, consciousness is understood as the property of matter to reflect itself, and not as an independent entity. Matter is in constant motion and develops. Matter is eternal and infinite and periodically takes on different forms. Practice is the most important factor in development. Development takes place according to the laws of dialectics - the unity and struggle of opposites, the transition of quantity into quality, the denial of negation.

The domestic philosophical tradition (especially the materialists) adopted Hegel's dialectics in the interpretation of Engels, who formulated the so-called "Three laws of dialectics".

1. The law of the transition from quantitative changes to qualitative ones.
2. The law of unity and struggle of opposites.
3. The law of negation of negation.

V first law Engels defines the categories of quality, quantity and measure. Quality is the inner certainty of an object, a phenomenon that characterizes an object or phenomenon as a whole. Quality is the first immediate determination of being. Quantity is certainty, "indifferent to being" - the external certainty of a thing. Quality and quantity cannot exist independently of each other, since any thing or phenomenon is determined by both qualitative characteristics and quantitative indicators. A “demonstration” of qualitative and quantitative certainty is a measure, that is, the ratio of indicators, a kind of balance. Violation of the measure changes the quality and transforms one thing into another, or one phenomenon into another. There is a break in gradualness, or a qualitative leap - this is a universal form of transition from one qualitative state to another.

A classic example of the transition from quantitative to qualitative changes is ice - water - steam transformations. As the ice heats up, a quantitative change first occurs - an increase in temperature. At 0 ° C, despite the continued heating, the temperature stops rising, the ice turns into water. This is already a change in quality. Further heating of the water again causes first quantitative (temperature rise) and then qualitative (transformation into steam at 100 ° C) changes.

Second law dialectics reveals its inner source in development. The basis of all development, from the point of view of Engels, is the struggle of opposing sides. When revealing the operation of this law, he emphasized the existence of communication and interaction between opposites, proving that they are moving, interconnected and interacting tendencies, and this relationship is expressed in the fact that each of them has its own opposite. The other side of dialectical opposites is the mutual negation of sides and tendencies, which is why the sides of a single whole are opposites, they are not only in a state of interconnection, but also in mutual denial. It is precisely this kind of relationship of opposites that Hegel called contradictions. "Contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality, only insofar as it has a contradiction in itself, it moves, has impulse and activity." The resolution of any contradictions is a leap, a qualitative change in the given object, transforms it into a qualitatively different object that denies the old one.

The unity and struggle of opposites can be illustrated by the dual nature of light: in some cases it behaves like a stream of particles, in others - like a wave. In biological evolution, it is through the struggle of heredity and variability that new forms of life emerge.

The third law dialectics reflects, according to Engels, the overall result and direction of the development process. Denial means the destruction of the old quality by the new, the transition from one qualitative state to another. The development process is progressive. Progressiveness and repetition gives cyclicity a spiral form and each stage of the development process is richer in its content, since it includes all the best that was accumulated at the previous stage. Logical denial of negation: “This is true”; "This is not true"; "This is not wrong." The last judgment is negative, but in other respects it is tantamount to affirmative.

A burning example: with the development of the economy, a period of prosperity is replaced by a crisis, followed by prosperity and again a crisis.

Dialectics of Traditional Chinese Philosophy

In Chinese philosophy, dialectics are traditionally associated with the categories of Yin and Yang. From the point of view of Chinese thinkers, these categories reflect the interconnection and interconversion of opposite sides of the phenomenon into each other. For example, "Yin" - dark, soft, elastic, "Yang" - light, hard, hard; "Yin" turns into "Yang" - the dark brightens, etc.

Dialectics in Russian Philosophy

In Soviet times, Marxism-Leninism was considered the only acceptable form of dialectic, and attempts to develop it unorthodox were viewed with suspicion. After the collapse of the USSR, dialectics went out of fashion to a large extent, although many authors continue to assess it positively.

Dialectics today

The current state of science is characterized by the silence of dialectics simultaneously with the significant development and concretization of its ideas under other names. The silence seems to be an echo of the ideological struggle between Marxism-Leninism and the philosophy of an "open society" in the twentieth century and is probably of a transitory nature. Consider progress in each of the above laws of dialectics.

Moving from quantitative to qualitative changes

Transitions from quantitative to qualitative changes are made by leaps. Revealing the patterns of such leaps seems to be the main achievement in the development of this dialectical pattern.

V thermodynamics of nonequilibrium processes(I. Prigogine, Belgium) the central concept is the concept of bifurcations. Jumps occur at bifurcation points - critical states of the system, at which the system becomes unstable with respect to fluctuations and uncertainty arises: will the state of the system become chaotic or it will move to a new, more differentiated and high level of order. An example of an unstable state leading to bifurcation is the situation in a country during a revolution. Since the direction of the jump is determined by fluctuations, the future is, in principle, not predictable, at the same time, any person, generally speaking, can determine the course of history. Jumps at bifurcation points lead to both progress and regression.

In catastrophe theory(R. Thom, France; V. I. Arnold, Russia), attention is focused on such an important aspect as the possibility of jumps (catastrophes) as a sudden response to small, smooth changes in external conditions. It was applied to the study of heart contractions, in optics, embryology, linguistics, experimental psychology, economics, hydrodynamics, geology and the theory of elementary particles. Based on the theory of catastrophes, a study of the stability of ships, modeling of brain activity and mental disorders, uprisings of prisoners in prisons, the behavior of stock market players, the influence of alcohol on vehicle drivers is carried out.

The two described areas, together with others (G. Haken, Germany; S.P. Kurdyumov and E.N. synergetics... Various schemes of the relationship between dialectics and synergetics are proposed, including the idea of ​​synergetics as an integral part of dialectics or the development of dialectics into synergetics.

Unity and struggle of opposites

The dialectical approach helped to establish that evolution occurs at all levels of matter, including inanimate nature. At the same time, modern developments of the principle of the struggle of opposites have shown the universality of the driving forces of evolution. As mentioned above, the driving force behind biological evolution is the struggle of opposites: heredity and variability. Similar opposites are realized at other levels of evolution, therefore, the content of these concepts has been significantly expanded.

Variability provides diversity, it is realized through randomness in conditions of uncertainty. These are turbulence and Brownian motion (in inanimate nature), mutations (in biology), conflicts (in society). Heredity determines the ability to maintain their own characteristics, the dependence of the future on the past. Thus, we are talking about comprehending the general nature of the driving forces (opposites) at all levels of evolution, from elementary particles to society, including technology and culture.

Denial negation

The denial of negation is directly related to the problem of repetition in the developmental process. There are assertions that modern ideas about the irreversible and probabilistic nature of development processes exclude the possibility of repetition.

However, repetitions are observed in a wide range of evolutions: inorganic, biological, social and technical, as well as within each individual evolution.

The egg-shaped or spherical shape is found not only in bacterial, plant and animal cells, but also in minerals. The patterns of venation of leaves of plants and wings of insects are the same, and it is difficult to distinguish them from the type of cracks formed when the soil dries. Horn-like structures are found both in minerals and in plants, as well as in invertebrates (shells of some molluscs) and vertebrates (rhinoceros, deer, goat) animals. Branching forms are noted not only in plants, but also in invertebrates, as well as in ice dendrites, native copper, and manganese oxides. Flower-like structures are found in minerals and in invertebrates.

Repetitions are explained by the fact that Nature is limited a small number of workable options... Indeed, all substances are built exclusively from atoms, atoms - only from electrons and nuclei, nuclei - from protons and neutrons. More than three million known chemical compounds (and all that will be discovered) can form crystals of only seven crystallographic systems: cubic, hexagonal, trigonal, tetragonal, orthorhombic, monoclinic and triclinic. Any of these substances can exist only in three states of aggregation: gas, liquid and solid.

So the number of options is small; if to simplify the situation, then often two main ones can be distinguished from them, which are presented as opposites. The struggle of these two opposites with the alternating predominance of one of them and described by the regularity of negation negation .

For example, there are waves of democratization and a rollback from it in the United States, Russian reforms and counterreforms from 1801 to modern times, and repetitions in US domestic and foreign policy.

There are significant advances in detailing negation negation for specific cases and generalizations its variants (alternating predominance of variability and heredity, chaos and order in the most diverse evolutions).

All three regularities of dialectics, again, as a rule, without references to dialectics, are developed in detail in the theory and practice of crises in nature and society.

Criticism of Hegelian dialectics and dialectics of Marxism

K. Popper

K. Popper gives a reasoned criticism of dialectics of the Hegelian type in his article "What is dialectics?" According to K. Popper, dialecticians make the wrong conclusion that there is no need to avoid contradictions. He accuses the adherents of dialectics of attempting to exclude the contradiction of formal logic, which states that two conflicting statements cannot be true at the same time. In his opinion, any statement can be deduced from the assumption of two conflicting statements.

Reconciliation with a contradiction, according to K. Popper, necessarily leads us to abandon criticism, because criticism, in essence, boils down to identifying a contradiction in theory. The vague assertion of dialecticians that contradictions are inevitable and that getting rid of them is even undesirable leads to a dangerous delusion, since the so-called fruitfulness of contradictions is simply the result of our decision not to put up with them (following the law of elimination of contradiction). It is dangerous because the opinion that one should not or cannot get rid of contradictions necessarily leads to the end of both science and criticism, that is, to the end of rationality.

K. Popper notes that in dialectics, logical terms are used incorrectly, and the concepts "negation" and "contradiction" have a certain logical meaning, which is different from the dialectical one. Less misleading would be, in his opinion, the terms "conflict", "opposite tendency" or "opposite interest."

Equilibrium theory A. A. Bogdanova

In the three-volume work "Tectology", published in the twenties of the last century, Bogdanov offers an alternative theory. He explains the processes of development of nature and society on the basis of the principle of equilibrium, borrowed from natural science. All developing objects of nature and society are, according to Bogdanov, integral formations, or systems, consisting of many elements.

Bogdanov considers the equilibrium state of the system not as once and for all given, but as "dynamic" or "mobile" equilibrium. It acts as a constant interaction of a progressively developing system with the environment, leading over time to its imbalance and subsequent instability (crisis), another structural restructuring, creating a new stability and a new state of balance at a higher turn of its further development. The "law of equilibrium" formulated by Le Chatelier for physical and chemical objects, according to Bogdanov, has a universal character and is "an expression of the structural stability" of developing systems of any level of organization of matter. Their structure appears as a result of the struggle and interaction of opposites (multidirectional elements), and "mobile equilibrium" as a whole - as a constant adaptation to the changing external environment through inevitable structural changes and the replacement of one equilibrium and stable state with another.

A characteristic feature of Bogdanov's theory of equilibrium is the assertion that opposites must balance, balance each other, and only in this way a stable state of the system is achieved.

In developing systems, two opposite trends operate simultaneously: 1. Increasing stability due to integration processes, striving for balance; 2. Decrease in stability caused by the emergence of "systemic contradictions".

These contradictions, at a certain level of their development, can lead to crises. Cases of this kind are innumerable in experience, writes Bogdanov, they are the main material for Goethe's poetic formula:

"Reasonable has become absurd, And good has turned to evil."

“Sooner or later, systemic contradictions intensify to the point that they outweigh the organizational connection (systems); then a crisis must come, leading either to its transformation, or to disintegration, collapse. "

“An organizational task follows from systemic contradictions, the more urgent, the stronger their development, the task of resolving or eliminating them. Life decides it either in a negative way - the system itself is destroyed, for example, the organism dies, or in a positive way - by transforming the system, freeing it from contradictions. "

A more harmonious or "harmonious" combination of system elements, contains fewer "contradictions". This means a higher level of organization.

In Bogdanov's tectology, “for the first time, the main provisions of the systems approach and the theory of self-organization of systems are formulated. It not only has not lost its relevance, actually acting as a forerunner and theoretical basis of the current Concept of Sustainable Development, but also serves as an important information source for its further deepening and improvement. "

Sustainable development philosophy

Employees of the UNESCO International Chair in Environmental Ethics of the East Siberian State Technological University are working on the creation of a philosophy of sustainable development. The philosophy of sustainable development is the philosophy of dialectical realism. According to the head of the department V.V. Mantatov, the most general pattern of sustainable development is the bifurcation of the one into opposites and the dynamic balance between them. “Sustainable development takes place where opposites do not reach antagonism, where self-organization of the system takes place, the situation is 'resolvable'; This dialectic of sustainable development is most adequately expressed by the concept of harmony (in the Heraclitean interpretation). Harmony, according to Heraclitus, is an internal connection, a hidden coherence, that is, balance resulting from the "convergence" of the unrelenting "divergence" of opposing forces. " “The development process goes - at least - in two opposite ways: variability and stability, chaos and order, involution and evolution. In this unity and mutual transition of opposite moments of development, the concept of sustainable development focuses on evolution, coherence and direction of change. The process of such development is characterized by order and safety, survivability and preservation of structures as opposed to chaos and catastrophe. In a word, sustainable development is such a creative evolution of a system in which no transformations within the system, no external disturbing factors can bring it out of the state of dynamic equilibrium. "

“We did not teach dialectics according to Hegel,” V. Ma-yakovsky once said. And in vain, for it was Hegel who summarized and systematized the general philosophical searches for the essence and content of the dialectical method. K. Popper criticizes him in vain.

Of course, philosophers still do not have a SYSTEMIC exposition of the dialectical method. Attempts were made in our country by such researchers as P. V. Kopnin, E. V. Ilyenkov, V. N. Sagatovsky, D. P. Gorsky and others. Private studies of the implementation of the dialectical method are presented in numerous works by V.A.Vazyulin, V.V. Orlov, I.A.Gobozov, Z.M. Orudzhev, A.M. Korshunov, V.F. Asmus and others.

When P. V. Kopnin (director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR) in 1970 in the Smolny Hall in Leningrad was asked: "When will the Institute of Philosophy create Dialectical Logic?" Kant, Hegel, Marx ". The institute does not have such staff.

But let's not forget about the historical tradition of accumulating philosophical knowledge. If all this knowledge in the first approximation is divided into ideological and methodological, then we have not yet solved the problem of Worldview systematization, nor the problem of Methodological systematization of philosophical concepts.

First of all, it is important to realize that Philosophy as a special type of worldview (along with religion, mythology, art, science, folk worldview) has a conceptual character: philosophy is a set of concepts as abstract theoretical provisions (knowledge) about the system "Universe - Man" ... The cognitive (knowledge) and axiological (assessment) aspects are fixed in the worldview. A worldview of any type does not yet bring a person to action; in the worldview - statements and assessments, answers to two questions: "what is there?" and "how to treat?" (V.P. Tugarinov).

But on the basis of a worldview, a methodology is formed. For a person must also answer the third question: "how to act?" Historically, there is a transformation of the worldview content of philosophy into a methodological one.

By the way, this is a general tendency of ALL sciences - the transformation of their theoretical concepts into methodological principles.

And in this respect, two tips from Karl Marx are of fundamental importance: a) the concept of turning theory into a method; b) the concept of removing the lower from the higher: "human anatomy is the key to the anatomy of a monkey."

The interpretation of philosophy as a methodological basis for research for all sciences has the concept of P.V. Kopnin: any knowledge directed to an object is a THEORY, and a theory directed to a subject is a METHOD. In other words, knowledge is a medal with two sides: objective (Theory) and subjective (Method).

We are still talking about GENERAL concepts of the formation of the dialectical method. They are developed later. But V. I. Lenin turned us to the origins of dialectics ("Philosophical notebooks", "Materialism and empirio-criticism", "Once again about the trade unions ...").

It is sad that our philosophers did not develop the dialectical concept of VI Lenin (16 elements of dialectics, "On the question of dialectics", 4 principles of dialectical logic, etc.). Of course,
VI Lenin perfectly understood the need for a systematic presentation of the DIALECTIC Method (memoirs of NK Krupskaya). And he even prepared material for this work (2 pp.). But he left us a commandment: "Marx did not leave us a dialectical logic with a capital letter, but he left us the Logic of Capital."

Hence, it was necessary to investigate this Logic of "Capital". And a lot of work has been done in this regard: the dialectic of abstract and concrete labor, the dialectic of use and exchange value, the dialectic of the movement of capital, the dialectic of the forms and types of capitalist production, the dialectic of relations between the sphere of production and the sphere of consumption, the dialectic of absolute and relative needs, the dialectic of the living and materialized labor, dialectics of relations between national and international economies, dialectics of necessary and surplus labor, etc., etc.

It is said that Marx used Hegel's dialectic in his analysis of the economic movement of society. First, the student is bad if he does not rely on the achievements of his teacher. Second, Marx overcame the idealistic shortcomings of Hegel's concept. My method (method!) Is the exact opposite of Hegel's, wrote Marx. - Hegel has the idea of ​​a demiurge, the creator of all that exists, while for me "the ideal is the material, transplanted into the human head and transformed in it."

F. Engels in a series of his works ("Dialectics of Nature", "Anti-Duhring", "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", "Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science") and especially in letters of the 90s, attempted to systematize the Dialectical method. There is no place to talk about his specific achievements here, but it is important that he left us a number of principles of the dialectical method: the principle of development, the principle of interconnection, the principle of removing the lower from the higher, the principle of polarization, the principle of consistency and others. Not everyone still understands his methodological prompts: "and the atom is not an indivisible particle" (1878), "and any knowledge is both true and false at the same time" (1879), "and cause and effect exist simultaneously" (1875), other.

An analysis of the entire historical path of development of dialectics allowed Lenin to finally speak about its essence: the bifurcation of the one into opposites and the study of their relations. This is really the essence, core, essence of dialectics. This is already stated in the teachings of Heraclitus, and then in the works of a number of dialecticians. In this series, we first of all mention not Kant, but Hegel. Kant clearly fixed the antinomies (polarities) of both being and consciousness, but it was necessary to remove these polarities in the THIRD (in their unity). Hegel did it. The entire system of his philosophy is built on the well-known "trinity": thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This is the formal side of the matter. It is important that Hegel analyzed the entire history of mankind from the standpoint of the DIALECTIC method. This was a revolution in philosophy. By the way, not realized until now.

The only person who not only understood, but also constructively used the HEGEL DIALECTIC METHODOLOGY is Karl Marx. It was necessary (according to Lenin) to carry out the operation of the materialist transformation of the Hegelian dialectic. Marx did this on the most difficult object - on the analysis of the ECONOMIC movement of society. All the conclusions he made 150 years ago turn out to be reliable, true. Not surprisingly, even in the XX century. Marx has been called the man of the millennium.

And yet we agree with Lenin that the essence of dialectics is the dividing of the one into opposites and the study of their contradictory relationship. In other words, the essence of dialectics is expressed by the LAW of the unity and struggle of opposites. There are many difficulties in the interpretation of this law:

a) there is no struggle between "left" and "right", "bottom and top", etc .;

b) how to understand unity;

c) how to understand the struggle;

d) why unity is relative, and the struggle is absolute;

e) somewhere in the third, in which the polarities are removed, etc.

For each of these points, a series of counterarguments can be presented:

a) the term "struggle" was used by both Engels and Lenin in quotation marks. At the same time, “struggle” was understood as confrontation, mutual exclusion, etc .;

b) the unity of opposites means their coexistence in the system of the WHOLE;

c) struggle is a metaphor, its essence is in opposition, in enmity, in the exclusion of the parameters of one system in others;

d) none of the classics asserted the absoluteness of struggle and the relativity of unity (Dialectics forbids this). We are always talking about the unity of the absoluteness and relativity of space and time, motion and rest, matter and consciousness, objective and subjective factors of history, the unity of content and form, essence and phenomenon, cause and effect, necessity and chance, possibility and reality, part and whole, etc. Not a single dialectician can "leave" either to the left or to the right. Its task is to maintain polarities: unity;

e) as a result, the dialectician is not the one who dichotomously polarizes the integrity, but the one who sees the UNITY in these polarities.

The core of dialectics is clearly indicated - the study of any object as a unity of polarities. The history of all research demonstrates polarity in all systems of an abiotic, biotic and social nature:

- alive - inanimate;

- biological - social;

- gene programs - social programs;

- hereditary - acquired;

- personality - society;

- culture - anti-culture;

- market economy - command economy;

- traditions - innovations;

- international - national;

- autocracy - ochlocracy;

- natural law - positive law;

- determination - regulation;

- regulation - motivation;

- absolute - relative;

- revolutionary - evolutionary, etc., etc.

It is in these polarities that the DIALECTICALLY understood history of mankind and the universe as a whole unfolds.

Attempts to present the movement of humanity in a pluralistic version (biological, social, spiritual; material, social, spiritual; autocracy, ochlocracy, democracy; economic, political, social, spiritual; etc.) are either methodological folly, or a deliberate distortion of the course development of mankind.

The dialectical method is focused not only on the DIVISION of the one in polarity, but also on the RESEARCH of their contradictory unity.

On this score, a lot of substantive evidence is presented in dialectics: the unity of abstract and concrete labor, the unity of the absoluteness and relativity of truth, the unity of motion and rest, the unity of the absoluteness and relativity of space and time, the unity of cause and effect, the unity of necessity and chance, the unity of form and content, the unity of composition and structure, the unity of the part and the whole, the unity of the true and the false, the unity of the sensible and the rational, etc. Often the problem is distorted due to a misunderstanding of the third in which polarities are removed: knowledge is true and false, a work of art is the unity of content and forms, an event is the unity of the necessary and the accidental, the system is the unity of composition and structure, reality is the unity of essence and phenomenon, social life is the unity of social being and social consciousness, aesthetic is the unity of the beautiful and the ugly, ethical is the unity of good and evil, etc. . etc.

In other words, until now the CORE, the essence of dialectics, not only in private sciences, but also in philosophy itself, have not been deeply understood. The metaphysical method (or ... or ...) still dominates the sciences. And the blame for this is PHILOSOPHY, because its direct function is to equip all sciences with the DIALECTIC method of analyzing any phenomenon.

And if philosophy does not fulfill this function, then is it any wonder the birth from the 19th century. SERIES of pluralistic concepts that rely on supermodern research METHODS: systemic, structural, genetic, functional, hermeneutic, synergetic, systemic-genetic, sociogenetic, axiomatic, hypothetical-deductive, analytical, synthetic, comparative, etc., etc.? They are innumerable, because: a) they are all postulated, not deduced, and
b) they all have methodological foundations in DIALECTICS.
And this is the second main thing.

The dialectical method must be understood as an IMPLICIT, not unfolded, rich in content, a phenomenon awaiting its explication. If we ignore this aspect of dialectics, then all supermodern “methods” begin to appear as a contrast, as opposition, as an addition, as a correction, etc. of dialectics.

This whole story is well known from the "Dialectics of Nature"
F. Engels and "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" by V. I. Lenin. Then, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, many (including Marxists) tried to supplement dialectical materialism with Kant, Mach, and Spengler, and Spencer, and Rickert, etc. Today this process continues: Freud, Sartre, Heidegger, Jaspers, James, Dewey, Pierce, Weber, Durkheim, Coser, Gadamer, Lakatos, Popper, Habermas and a sea of ​​others. But since the 90s. XIX century. to this detachment of "complements" were added the long-overcome concepts of N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, V. Soloviev, Lossky, Frank, Rozanov, Trubetskoy, Vysheslavtsev, Ilyin, etc., etc.

What about these concepts? That they are all: a) idealistic, b) metaphysical and c) mystical. Russia cannot build a new IDEOLOGY on these concepts!

Forgotten the great philosophers of the planet, who first of all developed the DIALECTIC view of the world: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Democritus, Epicurus, Bruno, Bacon, Descartes, Diderot, Hobbes, Locke, Fichte, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, etc. But this is precisely the storehouse of philosophical wisdom that allows today to abandon the search for "newest methodology" and move in the direction of EXPLICATION of the immanent content of dialectics.

Our All-Russian Academy of Humanities (since 1969) until now has not only to prove the deep content of the dialectical method in the analysis of all phenomena of reality, but also to demonstrate the effectiveness of solving specific problems using the dialectical method.

With the help of the methodologically transformed law of "unity and struggle of opposites" into the principle of polarization, it was possible to solve such complex problems as:

a) the unity of extrapolation and experiment;

b) typology of spheres of public life; economic and environmental, scientific and artistic, managerial and pedagogical, medical and physical education;

c) the essence of the aesthetic as the relationship between the measure of a person and the measure of an object;

d) analysis of 6 types of worldview: mythology and folk experience, religion and art, philosophy and science;

e) typology of ownership (8 types);

h) a systematic analysis of the ecological sphere of society, etc.

The dialectical principle of development has been effectively used in the analysis of the genesis of a number of social phenomena:

a) genetic analysis of personality socialization (identification - individualization - personalization);

b) genetic analysis of design history;

c) genetic analysis of the formation of the universe (abiotic - biotic - social systems);

d) genetic analysis of the formation of social regulators (determination - regulation - motivation);

e) genetic analysis of the development of the aesthetic activity of society (subjectivation - objectification - secondary subjectivity);

f) genetic analysis of the sociodynamics of human needs and abilities (identification - formation - development - implementation);

g) sociogenetic analysis of the historical transformation of activity into amateur activity as an internally motivated creative activity, etc.

The systemic approach, which has been spoken of as methodological and opposing dialectics since the middle of the 20th century, logically follows from the dialectical method. This systemic approach was brilliantly implemented by Hegel in his philosophy and Marx in the analysis of the economic sphere of society. Already the basic concepts-components of the system "Composition" and "Structure" are dialectically polar. The system is the unity of composition and structure, structured composition. The use of this systemic principle of dialectics allowed us to solve a number of empirically given problems:

a) a system of philosophy has been built;

b) a design system is proposed;

c) formulated the basic principles of the system analysis of society;

d) systemically analyzed the main parameters of consciousness (consciousness and brain, consciousness and reality, consciousness and language, consciousness and activity);

e) a system of aesthetic categories has been built.

This series can be continued if we take into account the series of doctoral and master's theses defended since 1992 in the dissertation council at NNGASU (119 in total): system analysis of physical culture (Yu.A. Lebedev), system analysis of social fanaticism (T.N. Sanaeva), system analysis of the dialogue
(T. V. Lebedeva), system analysis of legal society (A. N. Ivanov), system analysis of social intelligence (A. I. Subetto), system analysis of society (N. N. Aleksandrov), system analysis of the universe (A. V Dakhin), system analysis of technology (V. A. Shchurov), system analysis of socialism (V. I. Tabakov), system analysis of conversion (V. P. Petrov) and many others. It is important that all these and similar works as a methodological basis for research are based on the DIALECTIC METHOD with its development into the principles of development, polarization, dimensionality, consistency, objectivity, etc.

Anthroponomy. General theory of man. - N. Novgorod: NASA, 1991. The laws of the management sphere of society. - N. Novgorod: NNGASU, 2004.

Zelenov, L.A. System of Philosophy. - N. Novgorod: UNN, 1991.

Zelenov, L.A. History and theory of design. - N. Novgorod: NNGASU, 2002.

Zelenov L.A. Sociology of the city. - M .: Vlados, 2000.

Zelenov, L. A., Vladimirov, A. A. Fundamentals of Philosophy. - M .: Vlados, 2000.

Zelenov, L.A. The process of aesthetic reflection. - M .: Art, 1969; Zelenov, L.A. System of aesthetics. - N. Novgorod - M .: RAO, 2005; and etc.

There are two methods of scientific research that we consider to be universal. These are general philosophical methods: dialectical and metaphysical and dialectical.

The metaphysical method was actively used until the 19th century. (before Hegel) and was due to the low level of development of social and technical sciences.

It is believed that the author of the term "metaphysics" is Andronicus of Rhodes (first century BC). This method (which we denote as metaphysical) aims to present phenomena in their absolute manifestation, without mutual connection and development, therefore, its essence is one-sidedness and absolutization of one of the sides of the living process of cognition (or one of the elements of the whole). The tasks of the metaphysical method of cognition are:

• 1) the study of all objects, phenomena, as well as the concepts corresponding to them in quantitative terms;
• 2) study of subjects isolated, apart from each other;
• 3) an attempt to achieve absolute value, to define complete knowledge.

According to metaphysical concepts, the essence of the world is immutable.

Gradually (since the 19th century), the metaphysical method lost its relevance, it was replaced by the dialectical method.

G. Hegel is considered the founder of the dialectical method. The essence of the dialectical method lies in the fact that reality is cognized in its inconsistency, as well as integrity and development.

Hegel wrote that the dialectical method is "the driving soul of true knowledge." In his opinion, the dialectical method is based on a principle that is capable of introducing internal connection and necessity into the content of each scientific knowledge (Fig. 5.4).

Hegel owns three basic laws of dialectics:

• 1) the law of the transition from quantity to quality and vice versa (The first law of dialectics). The law of the transition from quantity to quality and vice versa serves to describe and define self-development. Hegel defined as three forms of being the idea of ​​"quality", "quantity" and "measure";
• 2) the law of unity and struggle of opposites (the law of interpenetration) (The second law of dialectics). The law of unity and struggle of opposites describes the concepts of "identity", "difference", "contradiction", "opposition". Hegel believed that any phenomenon is the result of internal contradictions, denials and tendencies. That is why the sides of a single whole, according to Hegel, are opposites and are interconnected, interdependent;
• 3) the law of "negation of negation" (The third law of dialectics). The essence of the law of "negation of negation" lies in the denial of everything old when the new appears and signifies the direction of evolution. The old is denied in the transition to a new quality. Evolution means the realization of the triune condition, which consists in:
  • - overcoming the old,
  • - continuity in development,
  • - the approval of a new one.

The dialectical method, therefore, is based on the three laws of dialectics, establishes the basic principles and requirements for the process of cognition, determines the conditions for achieving objective truth.

Rice. 5.4.

The principles of the dialectical method can be divided into basic and specific. The basic principles reflect the essence of the laws of dialectics, they can manifest themselves both independently and through interaction with particular principles.

In accordance with the laws of dialectics, the basic principles include the principles of the transition from quantity to quality, the unity of the struggle of opposites and dialectical negation. The essence of these principles is as follows.

Consider the entity The principle of the transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones:

The principle proposes a definition of the process of movement of an object, that is, it makes it possible to reveal the mechanism of transformation of an object into a new qualitative state. With this approach, the starting point is the postulate that the available quantitative changes accumulate and thereby determine the changes in the object. A researcher can apply this principle not only when observing the dynamics of an object's development, but also when predicting its states, which had not yet revealed themselves until the moment of research.

Let's turn to The principle of the struggle of opposites:

The principle allows us to consider the object of research as the unity and struggle of opposites. Let us explain: each object is characterized by a certain set (balance) of opposites; as an example, let us point out the combination of advantages and disadvantages in the object. To reveal internal opposites means for a researcher to understand the essence of an object, to more fully imagine what driving forces determine its development. Being in a state of struggle of opposites, the object develops; thus, exploring opposites, the scientist determines the laws of the internal development of the object.

Let's define the essence The principle of dialectical denial:

The principle of dialectical negation means, first of all, that the old is part of the new. In old knowledge, the researcher must preserve all the most positive in order to support it, transferring it into new knowledge.

Private principles include:

• - objectivity;
• - comprehensiveness;
• - concreteness;
• - consistency;
• - historicism;
• - contradictions;
• - movement and development;
• - unity of form and content.

Objectivity. A dialectical principle based on the recognition of objective reality in its real laws and general forms. The main content of this principled approach can be presented in the form of the following requirements:

• a) proceed from sensory-objective activity (practice) in all its volume and development;
• b) realize and realize the active role of the subject of knowledge and action; c) proceed from the facts in their totality and be able to express the logic of things in the logic of concepts;
• d) to reveal the inner unity (substance) of the object as the deep basis of all its formations;
• e) skillfully choose a system of methods adequate to a given subject and consciously, consistently implement it;
• f) consider the subject in the appropriate socio-cultural context, within the framework of certain worldview orientations;
• g) approach all processes and phenomena constructively and critically and act in accordance with the logic of this subject.

Dialectical principle of all-roundness means cognition and other forms of activity, expressing the universal connection of the totality of phenomena of objective reality. The principle of comprehensiveness is characterized by the following requirements:

• a) the subject of research must be isolated, its boundaries are determined;
• b) the subject of research should be considered in its entirety;
• c) the subject of research should be studied in each of its aspects;
• d) cognition of an object is a process that unfolds in depth and breadth, it is one in its intensive and extensive side;
• e) research means identifying the essence, the essential side of the subject and its inherent characteristics.

Comprehensiveness as a dialectical principle is associated with the philosophical principle of concreteness, as well as with the general scientific principle of consistency.

The dialectical principle of concreteness(condensation) - there is a philosophical category that expresses a "thing" / "system of interconnected things", which are in the aggregate of their sides and interconnections. "Thing" is reflected in two stages of research:

• - at the empirical stage (as sensually concrete),
• - at the theoretical stage (as mentally concrete). The dialectical the principle of concreteness, defined by the following requirements:
  • a) each phenomenon must be deduced from its substantial attribute (the substantial attribute is the main, most essential aspect) and reproduced as a whole, dialectically dismembered;
  • b) the general must find refraction in the individual, the essence - in the phenomena, the law - in its modifications;
  • c) the diverse conditions of place, time and other circumstances that change the being of the object under study must be taken into account;
  • d) a specific mechanism of the relationship between the general and the individual must be identified;
  • e) this subject should be considered as part of a broader whole, of which it is an element.

Dialectical principle of consistency means that the object under study is considered in a universal connection, interdependence and in a specific historical context.

The dialectical principle of historicism is a philosophical, dialectical principle, which is a methodological expression of self-development of objective reality (in the context of its direction along the time axis in the form of an integral continuous unity of states such as the past, present and future). This principle contains the following requirements:

• a) the present, current state of the research subject should be studied;
• b) a reconstruction of the past should be carried out, that is, the genesis, the emergence of the latter and the main stages of its historical movement should be considered;
• c) foresight of the future and forecasting of trends in the further development of the subject is carried out.

Let's dwell on the principle the unity of the historical and the logical. Obviously, the logic of the theoretical is capable of objectively reflecting the internal content and patterns of development of an object or phenomenon only when they are considered from the point of view of the history of their emergence and their historical development. Historical knowledge, as a result, is generalized and freed from insignificant and random features, turning into logical knowledge about the object under study.

Dialectical principle of contradiction is based on real contradictions of things and boils down to the following basic requirements:

• a) an objective contradiction is revealed;
• b) a comprehensive analysis of any of the opposite sides of this contradiction is carried out;
• c) the other opposite is being studied;
• d) the subject is considered as a unity (synthesis) of opposites as a whole (based on knowledge of each of them);
• e) the place of the contradiction in the system of other contradictions of the subject is determined;
• f) the stages of development of this contradiction are traced;
• g) the mechanism for resolving a contradiction as a process and a result of its expansion and exacerbation is analyzed.

It is necessary to distinguish dialectical contradictions in thinking (they reflect real contradictions) from the so-called "logical" contradictions (they express confusion and inconsistency of thought and are prohibited by the laws of formal logic).

Dialectical principle of movement and development is an examination of the object under study in its movement and development. The researcher is not given to immediately comprehend the absolute truth, he comes to the absolute knowledge about the object gradually. The process of knowing the absolute truth is carried out through a multitude of relative, incomplete, partial truths. When examining objects, a scientist must take into account their development, movement and changes: in this case, he is able to get a complete picture of the object.

Dialectical principle of the unity of form and content means that content (as a set of internal elements of an object) and form (as an internal organization of content) are a unity of opposites. The constant struggle between content and form leads to the destruction of the old form and its replacement by another form that corresponds to the new content.

It is impossible to distort and incorrectly apply the principles of dialectics, since in this case numerous distortions of their requirements are possible, which means a deviation from the path to truth and the emergence of delusions, to which we refer:

• various forms of objectivism and subjectivism;
• one-sided consideration of the subject or subjectivist association of accidentally "ripped out" of its sides;
• ignoring the essence of the object or replacing the essence with non-essential elements,
• too abstract, without taking into account the conditions of place, time and other circumstances, approach to the subject;
• consideration of the subject uncritically;
• modernization of the past or its archaization;
• an attempt to identify the prerequisites for the emergence of an object with itself;
• understanding the way of resolving a contradiction as "neutralizing" its parties;
• and a number of others.

Each philosophical concept has a certain methodological function, being a way of carrying out mental activity, in this regard, philosophical methods cannot be limited to those that we have described above. The philosophical methods should also include:

• - analytical(characteristic of modern analytical philosophy),
• - phenomenological,
• - hermeneutic(understanding),
• - intuitive and etc.

The philosophical method provides the most correct and accurate representations:

• - about the general laws of the development of the objective world,
• - about its originality and constituent components,
• - as well as the place and role in it of those phenomena that scientists and specialists study.

It is necessary to clearly understand: philosophical methods can set only the most general regulations of research, as well as its general strategy. However, they cannot replace special methods or determine the final result of cognition (directly and directly).

The available experience confirms: “the more general the method of scientific knowledge is, the more indefinite it is (in relation to the prescription of specific steps of cognition), and also the greater its ambiguity (in determining the final results of research)”.

However, this does not mean that philosophical methods can be ignored and unnecessary. As the history of cognition shows: mistakes on the higher levels of cognition lead the whole research program to a dead end.