KOPNIN- THE FORMATION OF CONCEPTS
🔬 I. DIALECTICAL DEFINITION: REQUIREMENTS AND STRUCTURE
🎯 A. The Mission of Dialectics in Defining Concepts
Dialectics does NOT invent new forms of definition — it demonstrates how the dialectic of the objective world reflects itself through ALL possible forms
Numerous forms of defining concepts exist — including those indicated by V.I. Maltsev
Dialectics does NOT oppose "dialectical definitions" against "metaphysical definitions"
Instead, dialectics provides a method of defining concepts through which concepts acquire content
Any definition, regardless of form, CAN have content
📐 B. First Requirement of Dialectics: Comprehensive Coverage
The definition must encompass the object from ALL points of view
Must reveal ALL essential traits, aspects, and properties that constitute the concept's content
We cannot grasp all facets simultaneously — but must strive to do so
This requirement protects knowledge from dogmatism and routine
A brief, single definition CANNOT reflect the object from all its points of view
Multiple distinct definitions are necessary to reveal the object's full richness
Only the TOTALITY of definitions can claim a concrete reflection of the object's essence
⚗️ C. The Marxist Definition of Capitalism — A Model of Comprehensiveness
The Marxist definition of capitalism references THREE essential traits revealing the true essence of the capitalist socio-economic formation:
1st trait: Commodity production as the GENERAL form of production — the product takes the form of a commodity not as an exception but universally
2nd trait: Not only the product of labor but labor itself — i.e., human labor power — takes the commodity form
3rd trait: The existence of the system of exploitation of wage labor
The classics of Marxism-Leninism did NOT merely enumerate essential traits but revealed their INTERCONNECTION — how under certain conditions one trait is deduced from another
📖 D. Marx on the Development of Capitalism (from Capital, Vol. II, p. 113)
Marx shows the process of development and formation of capitalism — impossible to express in a brief definition
Capitalist production is commodity production as the general form — but exclusively so, and increasingly so as it develops
The producer becomes an industrial capitalist as labor converts to wage labor
Capitalist production (and therefore commodity production) achieves its COMPLETE expression only when the direct agricultural producer is also included in the category of wage workers
⏳ E. Second Requirement: Showing the Object's Development
The definition must show the development of the object — its self-movement
Must include a historical approach when analyzing the object's essence
A brief, isolated definition records only ONE STATE of the object
The mission of definition is to show the becoming of the object — the law of its movement
Marx's method is characterized not merely by seeking the law governing the phenomenon, but primarily the law of its variability, of its development — the law governing the transition from one form to another, from one order of reciprocal relations to another
⚡ F. Contradictions Must Be Revealed in the Definition
A definition that does NOT reveal contradictions in the development of the object is NOT a true definition
A metaphysician, upon observing contradictions, tries to EVADE them as anomalies
Metaphysical economists, operating with categories like capital, are astonished by contradictions — they want capital to be ONLY a thing OR only a social relation, showing total ineptitude when capital appears as both
The classics of Marxism-Leninism, by contrast, placed the discovery of contradictions at the base of their definitions
Lenin wrote: "The proletariat that struggles learns what capitalism is not from definitions (as one learns from textbooks) but from the practical knowledge of the contradictions between capitalism and the development of society"
🛠️ G. Third Requirement: Including Human Practice
Human practice must be included in the definition as the criterion of truth and the practical determinant of what humanity needs from the object at a concrete stage of social development
All scientific definitions are based on the generalization of human practice
Practice establishes the connections of the object's various aspects with what humanity needs
Depending on historical conditions and practical needs, one or another definition comes to the foreground as most essential and important
🌍 H. Practice Applied: The Question of National Self-Determination
When revolutionary movement practice acutely posed the problem of national self-determination, the question arose: what IS national self-determination and where is the answer found?
Adversaries of Marxism attempted to answer with juridical definitions deduced from general notions about law
Marxists demonstrated the fruitlessness of this method — definitions must be deduced from the historical-economic study of national movements
Only the generalization of the practice of national movements can lead to a correct theoretical approach to the national question
🌐 II. LENIN'S DEFINITION OF IMPERIALISM — THE MASTERWORK OF DIALECTICAL DEFINITION
💰 A. The Practical Necessity That Drove the Definition
The need to define and discover the essence of imperialism was dictated by the practice of the international workers' movement generally, and the Russian proletariat particularly
Without Lenin's discovery of imperialism's essence, no new theory of revolution would have been possible
This theory illuminated the path to victory not only for the Russian proletariat but for the working class of the entire world
The practice of Bolshevism's struggle against international opportunism necessitated clarifying the essence of capitalism's development at its new stage
Lenin's analysis of imperialism cannot be divorced from the practice of the struggle of the two fundamental tendencies of the workers' movement: Marxism against ALL forms and varieties of opportunism
📊 B. Lenin's Brief Definition — The Monopoly Stage
Lenin's definition is the result of analysis and generalization of an immense quantity of data on the economic development of various countries over a considerable period
It appears NOT as a point of departure but as a BALANCE — the fruit of the given analysis
Lenin's compact formulation: "Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism"
This brief definition includes the essential: financial capital = bank capital of a few crucially important monopolist banks fused with the capital of industrial monopolist alliances
Division of the world = the transition from a colonial policy extending without obstacles over territories seized by no capitalist power, to a policy of monopolist possession over territories of a world completely divided
🔑 C. Lenin's Expanded Definition — Five Fundamental Traits
Lenin includes FIVE fundamental traits of imperialism:
1st: Concentration of production and capital reaching so high a level that monopolies are created, playing a decisive role in economic life
2nd: Fusion of bank capital with industrial capital, forming "financial capital" and the financial oligarchy
3rd: Export of CAPITAL — as distinguished from export of commodities — acquires particularly important significance
4th: Formation of international monopolist alliances of capitalists dividing up the world
5th: Completion of the territorial division of the world among the greatest capitalist powers
🏛️ D. Lenin's Full Synthesizing Definition
"Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed"
The five traits are NOT the only ones — merely the fundamental ones
These five traits refer primarily to the economic concept of imperialism
The number CAN be augmented by characterizing imperialism from the standpoint of changes in politics and ideology, and from the angle of struggle between fundamental tendencies of the workers' movement
Lenin underscores this definition is conventional and relative — it does not embrace complete connections in their full development
🔗 E. Interconnection of the Five Traits — Genetic Nexus
The multiple traits in the definition of imperialism do NOT simply coexist — they presuppose each other mutually
Genetic connections exist among them — the development of one contributes to the development of another
Concentration of production and capital creates the premises for fusion of bank capital with industrial capital, for exporting capital, and for forming international monopolist alliances
All remaining factors in turn contribute to concentration of production and capital
The FOCUS of all traits of imperialism = concentration of production, creation of monopolies
Therefore Lenin says imperialism is briefly defined as the monopoly stage of capitalism
⚰️ F. Imperialism as Dying Capitalism
Lenin's definition takes imperialism in its DEVELOPMENT — showing it is a PHASE in capitalism's trajectory
Shows not only HOW imperialism arose but the paths of its disappearance
Imperialism = dying and putrefying capitalism — the antechamber of the socialist revolution
Pre-monopolist capitalism was transformed under certain conditions into monopolist capitalism — but the latter perishes, torn apart by contradictions leading directly to socialist revolution
Since imperialism is a phase of capitalism's development, all capitalist contradictions are preserved within it — sharpened and taken to their extreme
Contradictions that in the pre-monopolist period were only sketched reach maturity in the imperialist epoch
🧠 III. REASONING AS A FORM OF APPREHENSION OF NEW KNOWLEDGE
💡 A. The Enormous Role of Reasoning
Reasoning plays an enormous role in the appearance and development of judgments and concepts
In reasoning, the mediate and creative character of human thought is best observed
The majority of knowledge humanity possesses has a deductive character — obtained in the process of reasoning
Formal logic's specific task: study of reasoning — the rules and forms for deducing one judgment from others
Dialectics must NOT substitute for formal logic in this domain
The sphere of dialectics = study of the gnoseological nature of reasoning, its function in the dynamic of thinking toward truth, the role of deduction in the formation and development of scientific theories
❌ B. The False Path: Special Dialectical Syllogisms
The false and sterile path = creation of special dialectical syllogisms or forms of reasoning
The doctrine of reasoning, analyzing the real, living, concrete process of knowledge, must study those forms of reasoning FOUND IN IT
Must clarify their essence, their place, their reciprocal connections, and connections with OTHER forms of knowing
Materialist dialectics can give a scientific interpretation to both simple and complex forms of reasoning, revealing their movement from the simple to the complex
Among Soviet authors: widespread but incorrect opinion that dialectical logic operates with special forms of reasoning constructed on the principle of development and change — yet these forms are never described or clarified in their structure
If no established and described structure exists — the form does not exist
⚠️ C. The Wine Syllogism Error — A Damning Example
Some authors claim: when a false deduction is inferred according to formal logic, according to dialectical logic the conclusion IS true
Logical analysis of such examples shows they do not meet the criteria of formal logic either — they are also erroneous from the standpoint of formal logic's own laws
Example of the faulty syllogism on aged wine:
Major premise: The price of commodities according to the law of value is determined by the quantity of socially necessary labor invested in production
Minor premise: Aged wine is a commodity
Conclusion alleged: The price of this wine is determined by the quantity of labor necessary for its production
The author claims this "contradicts the true situation" since wine sells at a price far exceeding its real value
Reality: The syllogism is false from formal logic's own standpoint — for it to be modus Barbara of the first figure, the major premise would need to state: "ALL commodities ALWAYS have a price that coincides with the quantity of socially necessary labor" — but this premise is NOT true
The issue is NOT a failure of formal logic but the falsity of the premises
Engels: "If our premises are correct and we apply the laws of thinking correctly, the conclusion must coincide with reality" (Anti-Dühring, p. 449)
🔩 D. What Formal Logic Actually Is — And Isn't
Formal logic in modern conditions is NOT a method of philosophical knowledge
NOT the doctrine of formation of concepts, of scientific theses that deeply reflect the objective world
Does NOT establish rules on how to obtain true premises permitting correct deductions
Its mission is simpler: establishes HOW and through WHAT forms correct deductions are made from true premises
Many authors first convert formal logic into a method of philosophical knowledge, then demonstrate its limitations — confusing the theory of deductive knowledge with the philosophical method of knowledge
The form of reasoning does NOT change its nature depending on philosophical explanation
Science uses ALL forms of reasoning that ensure the truth of the deduction when premises are true
🏗️ E. The Structure of Reasoning
Reasoning = a form of thinking that helps deduce new knowledge from previously established knowledge
A process of mediation and deduction of judgments, whose system reasoning constitutes
Three classes of knowledge integrate this system:
Fundamental knowledge: contained in the premises of the reasoning
Deductive knowledge: obtained as the result of the reasoning
Argumentative knowledge: determines the possibility of passing from premises to the conclusion
Argumentative knowledge includes: axioms, rules, definitions, laws, and other true or probable theses
Argumentative knowledge determines the FORM of the reasoning — the transition from premises to conclusion
Always general in relation to knowledge in premises and conclusion
Therefore: the process of reasoning always proceeds THROUGH the general and on its basis — knowing the laws governing connections between phenomena
🦴 F. The Power of Inference — From Mandible to Organism
Science knows the laws governing connections between parts of organisms
Thanks to this knowledge, scientists can deduce from the mandible of an unknown animal what its teeth were like, then infer the quality and quantity of food the animal used, and then the structure of its stomach and intestines
If the viscera were destined to digest meat → mandibles adapted for chewing → claws for seizing and tearing → teeth for cutting and mincing → the entire system for pursuing prey → sensory organs for perceiving it
Natural sciences: from fossil bone structure → conclusions about extinct species
Social sciences: from remains of instruments of labor → determination of vanished socio-economic formations
🌉 G. The Possibility of Reasoning: Objective Laws
The possibility of reasoning — of passing from the known to the unknown — is based on the existence of objective laws in nature and society
Knowledge of these laws permits passage from particular to general, from general to particular, and from knowledge of one degree of generality to knowledge of that same degree
All reasoning proceeds on the basis of the general — confusing those who include all so-called "non-syllogistic" reasonings in deduction
Induction CAN be considered a deduction: inductive reasoning also rests on a certain general principle arguing the conclusion from knowledge of isolated facts to knowledge of all objects of a class
Analogy also rests on the general
🌍 H. Reasoning Connected to the Objective World Through Its Parts
The principle of reasoning — axioms — determines the objective content of its form
Example (false premises, correct form):
"Moscow is south of Kiev; Kiev is south of Odessa; therefore Moscow is south of Odessa"
Correct in form — though the conclusion does not correspond to reality (premises are false)
The formal correctness has its objective cause: the axiom on which the reasoning is based IS true
If A is south of B and B is south of C, then A must be south of C — this reflects spatial relations existing in the objective world
Formal correctness is independent of the truth of the premises — but in direct relation to the truth of the conditioning knowledge
The form of reasoning is determined by the content of the principle implicit in its base
✨ I. The Relative Autonomy of Formal Correctness — Its Positive Value
Relative independence of correctness of reasoning forms from truth of premises has POSITIVE VALUE
It confers an active, creative character on reasoning
To attain truth, correct-in-form reasonings must be made not only on the basis of true premises but also false ones
Reasoning would NOT be an active force in apprehending and demonstrating truth if it could only proceed on the basis of premises whose truth was known in advance
Since the form of reasoning is NOT tied to a determined content of premises, it can possess diverse contents
One can speak not only of the correctness of a reasoning's form but also of its objective truth
Violation of the form = the deduction is NOT made in consonance with the content of the axiom, principle, or rule on which the given form is based
📈 J. Development of Forms of Reasoning
Development of forms of reasoning is connected to changes in the content of argumentative knowledge
Mathematical equality/inequality: Until axioms of equality and inequality (confirmed by practice) were established, there was NO mathematical equality/inequality in science and reasoning
Perfect mathematical induction: when the axiom did not exist, the reasoning of this form did not exist
Knowledge of the most general relations of phenomena conditions the appearance in real life of new forms of reasoning
Precision and deepening of certain theses and axioms known previously → perfection of old forms
Forms resting on a doubtful principle are used less frequently and end by disappearing
Not only the content of reasonings varies — so does their very form: old forms are complemented by new ones arising from discovery of new laws, formation of new true axioms, principles, and rules
🔢 K. Mathematical Induction — An Illustration of Development
Euclid did not know the principle of mathematical induction
This principle was first clearly formulated in the 17th century — in the theorem of binomial coefficients
Only in the 19th century did scientists understand that mathematical induction was the fundamental property of the natural number series
This exemplifies how forms of reasoning develop in connection with the development of objective knowledge
⚒️ L. Reasoning and Creative Human Labor
Reasoning is an indispensable element of the creative character of human labor
Labor cannot do without reasoning — development of labor, of practice in general, = development of reasoning
The human in the process of labor: produces (deduces) things and phenomena that do NOT exist in nature
Marx: living labor, embracing things, seems to resuscitate them, give them life, convert possible use-values into effective ones
The things existing as the result of labor (seized by the fire of labor) acquire functions consonant with their idea and designation
Herein lies the creative character of human labor — radically distinguished from the laborious activity of animals
Key distinction: Before the process of transformation occurs in reality, it occurs in the mind of the worker — ideally
The specifically human peculiarity of labor: the human possesses in consciousness, BEFORE beginning work, the RESULTS of that work
The human grasps in the intellect the means of production and the process of their transformation into product — reproduces ideally the entire production from start to finish
This process of ideal production of a new thing with existing means of production is NOTHING OTHER THAN REASONING
🔄 M. The Essence of Reasoning: Intellectual Reproduction
The essence of reasoning = intellectual reproduction of the thing OUTSIDE the conditions of its existence
Knowledge of the conditions of the thing's existence = the premise of the reasoning
Knowledge of the new thing = the conclusion
Knowledge of the logical connections of things with their conditions of existence = argues the possibility of the deductive process itself
When a scientist encounters any object of nature, they establish through reasoning — relying on prior human experience and all available knowledge — the connections between that natural object and the conditions of its existence
All knowledge = mental reproduction of certain phenomena on the basis of others
All scientific discovery = result of reasonings based on already existing and newly acquired knowledge, observed phenomena, and conducted experiments
Socialist society: was once merely an ideal representation, reproduced through enormously complex reasonings thanks to knowledge of the laws of social development — later appearing in reality thanks to the conditions of capitalist society
🎯 N. Practice as the Criterion of Reasoning's Truth
Practical activity, besides requiring and engendering reasoning, is also the CRITERION of its truth
Has the thing been correctly deduced theoretically from the conditions of its existence?
Only practice can answer this — the effective, practical deduction of the thing from the conditions of its existence
The exactness of our way of conceiving a concrete phenomenon of nature is demonstrated "by reproducing it ourselves, creating it as the result of its own conditions and putting it at the service of our own ends" (Marx & Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 345)
Example: To resolve whether water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom → must practically obtain water from these two gases
Historical-social practice: as it repeats itself multiple times, it judges our thinking — responds to the question of whether the connection of thoughts in reasoning corresponds to objective connections of phenomena
Correct connections, paths, forms, figures of human thought become consolidated and acquire the status of axioms
Incorrect ones — not supported by practice — are rejected
Forms of reasoning, arising as generalizations of anterior practice, are checked by the successive practice of humanity
🏭 O. Reasoning and the Development of Historical-Social Practice
Development of historical-social practice → development and perfection, growing complexity of the reasoning process
As human productive activity develops → instruments of work develop → become more varied and perfect → more complex and multiple products can be created
The very process of labor becomes more complicated = the production of new things from existing means becomes more complex
The process of intellectual production also develops — the theoretical production of the thing from existing knowledge and accumulated experience
Initial knowledge, made more exact and perfect, permits formulation of judgments and deductions about deep processes, laws presiding over nature and society
Just as powerful modern means of production permit manufacturing enormously complex mechanisms, utilizing atomic nuclear energy — so also the enormous baggage of scientific knowledge permits modern humanity, through reasoning, to make bold conjectures, genial predictions about phenomena and processes it will dominate and govern in the future
Modern scientific thought has at its disposal forms of reasoning unknown to the science of the 17th and 18th centuries — e.g., the method of mathematical hypothesis in modern physics
🔄 IV. INTERRELATIONS OF INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION
📜 A. The Historical Separation — Aristotle's Framework
Since the doctrine of forms of thought appeared, one of the most essential vices in the theory of reasoning = the metaphysical separation of one type of reasoning from another
This separation was already sketched in Aristotle's works — for whom the only secure means of obtaining knowledge was, in fact, the syllogism, which he identified with general demonstration
Aristotle elaborated the doctrine of the syllogism most profoundly, completely, and in detail
Aristotle's definition: "A syllogism is an enunciation of which, when something is affirmed, something distinct from what is affirmed is necessarily deduced — in virtue of its existence"
🌿 B. Aristotle's View of Induction
Aristotle NEVER doubted that through reasoning, and through the syllogism in particular, new knowledge is obtained
Did NOT separate the form of reasoning from the content of premises
Divided all reasonings into: apodeictic (for scientific demonstration from true premises), dialectical (for discussions, probable conclusions), and eristic (least cognitive value, apparently probable conclusions)
Aristotle analyzed forms of reasoning from the angle of their relation to knowledge of essence and causes
Two types of syllogisms: syllogism of WHAT EXISTS vs. syllogism of WHY THEY ARE (most perfect — most perfect nexus)
Aristotle DID NOT ignore induction — as empiricist and rational naturalist, understood the role of experience and observation
Understood that general concepts form through the study of singular examples
Only complete induction can serve as a form of rigorous demonstration — he considered it "a class of syllogism" (the syllogism starting from induction)
In the end, Aristotle recognized: demonstration is impossible without induction — but could not give a concrete solution to the problem of induction as a method for knowing the general
The scientific practice of that epoch did not promote the doctrine of induction to the foreground — the ancient world possessed no true science of nature
🔭 C. The Rise of Induction in Modern Philosophy — Natural Sciences
Second half of the 15th century: appearance and development of natural sciences → rise of the doctrine of induction
Natural sciences arose in revolutionary circumstances: disintegration of feudalism, formation of bourgeois relations
The bourgeoisie was interested in scientific knowledge because:
First: Study of properties of bodies and natural phenomena was indispensable for perfection of production technique
Second: Scientific knowledge contributed to the struggle against feudal ideology and the Church
Until late 18th century, natural sciences were primarily a science of compilation — describing and systematizing facts
The most developed science: mechanics; physics beginning to form; chemistry and biology in embryonic state
This level of development created favorable conditions for the dominance of the metaphysical method — studying phenomena in repose and invariability
However, this period of assimilation of materials was necessary — without it, natural sciences could not have progressed or given deep explanations
🔬 D. Galileo and the Unity of Induction and Deduction
Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, F. Bacon tried to apprehend the laws governing knowledge of nature
These thinkers highlighted the role of TWO factors in apprehending true knowledge of laws: experience and mathematics
True science bases itself on conscientiously realized and verified experiments, profound observations; experiment conducts through true conclusions to knowledge of laws
Leonardo da Vinci: "A science lacks all truth that does not admit the application of one of the mathematical sciences or that is not connected with mathematics"
Galileo's scientific method included induction AND deduction in their UNITY:
Starting from experiment → formulated general theses
From those theses → deduced new particular facts
New observations verified the deduction and confirmed the truth of previously formulated general theses
⚔️ E. Bacon's Critique of Scholastic Syllogism
"In a correct logic, all attention centers on the syllogism. Apparently no serious thought has been given to dialectical induction... We reject demonstration by means of syllogisms because it acts in an irregular way and loses sight of nature"
Bacon's manifestations should NOT be taken literally — he did not deny the syllogism's value in general
Bacon aimed to create a method of thought that would help achieve: prolongation of human life, rejuvenation, conversion of bodies into others, creation of new species, dominion over air and sky
The scholastic logic of the time, with its sterile and extremely formal syllogistic system, was evidently NOT consonant with the epoch's demands
📋 F. Bacon's Tables — The Method and Its Limitations
Bacon composed THREE tables:
Table of Presence: all cases of presence of the phenomenon whose cause is being investigated (for heat: all cases where heat is present)
Table of Absence: analogous facts but WITHOUT the given phenomenon (e.g., light that illuminates but does not heat)
Table of Degrees: cases where the property manifests with varying intensity — noting increase or decrease
After tables are composed → inductive reasoning begins: elimination of properties NOT participating in the phenomenon's formation
Exclusion rule: the form (cause) of a property is present where the property exists, absent where it does not; its increase and decrease parallel the property
Result: through negation and exclusion → quite meager and abstract concepts
Bacon's doctrine served as the foundation of the theory of abstraction that dominated 17th-18th century philosophy and natural sciences
🌡️ G. Evaluations of Bacon's Method
Critics (Draper, Sigwart, Liebig, Bain, Wundt, etc.): Bacon's induction was absolutely useless — cannot achieve invention, domination, or power through it
Admirers (Darwin): "I worked relying on Bacon's method and without any theory (created in advance) collected facts in a very wide scale..."
BUT: Darwin's observation that he had no great confidence in deductive reasonings shows he did NOT understand deeply the logic of his own discovery
Difficult to believe he gathered a massive collection of facts without any idea, hypothesis, or deductive reasoning
Positive aspect of Bacon: underscores the immense role of practice, observation, experiment
Scholastic logic: "Cain is mortal because man is so" → Bacon's logic: man is mortal because Cain was so (empirical fact becomes the fundamental first premise)
However — Bacon's doctrine bears the stamp of metaphysics:
Considered causes and forms of phenomena as stagnant and invariable
Bacon's induction based on metaphysical, unilateral analysis — decomposition of nature into loose, isolated elements
Therefore could NOT reveal the true path of knowledge from singular to general
The sterility of the scholastic application of deduction does NOT mean deduction is sterile in general
🧮 H. Descartes — Deduction and Intuition as the Secure Path
Both Bacon and Descartes aimed to create a "practical philosophy" — knowing the force and action of water, air, stars, and all bodies to use them "as masters and lords of nature"
They did NOT diverge in objectives — only in MEANS
Bacon: Experience = solid foundation of knowledge → induction leads to knowledge of causes and laws
Descartes: Based his theory of knowledge on intuition and deduction — adjudicated them a decisive role
"Only deduction and intuition are secure — everything else is suspect and subject to error; intuition is MORE secure than deduction"
Induction (which Descartes called enumeration) = NOT reasoning from isolated facts to general principles — but the compilation of effects deduced from numerous and diverse theses
Induction assigned a very modest role: systematizing data obtained through intuition and deduction
Descartes' logic DID NOT KNOW true induction — reasoning passing from experimentally obtained singular facts to generalizations
⚖️ I. Two Mutually Exclusive Tendencies — And Their Errors
Since the beginning, in the doctrine of modern logic's reasoning, two mutually excluding tendencies emerged:
One: Exaggeration of experiment and induction — disregarding deduction — taking experimental natural sciences as scientific model, fixating only on that aspect
Other: Denial of essential value of experience and induction — recognizing intuition and deduction as decisive — taking mathematics as the ideal of science (claiming it needs no experience, based exclusively on intuition and deduction)
Deductive tendency (Leibniz, Wolf, Kant, Herbert, Drobich, etc.): underestimated induction, declared inductively achieved truths as accidental and lacking universal value
🏛️ J. Locke's Omni-Inductionism and Arguments Against the Syllogism
Locke followed the path of omni-inductionism and formulated several arguments AGAINST the syllogism:
The syllogism is NOT a powerful weapon of the intellect — the soul relates to ideas directly, without needing any syllogism
Humans reasoned well before and after Aristotle without knowing how to construct a syllogism
The syllogism cannot serve as a means for discovering new truths
To construct a syllogism one must have an already discovered truth; the syllogism only puts old truths discovered by other means "in battle order"
"I freely recognize that every correct reasoning can be reduced to syllogistic forms. However, I can affirm, apparently without harm to Aristotle, that these forms are not the only ones nor constitute the best method of reasoning"
The most useful reasonings for science are NOT those going from general to particular, but from particular to particular and from particular to general
Assessment: Locke's arguments are NOT directed against the correct use of deduction in knowledge — but against deductivism applied to everything and the scholastic use of the syllogism — a critique of one extreme from another equally extreme position, equally far from the truth
📉 K. Mill's Degeneration of the Empirical Tendency
J.S. Mill (1806-1873): Analysis of his logical doctrine of reasoning shows HOW the positive empirical tendency degenerated in the conditions of 19th century bourgeois society
In gnoseology: Mill aligned with positions of subjective idealism and agnosticism
Matter = understood in Berkeley's manner — as a permanent possibility of sensations
James declared himself Mill's disciple — to whom he owed (by his own confession) the pragmatist revelation of the spirit
Mill's doctrine of reasoning tends to demonstrate the impossibility of knowing the essence of things — not science or philosophy but religion can apprehend it
We do NOT know things themselves — only the sensations they produce: the fundamental thesis of Mill's logic
"A general thesis cannot only not demonstrate a particular case — it also cannot be recognized as true without exception while a demonstration aliunde does not dispel every shadow of doubt concerning each particular case of the given genre. And this being so, what is left for the syllogism to demonstrate?"
Mill's gnoseological basis for dismissing deductive reasoning: denial of objective laws of nature and the possibility of knowing them; separation of the general from the particular
🎰 L. Positivism's Reduction of Induction to Psychology/Physiology
Positivists (modern) claim induction and deduction are NOT connected — they rest on different bases:
Deduction: logical necessity derived from the properties of accepted denominations (NOT conditioned by laws of the outer world)
Induction: properties of the nervous system of animals (physiological/psychological, NOT grounded in objective necessity)
Russell: "Confirming induction as such is impossible, since it can be demonstrated that it leads to error as often as to truth. However, in appropriate cases it retains supreme importance as a means of elevating the probability of generalizations"
Inductive reasoning takes the form: "if this is true, so is that" — but such a conclusion is NOT logically consistent
We can only BELIEVE it will be so — psychologically we have habituated ourselves to such conclusions due to properties of the nervous system
Russell's example: Laws of statics, verified in numerous cases, are used in bridge construction. With respect to the bridge being constructed, they have NOT been verified → cannot predict in advance the bridge will bear a certain load. Why then is it supposed it will? → Pavlov's conditioned reflexes oblige us to expect combinations humans have already had in their experience
Assessment: The old idea of Hume, tinged with a new color (Pavlov's doctrine falsified), constitutes the base of ALL Russell's reasoning on induction
🌟 M. Hegel — First Serious Attempt to Overcome the Metaphysical Divorce
Hegel was the first in the history of philosophy to seriously attempt to overcome the metaphysical divorce between induction and deduction
Positive factor of his theory: attempts to reveal the interrelation, dynamics of forms of reasoning; to specify their cognitive value
For Hegel: most important = sketching the transitions from one form to another — from deduction to induction and from induction, through analogy, back to deduction
🏔️ N. Hegel's Three Grades of Reasoning
Reasoning of existence: very reduced cognitive value — reveals only the surface of the phenomenon
Example: "This rose is red; red is a color; therefore this rose has color"
Jurists reason thus when seeking a juridical basis for their conclusion
Reasoning of reflection: more content, expresses the object's essence more profoundly — the middle term is not abstract but concrete universality embracing all the singular in its aggregate
Three forms: reasoning of totality, of induction, and of analogy
Reasoning of totality: traditional syllogism ("All men are mortal; Cain is a man; therefore Cain is mortal") — the truth of the major premise is NOT demonstrated; presupposes induction
Induction example: "Copper, gold, silver, etc., are metals; copper, gold, silver are conductors of electricity; therefore metals are conductors of electricity"
Induction surpasses defects of totality's syllogism BUT has radical vices: does NOT fully surpass the subjective character; synthesis is accidental; ALL induction is incomplete since individualities can never be exhausted
Analogy (form S-U-P): "The Earth is inhabited; the Moon is a kind of Earth; therefore the Moon is inhabited" — can be vacuous; problematic character of induction is NOT surpassed in analogy but REINFORCED
Reasoning of necessity: superior form where a perfect conclusion is reached — the transition from analogy
Hegel DID NOT separate induction from other types of reasoning — only tried to specify its place
Correct: The deduction must rely on induction to argue its P-U premise; incomplete experiment provides only a problematic conclusion
HOWEVER: Hegel could not fully overcome the vicious underestimation of induction
The superior type of reasoning for Hegel = reasoning of necessity — deductive in essence
By cognitive value, he placed induction BELOW even analogy
Critical observation: If induction cannot by form provide a reliable conclusion, deduction in turn rests on induction by the content of its premises
Hegel interrupted development at a certain phase — but in reality, development and perfection of forms of reasoning HAS no end and CANNOT have one
Crucially: Hegel found NO place for practice in the becoming and dynamics of forms of reasoning — therefore could NOT determine the role played by induction in knowledge
🏆 P. Marxist Philosophy Overcomes the Metaphysical Interpretation
Engels showed the place and significance of each type of reasoning in knowledge
On omni-inductionism: induction is NOT an infallible method
Inductive conclusions are problematic and need verification
"If induction were really as infallible as is said, how could those radical shifts of classification occur, so violent and so frequent in the organic world? They are the most genuine product of induction, yet they annul each other" (Engels, Dialectics of Nature)
Lavoisier example: Observed oxygen in ALL acids he investigated → deduced oxygen is indispensable element of all acids → LATER SHOWN FALSE (hydrochloric acid contains no oxygen; hydrogen is the indispensable element)
Boyle-Mariotte law: 17th-18th century physics considered it applicable to all gases without exception — LATER established action ceases at critical temperatures and with pressure of hundreds of atmospheres, gases acquire larger volumes than the law indicates
Conclusions from induction are very close to truth — hypotheses of great cognitive importance are argued through induction; after verification and demonstration they become reliable scientific theories
📐 Q. Induction in Mathematics — Indispensable
Mathematics as a science is impossible without inductive reasonings
Applied: not only complete and mathematical induction, but ordinary incomplete induction
F. Klein: "The first judge exclusively by the crystallized form in which finished mathematical theories are usually presented; but the researcher works in mathematics, as in any other science, in a different way: uses fundamentally fantasy and advances inductively, relying on heuristic auxiliary means. We can adduce not a few examples of how great mathematicians discovered important theories without being able to demonstrate them exactly"
Euler: "Even in numbers there are many properties that we know well but are not yet capable of demonstrating... We see, consequently, that in the theory of numbers, which remains very imperfect, we can place the greatest hopes in observation: it will lead us incessantly to new properties, which we will also later attempt to demonstrate"
D. Polya: confirms with the history of many mathematical discoveries that "in mathematical research we can find the clearest examples of the method of induction"
🔗 R. The Necessary Unity — Engels' Definitive Formulation
"Induction and deduction form necessarily a whole, neither more nor less than synthesis and analysis. Instead of unilaterally exalting one at the cost of the other, one should try to place each in its place, which can only be done if one does not lose sight of the fact that both form a unity and complement each other mutually" (Engels, Dialectics of Nature, pp. 193-194)
The classics of Marxism-Leninism not only proclaim theoretically the unity of induction and deduction — they PRACTICALLY applied each form of reasoning in its opportune place and in relation to others
The unity of induction and deduction is found in Marx's analysis of the commodity and in Lenin's imperialist research
Induction is impossible without deduction — because induction itself is incapable of explaining the process of inductive reasoning: "Absurd of Haeckel: induction against deduction. As if deduction were not = conclusion, which means that induction also is a deduction" (Engels)
All reasoning, including induction, is the product of a knowledge, of a general principle — in this sense, all reasoning is a certain deduction
Induction and deduction form the dialectical unity of two aspects of one same process of thought in the form of reasoning
In the becoming of knowledge they mutually transmute — BUT their unity and reciprocal conversion do NOT exclude but presuppose in the most decisive way their OPPOSITION
📏 S. Engels on Other Forms of Reasoning — Beyond the Binary
"People have become so accustomed to contrasting induction and deduction that they reduce all logical forms of discourse to these two, not realizing: 1) that unconsciously they apply under those names other discursive forms; 2) that they renounce the entire wealth of forms of discourse when they cannot forcibly encuadrate them in any of those two; and 3) that with this, they convert into pure nonsense the two forms of induction and deduction" (Engels, Dialectics of Nature, pp. 191-192)
🗂️ T. Classification of Reasonings — Three Essential Criteria
Dialects requires division of reasonings by THREE traits:
2) Truth of the conclusion
3) Direction of the deductive process
Simple: formed by a single reasoning of whatever form (inductive, deductive, etc.)
Example: a = b; b = c; therefore a = c
Complex: formed by several simple reasonings of one or diverse forms
In real knowledge and reasoning we confront, as a rule, complex discursive forms — a chain of diverse types of reasoning
By Degree of Truth (Certainty):
Certainty reasoning: the conclusion is a true judgment (e.g., "all acids contain hydrogen; this combination is an acid; therefore this combination contains hydrogen")
Probability reasoning: the conclusion is a problematic judgment (e.g., "if a chemical combination is an acid it will contain hydrogen; this combination contains hydrogen; therefore it CAN BE an acid")
Probability of conclusion depends on:
Probability of premises (probability of fundamental knowledge)
Probability of the axiom/principle implicit in the form's base (probability of argumentative knowledge)
Conclusions by analogy — even with true premises — are probable, since the very principle of analogical reasoning is of the character of problematic judgments
Deduction, complete induction, mathematical induction — provide obligatorily (with reliable premises) a true conclusion (their axioms are true; their truth has been demonstrated by human practice)
Formal probability vs. content probability — but all certainty/probability of discursive form ultimately rests on the certainty/probability of the content (the character of the judgment figuring as argumentative knowledge)
By Direction of the Deductive Process (Rutkovski's contribution):
Traductive: passes from knowledge of one degree of generalization to knowledge of the SAME degree of generalization
Inductive: passes from knowledge of a LESSER degree of generalization to a GREATER degree
Deductive: passes from knowledge of a GREATER degree of generalization to a LESSER degree
Note: This classification compares the inferred knowledge WITH THE BASIC knowledge (conclusion vs. premises) — NOT with the argumentative knowledge (since relative to the argumentative, the conclusion appears always as the particular in relation to the general, and in this sense ALL reasoning is a deduction)
🧩 U. The Value of the Tripartite Classification
Exhaustively embraces ALL possible classes of reasonings
Takes as basis an essential trait: the relation between inferred and fundamental knowledge by degree of generalization — of enormous importance for clarifying the cognitive value of reasoning
Permits showing in fact the connection and reciprocal conversion of diverse discursive forms as we come to know more of the object's essence
Contributes to a deeper understanding of the reasoning process itself — the dialectic of the general and the singular in this process
🔬 V. FORMS OF SYSTEMATIZATION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
🏗️ A. Theory, Idea, Hypothesis — Beyond Concept/Judgment/Reasoning
Thought is NOT constituted by isolated, loose judgments, concepts, and reasonings — but by their SYSTEMS
Formation of concepts, judgments, and reasonings is NOT an end in itself — only a MEANS for the mind to reproduce the object in all its plenitude and objectivity
T. Pavlov: Formal logic cannot limit itself to concept, judgment, reasoning alone
Scientific forms of thought include: "the concept, the judgment (and reasoning), a special scientific system and a special scientific method (including hypothesis, scientific experiment and statistics) and, finally, a system or philosophical theory of the world and a most generally possible philosophical method (including social practice as criterion)"
Systematization of scientific knowledge = NOT the simple addition of isolated concepts/judgments/reasonings — NOT mechanical incorporation of one into another — but SYNTHESIS IN ITS HIGHEST FORM
🔍 B. Analysis and Synthesis — Historical Development
Euclidean Phase (Geometric):
In the analysis of something to be investigated, it is considered indisputable in order to arrive at truly indisputable truths
In synthesis: starting from truly indisputable truths → arriving at what was not evident
Analysis and synthesis = two opposed procedures of deductive demonstration — movement from the unknown to the known, and conversely
Limitation: Not about finding new true theses but about modes of demonstrating already obtained theses
Analytical method: make experiments and observations → deduce general conclusions → passes from the complex to the simple, from actions to causes, from particular causes to more general ones
Synthetic method: "consists in explaining, with the help of principles, the phenomena these principles originate and in demonstrating the explanations"
Through analysis → NEW truths are found; through synthesis → they are ARGUED, demonstrated
Limitation: Analysis and synthesis accommodated within frames of diverse reasoning forms; presented as independent processes — one for obtaining truth, the other for demonstrating it
Important fertile thesis: ALL knowledge is only possible as synthesis
Synthesis presupposes obligatorily the union of concepts and perceptual representations
"Without sensibility no objects would be given to us, and without understanding none would be thought... These two faculties cannot exchange their functions"
Synthesis = unifying representations into a single knowledge
Supreme condition of ALL synthesis = the unity of self-consciousness as the possibility of referring all representations to a single one: "I think"
CRITICAL DEFICIENCY: Kant denies the existence of the objective cause of synthesis — therefore the knowledge obtained as its result will NOT have the value of objective truth
Kant could NOT overcome the metaphysical opposition of synthesis and analysis — synthesis occurs by itself, apart from analysis
Hegel's Discovery of Their Dialectical Interrelation:
Hegel corrected the poverty and abstract character of the definition of analysis as passage from known to unknown and synthesis as its reverse — observing that BOTH definitions are simultaneously correct
Knowledge BEGINS with analytic process: "decomposing the given concrete object, isolating its differences, and communicating to it the form of abstract universality"
Synthetic knowledge (in opposition to analytic): "proceeds toward comprehension of what exists — proceeds to grasp the multiplicity of determinations in their unity"
Synthesis does NOT merely unite the results of analysis, reproducing what existed before it — if so, both processes would be superfluous
The factors of the synthetic process: 1) definition; 2) division; 3) theorem (synthetic process culminates)
"From the form of the objects themselves we wish to know depends which of the two methods we will have to apply"
Marx's Idea — The Objective Basis:
The objective basis of the analytic and synthetic process = the existence of multiple forms of movement of matter amid its substantial, internal, and necessary unity
Because the world is simultaneously one and multiple — there is in it identity and difference
Knowledge must apprehend the nature of the objective world: "the thought consists as much in the separation of objects of consciousness into their elements as in the unification of corresponding elements into a unity. There is no synthesis without analysis" (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 29)
Engels: "If I bring together shoe brushes under the unity 'mammals,' I will not by this make them have mammary glands"
The cause of the synthetic activity of thought does NOT lie in the transcendental unity of apperception in the intellect — but in the material unity of the world
Analysis and synthesis have creative character — their result is the advance of knowledge — but creation in knowledge does NOT mean departing from the objective world and its laws — but apprehending them in all their plenitude and objectivity
The BOND between analysis and synthesis is organic, intrinsic: in doing analysis, we synthesize; synthesis includes analysis as one of its elements
🏛️ C. Scientific Theory — Definition and Requirements
Theory = a vast sphere of knowledge that describes and explains the aggregate of phenomena, makes known the real bases of all enunciated theses, and subsumes the laws discovered in that sphere under a single unifying principle
Conditions for knowledge to become theory:
Knowledge must refer to a determined object (organically connected by aggregate of phenomena) — the agglutination by the object itself determines the objective character of nexuses in the theory
Must reach a determined degree of maturity — description alone is merely a mode of approaching theory, not theory itself
Must go beyond description → explanation: discovery of the laws to which phenomena are subordinated
Various theses expressing connections governed by laws must be agglutinated by a single general principle reflecting the fundamental law of the object — this unifying principle fulfills the fundamental synthesizing function
Argumentation (demonstration) of the composing theses is obligatory — without demonstration, no theory
💡 VI. THE IDEA — GENESIS, ESSENCE, AND ROLE IN KNOWLEDGE
🏺 A. Genesis in Ancient Philosophy
Among the first to use the term "idea" — wrote a treatise On Ideas
For Democritus, ideas were atoms ("indivisible forms")
Content was purely ontological — the idea was not a thought about atoms but the atom itself — the primary base, the essence of all things
Invariable and eternal — apprehended not by the senses but by reason/intellect
Both Democritus and Plato agree: the idea exists in reality and is apprehended not by senses but by intellect
But Plato as idealist adjudicated the idea NOT material but ideal essence — introducing traits inherent to human thought
Key factors in Plato's concept of idea:
1st: The idea is that which stands out under the denomination of the universal, the generic — inherent to an infinite quantity of singular things — not formal universality but universality in essence
2nd: The idea constitutes the essence of things and corresponds to the concept of the given thing
3rd: Ideas lack sensoriness — they are essences apprehended by the intellect, existing in reality (in opposition to what is perceived by the senses)
4th: Ideas are invariable and eternal — all real things are their effect
Plato (Parmenides): "Ideas are found in nature as in the form of models; other things resemble them and come to be their semblance"
Plato (Symposium, on beauty): "It exists always; it is not born and does not perish, nor increases, nor diminishes... it will not have the form of a face, arm, or anything related to the body, nor as a thought, a knowledge... but as an essence in itself, always equal to itself"
Critical assessment: Plato's theory is NOT merely gnoseological but fundamentally ontological — the idea is a real spiritual essence
Element of rational content (noted by Hegel): Plato's idea does express substantiality of the thing, the intimately universal — this is the specific character of the idea as means of apprehending reality
Mystification: ideas converted from forms of human knowledge expressing true essence of things → into effective spiritual essences endowed with mystical creative power
With Aristotle, the idea ceases to be understood from a purely ontological point of view and is understood as a form of thought
Aristotle criticized Plato's doctrine of ideas from the standpoint that they are metaphysical essences:
The theory of ideas duplicates the number of things to be explained
Logically internally contradictory, conducts to absurd deductions
"To say that ideas are models and that everything else participates in them means pronouncing vain words and expressing oneself by means of poetic metaphors" (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
In Aristotle's ontology: the place of the idea was taken by FORM as the active principle of things
In gnoseology: concepts and categories through which knowledge apprehends the universal and necessary in things
🔭 B. The Idea in Modern Empirical and Rationalist Philosophy
By idea: any object that fills the human mind during the act of thinking
Two sources: sensation OR reflection
Criticized Descartes' theory of innate ideas — argued all ideas are of experimental origin
Simple ideas: uniform, simple psychic representations (cold, solidity, smell, whiteness) — reproductions of sensations of diverse qualities and properties of the object — constitute the material of all knowledge
Complex ideas: formed by combining several simple ones (beauty, gratitude, man, universe)
Limitation (Hegel's critique): empiricism uses metaphysical categories — matter, force, unity, multiplicity, universality, infinity — without spirit or consciousness; observation gives perceptions but NOT the necessity of their connection
Hidden path to idealism: Locke's division of qualities into primary (ideas similar to the bodies themselves) and secondary (ideas producing sensations having no similarity to things in bodies) — subjectivism enters
From Locke: TWO lines diverge
Berkeley → Hume → positivism → phenomenalism (subjectivism)
French materialists → Feuerbach (materialism)
Ideas = sensations, representations, lacking material substance
"All sensible things are perceived directly and things perceived directly are representations; but these do not exist except in the mind"
Ideas = vivid but less intense representations — differentiated from impressions (most intense)
The idea = NOT the result of rational elaboration of data of perception and sensation — but a pale copy of them, the image of their memory
French Materialists and Feuerbach:
Helvétius: "If all words signify nothing other than objects and relations of these objects... the intellect, therefore, reduces to comparing our sensations and ideas — observing the likenesses and differences, the concordances and disagreements existing between them"
Feuerbach: "It is indubitable and directly true only what is sensible, what is an object contemplated and perceived" — sensoriality alone = the truth of the idea
Descartes — Rationalist Line:
By idea: "all object that is thought, insofar as it is represented in the mind by some object"
Theory of innate ideas: "Although the idea of substance is in me by being myself a substance, I would not have the idea of infinite substance if it were not implanted in me by some actually infinite substance"
Consequence of the metaphysical division of experience and thought: Rationalists tried to prove objectivity of ideas' content BUT isolated thought from experience → resorted to God and innate ideas
Hegel's critique: "The premise of old metaphysics was identical to the premise of naive faith: the thought apprehends things as they exist by themselves and things are what they truly are only in their quality of being thought"
The idea is NOT a discursive form but its immediate, intrinsic object — the nature or qualities of things
"If the idea were a discursive form, it would appear and disappear together with the actual thoughts that correspond to it; but being the object of thinking, it can precede thought and follow it"
Spinoza (Materialist Rationalist):
Clear delimitation between idea and its object: "The idea of the circle is not something round and with a center, as the true circle"
This delimitation = fundamental premise of the materialist conception of the idea (though not sufficient to determine its relation with the objective world)
Method = idea of ideas: "a good method is one that shows how the spirit should be directed in concordance with the norm of said true idea"
But like all rationalists: Spinoza could NOT maintain materialist positions — fell into idealism by isolating ideas from experience
⚖️ C. Kant's Gnoseology of the Idea
The Hierarchy of Knowledge:
Sensoriousness → Understanding → Reason (above which nothing higher exists for elaborating the material of intuition)
Understanding = faculty of the unity of phenomena through rules
Reason = faculty of the unity of the rules of understanding according to principles
Never refers immediately to experience but to the understanding — to give it a priori unity
Logical function: understanding → JUDGMENT; reason → REASONING
All reasoning subsumes the particular under the general through premises
Kant's Definition of Idea:
"I understand by idea a necessary concept of reason, for which no coincident object can be given in the senses"
Pure concepts of reason = transcendental ideas — not invented arbitrarily but proposed by the nature of reason itself
They are transcendent — exceed the limits of all experience — an object adequate to the transcendental ideas can never be presented
1st positive element: Division of thought into intellectual and rational — limitation of understanding's capacity to apprehend reality (argued by analysis of scientific knowledge of his epoch)
2nd positive element: The idea = the superior form of theoretical knowledge — via idea, superior unity of knowledge is achieved, ascending to the unconditioned and absolute
3rd positive element: Systematization of knowledge linked to the idea — "I understand by system the unity of diverse knowledge under an idea"; the idea provides the architectural unity of knowledge; sciences must be explained by the principal idea on whose base the synthesis of knowledge is effected
4th positive element: Discovery of the antinomy of reason — these contradictions are natural and inevitable — inherent to reason in virtue of its own nature, even after their phantom has been discovered
Idealism and metaphysics prevented clarification of the true methodological significance of ideas
Since he identified the idea with the thing-in-itself in its second sense (as an insoluble problem, a tendency toward the ideal) → the idea is something that OUGHT TO BE — not what is
Ideas can fulfill only a very modest role in knowledge and practice — serving only as canons (not organs) of the understanding
Hegel's critique: "In regard to the idea, Kant also fixed only on the negative and solely on what ought to be"
The discovery of antinomies led — due to Kant's metaphysics — to NEGATIVE results: inferring that reason is incapable of knowing the essence of things in themselves
🌀 D. Hegel's System — The Idea as Central Category
The idea culminates the logical process of becoming of categories — the threshold of transition of thought from the sphere of logic to nature
Third part of Science of Logic (doctrine of concepts): Subjective concept → Object → Idea as synthesis of concept and object
For Hegel: the concept is NOT merely the form of human theoretical activity — it constitutes the real and true essence of ALL things
Hegel's Critique of Kant:
"In speaking of the idea one should not believe it is something distant and beyond. On the contrary, the idea is something immediate to us, is at our side and is also found in each consciousness, although deformed and weakened"
"The idea is the adequate concept, the true objective or the true as such. If something has truth, it has it through its idea, or something has truth only insofar as it is idea"
The Idea as Form and Reality — The Idealist Deformation:
Hegel's idealist premise: the idea is true because the object itself possesses the idea inside itself and expresses it
"The object, the objective and subjective universe in general, not only must be congruent with the idea, but are themselves the congruence between concept and reality"
Lenin's materialist interpretation: "The idea (read: human knowledge) is the coincidence (conformity) of the concept and the objective"
Three Stages of the Idea's Development:
1st stage — Life: the idea acquires the form of immediacy; logic must contain not merely empty, dead forms of thought but ALL of life (individual and generic); the idea is NOT isolated from life
Lenin's interpretation: "The thought of including LIFE in logic is comprehensible and genial from the standpoint of the process of reflection of the objective world in human consciousness and the verification of this consciousness (of the reflection) by practice"
2nd stage — Knowledge: the form of mediation and differentiation; fractures into theoretical idea (tendency toward truth) and practical idea (tendency of the good toward its realization — the will)
Lenin highlights §222 of the Encyclopedia: knowledge ("theoretical") and will, practical activity = two facets, two methods, two means to end the "unilateralism" and subjectivism of objectivity
Hegel placed the practical idea ABOVE the theoretical — practice above theory — though presenting practice as an element of the idea (mystically)
Marx noted: the active side was developed by idealism, but only abstractly — idealism does not know real, sensory activity as such
3rd stage — Absolute Idea: overcomes both the unilaterality of practical and theoretical knowledge; unity of subjective and objective idea; union of concept with reality; resolution of all contradictions; contains the content of all prior development
Lenin's interpretation: "Life engenders the brain. In the human brain nature is reflected. Verifying and applying in his practice and technique the correctness of these reflections, man arrives at objective truth"
Lenin: "Man with his practice DEMONSTRATES the objective truth of his ideas, concepts, knowledge, science"
Hegel's Method — Elements Revealed in the Absolute Idea:
a) The Principle: being or the immediate — the primary and abstract act of self-determination of the idea; fusion of principle and end — all movement from the indeterminate beginning = return to that beginning in the sense of increasingly profound comprehension of its true nature and significance
b) Progressive movement through resolution of contradictions: the contradictions are not the idea's defect but its internal content
c) Negation as form of self-movement — elimination of contradictions through negation of negation
Transformation of method into system: "The method itself is amplified now, due to this moment, into a SYSTEM" — true method must form a system of knowledge with content; conversely, every knowledge system based on an objectively true idea becomes a scientific method
Hegel's idealism presented practice as an element of the idea — but his dialectical sensibility placed the practical idea above the theoretical
Hegel did NOT find a place for practice in the becoming and dynamics of reasoning forms
His idealism prevented the CLEAR scientific understanding of how ideas are formed from experience
🌹 E. The Marxist-Leninist Gnoseology of the Idea
Point of Departure — Materialist Theory of Reflection:
Engels: "All ideas are taken from experience; they are reflections — correct or distorted — of reality"
The idea understood as a reflection of reality resolves the difficulties in which all pre-Marxist philosophy debated
Marxism-Leninism, for whom the idea is thought, overcomes the extremism of ontologism; the recognition that the idea is thought with objective content closes the way to subjectivism
Lenin's Characterization of the Dialectic of Cognition:
"Knowledge is a constant, infinite approximation of thought to the object. The reflection of nature in human thought must not be understood in a 'lifeless,' 'abstract' way... but in an eternal process of movement, of the appearance and resolution of contradictions"
The thought arrives at objective content ONLY in the process of its movement — an inert thought cannot capture living reality
Only a gnoseology starting from the dialectic of the process of knowing can scientifically argue the objectivity of the content of the idea
1st: The idea comprehended as a FORM OF REFLECTION of reality
2nd: Recognition of the experimental origin of ideas
3rd: Interpretation of the idea as a PROCESS of apprehension of the object by the intellect
4th: Inclusion of practice as the material base and as the criterion of the truth of ideas
🎯 F. The Idea as Gnoseological Ideal
The Peculiarity of the Idea as Form of Reflection:
The idea does NOT reflect the thing or the property as they exist — but the development of things amid all their concatenations and mediations
The idea captures the tendency of development of the phenomena of reality
Therefore the idea not only reflects what EXISTS but also what MUST BE
The idea appears as a peculiar gnoseological ideal toward which knowledge aspires in its becoming
Lenin: "Begrif is not yet the superior concept: above it is the idea = unity of the Begrif with reality"
The idea stands out among other forms for the fact that in it the most complete coincidence occurs between the content of thought and objectivity
Lenin's Characterization of the Idea:
"The idea... is the coincidence (the concordance) of the concept and objectivity ('the general')"
"In 2nd [place], the idea is the relation of the subjectivity (= man) existing for itself... with the objectivity that differs (from that idea)..."
"The idea, knowledge, is a process of immersion (of the intellect) in inorganic nature in order to submit it to the power of the subject and to generalize it..."
The Gnoseological Ideal Is Real AND Relative:
The ideal gnoseological, the ideal image of all knowledge, is simultaneously REAL — it is attained, ceases to be ideal, and arises anew as an ideal toward which knowledge tends
"The idea also carries with it a formidable contradiction: repose for human thought is the firmness and security that helps it to create this contradiction (between thought and object) and to overcome it constantly"
Conceptual relativity: "Human concepts are subjective in their abstraction, in their isolation, but objective in their aggregate, in the process, in the balance, tendency and origin"
Example — Darwin's Idea of Selection:
K.A. Timiryazev: "Only Darwinism, having eliminated the two great obstacles impeding the acceptance of any evolutionist doctrine... only Darwinism, starting from a single principle of natural selection explaining both the mysterious congruence of all organization and the apparent separation of species and other groups, permitted not only admitting but also understanding the unity and perfection of the organic world"
The idea of selection as gnoseological ideal: conferred on knowledge of evolution a relatively complete and finished character; contributed powerfully to practical activity directed at transforming living nature
The idea of selection existed in human practical activity BEFORE science had formulated and demonstrated it
Michurinist doctrine: developed the idea of selection into a directed and planned selection — the modification of the nature of the organism
🔭 G. The Role of the Idea in the Synthesis of Knowledge
The Idea as Synthesis and Synthesizing Function:
Lenin: "Isolated being (object, phenomenon, etc.) is (only) an aspect of the idea (of truth). For truth other aspects of reality are also needed... Only in their aggregate (zusammen) and in the midst of their relations (Beziehung) is truth realized"
The idea CANNOT not be the synthesis of knowledge of diverse aspects of the object — otherwise it would not be an idea
Outside synthesis, the precise plenitude of coincidence between thought content and object is unachievable
From Abstract to Concrete — The Idea's Central Role:
Concrete knowledge = always a system, an aggregate of judgments in which objective truth is contained
The passage from the abstract to the concrete is IMPOSSIBLE without the formation of an idea that groups numerous abstractions into an integral image
Example: Development of knowledge about light → idea of its dual nature (simultaneously particle and wave); this idea laid the foundations of the modern theory of light, grouping the entire aggregate of knowledge achieved into a determined system
The idea about the dual nature of light was NOT the result of a casual revelation but of the logical process of development of scientific knowledge, through the succession of diverse hypotheses (corpuscular, undulatory, electromagnetic)
The Idea and the Cell of a Theory:
The primary abstraction serving as the cell of a theory must satisfy determined requirements — Lenin on Marx's Capital:
"Marx in Capital analyzes first what is most simple, ordinary, fundamental, most massive, most daily... the relation of bourgeois (commodity) society: the exchange of commodities. The analysis reveals in this simplest phenomenon all the contradictions (or embryos of all the contradictions) of modern society. The ulterior exposition shows us the development... of these contradictions and of this society"
The initial abstraction must reflect the most simple and massive, contain in embryo the contradictions of the whole
From it, as from something simple, the complex arises — the aggregate of abstractions expressing a determined idea = scientific theory
Idea and Theory — Mutual Indispensability:
The idea constitutes the BASE of scientific theory — but the idea does NOT exist as something separate from the theory that can be extracted and examined independently
Without theory there is no idea; but without idea there is no theory
While the idea has NOT matured and crystallized, a new theory CANNOT be created
Determining an idea ultimately means revealing ALL the system of scientific knowledge based on it — the process of its formation and development
Scientific theory = an organic synthesis of concepts — the concepts themselves are the elements that permit revealing the idea
🎨 H. The Idea and the Artistic Image
The Mistake of Two Extremes:
First extreme: The artistic image as mere transmission of feelings and experiences (Tolstoy's formulation: art transmits feelings, not thoughts) — denies the specific character of the artistic image as a form of reflection
Second extreme: The artistic image = thought transferred into the language of images (thought in artistic form) — denies the specific character by the OTHER direction
The Correct Understanding:
Belinski: "Art is the direct intuition of truth or thinking through images... What will strike many readers in our definition of art as something unusual is, without doubt, the fact that we qualify art as THOUGHT, thus joining two completely opposed and inseparable representations"
Turgenev's protest: "I have heard and read on more than one occasion in various critical articles that I, in my works, 'start from the idea'... I must confess that I never attempted 'to create an image' without having as a point of departure, not an idea, but a LIVING PERSON"
Tvardovsky (at the XXII Congress of the CPSU): Castigated writers who, instead of studying life seriously and personally and generalizing it into literary images, dedicate themselves to creating artistic illustrations of concepts and ideas already known to the people
The Artistic Idea — Different from the Scientific Idea:
The idea in the artistic image manifests and develops without leaving the system of the sensory-concrete — not strictly delimited, can be interpreted in different ways, can be developed further by the perceiving subject
It is the general but NOT the argued universal — its mission is not to reveal and demonstrate the law but to make known its factors and influence people (their feelings and thoughts), incite them to determined acts
The truth of the idea = the criterion of the artistic truth of the image: "A work has artistic merit when its form corresponds to the idea... Only a work that embodies a true idea will have artistic merit" (Chernyshevsky)
The Artistic Creative Process:
Fadeyev's three periods: 1) accumulation of data; 2) reflection or "maturation" of the work; 3) realization
In period 1: images file through the artist's mind chaotically — not artistic images yet — just rough data of reality, impressions
In period 2: accumulated material fuses with fundamental ideas and thoughts; images start to structure into an integral whole; begins the conscious selection of the most valuable data
Artistic ideas arise and mature DURING the study of life and the creation of the artistic image — they CANNOT precede and exist independently
The idea of the work continues to live and develop even AFTER the artist finishes — the reader/listener/spectator continues to develop it
Tolstoy's Principle of the Half-Loose Button:
"No trifle must be despised in art, because sometimes a half-loose button can illuminate a facet of the life of the given character. It is necessary to represent the button too. But it is necessary, equally, that all details, including the half-loose button, be directed exclusively to the internal essence of the matter"
📊 I. Idea and Principle — Methodological Significance
The Formal Identity of Idea and Concept:
The idea possesses NO formal-logical criterion distinguishing it from the concept
Neither by logical structure nor verbal expression does the idea distinguish itself from the concept
The idea is the form of the concept
The concept converts into an idea when it fulfills a determined function in the formation and development of a system of knowledge — when it constitutes its BASE
The same concept can play different roles in different systems: in one, the function of an idea; in another, merely a concept reflecting one aspect of some more general law
The Idea as a Stage in the Development of the Concept:
For a concept to convert into an idea and fulfill a synthesizing function in the structuring of theory, it must reach a determined degree of maturity — must clothe itself with an aggregate of definitions
Example: Marx's concept of surplus value converted into an idea when Marx relied on it to create the theory of surplus value — which revealed the secret of capitalist production
The Principle vs. the Idea:
Principle = the basic initial thesis of any theory; expresses the general fundamental law valid for a sphere of extraordinary amplitude
The principle is NOT merely a single property but establishes an essential and necessary connection between the property and the object or between the properties of the object — which precise and essential connection IS nothing other than the law
The principle CAN be misidentified with the idea — Kant called ideas "principles of reason"
However: The principle is ONE OF THE FIRST AND MOST ABSTRACT DEFINITIONS of the idea
The idea is revealed in a system of concepts — it is the concept of concepts
The principle = its first, most abstract definition — figures as the point of departure in the structuring and exposition of scientific theory
The principle formulates the idea in an abstract, unilateral, most generally abstract form
Developing the principle still represents only the beginning — the idea is revealed in ALL the system of knowledge
Example: Mendeleev's periodic system
Idea: periodicidad — the fundamental idea of the entire system
Principle (original formulation): "The physical and chemical properties of the elements... are in periodic dependence on their atomic weight"
Modern formulation: "The properties of the elements are periodic functions of the number of electrons in the atom equal to the charge of the nucleus"
Modern science found a more abstract form to express the idea of periodicity — meaning our knowledge of periodicity has deepened — but the idea is NOT exhausted in the principle; it is revealed in the ENTIRE periodic system
Methodological Significance of the Idea:
Ideas in science help obtain new knowledge — the idea gives rise to scientific methods
Every method of scientific knowledge is originated when a certain system of knowledge exists with its own center
When a new idea appears, scientists apply it to the analysis of accumulated facts and discovered laws — try to discover, with the help of this idea, new facts and new laws
Dogmatists are characterized by reducing the dialectical method to isolated examples or an aggregate of theses — analyzing reality by applying ONE law, however fundamental — arriving easily at abstract, unilateral truth bordering on the deformation of reality
⚡ VII. THE IDEA AND PRACTICAL ACTION
🏗️ A. The Idea as Form of Objectively True Knowledge
What Knowledge Must Be for Practical Realization:
Knowledge must be objectively true — only objectively true knowledge, through material activity, converts into an objective reality
Through practice, one form of objectivity (the objectivity of knowledge) is transformed into another (real objectivity)
As more objective the knowledge by content → closer it is to practical realization
Individual judgments or isolated concepts are abstract and subjective in this sense
This deficiency in the reflection of reality in human concepts is overcome through their continuous development, the formation of complex and mobile systems of knowledge in which the IDEA is contained and expressed
The Idea and the Ideal Form:
Practical activity of humanity, from the gnoseological standpoint, appears as the objectivization of the idea
The idea seems to precede the practical creation of the object — idealism erects this aspect into the absolute — adjudicates human ideas creative power
But in reality: the relations between the idea and the object are MORE COMPLEX
First aspect (often noted by materialism): The idea is primarily the reflection of objects and phenomena of the objective world — the object constitutes the objective content of the idea
Second aspect (often noted by idealism but in deformed way): On the basis of an objectively true knowledge of the object, its transformation through practical activity is produced
The defect of pre-Marxist materialism: Conceived the object, reality, sensoriness only under the form of object or contemplation — not as sensory human activity, as practice, not in a subjective manner — veiled the active role of ideas
The defect of idealism: Comprehended the active side of ideas but did not know real, sensory activity as such — Hegel knows only one class of work: spiritual-abstract work
The Creative Character of Reflection:
Lenin: "The consciousness of man not only reflects the objective world but also creates it"
This is NOT purely idealist — taken in its full context, it means: thought, to be a truly objective reflection of reality, must be creative
Reflection is creative: apprehends not only what is but — on the basis of knowledge of the laws governing movement — what will be and must be to satisfy human practical needs
The idea = the form of thought where this coincidence between reflection and creation reaches a superior form of organic unity and harmony
The Distinctive Trait of the Idea:
The idea includes, besides the theoretical knowledge of the object, the practical end of its transformation in consonance with a determined ideal form
The idea = theoretical knowledge from which a practical end is DIRECTLY deduced
If a knowledge has not reached the level necessary to pose a practical end on its basis → it has NOT yet converted into an idea
The end is derived from the objective content of the idea — Lenin: "The ends of man seem at first alien ('other') with relation to nature. The consciousness of man, science, reflects the essence, the substance of nature; but at the same time this consciousness is exterior with relation to nature (does not coincide immediately and simply with it)"
🌐 B. The Place of the Idea in the Dialectic of Subject and Object
Schema of the Interaction:
Object → Idea → Object (where the first object = the initial element, the idea = the mediate link, the second object = the result)
Relations of the idea with the FIRST object (initial): dialectic of identity — non-correspondence of idea with object AND the image of the ideal new object (which as such does not yet exist in real life — the prior object carries only the effective possibility)
Relations of the idea with the SECOND object (result of practice): the object was not identical to the idea, or the idea does not coincide with the object — but they converge, the distance is reduced
The Contradiction as Premise:
The contradiction between the idea and the object (within the frame of a certain unity between them) = the theoretical premise for the practical transformation of the object
The idea reveals to the subject the imperfection of the object — thus theoretically arguing the necessity of its change
For the idea to have practical value and be realizable in time, it must obligatorily contain BOTH aspects:
Reflection of the real existing object — without this, practical activity will be undefined and condemned to failure a priori
Creative principle expressing the aspiration to create the image of the future, ideal object — without this, practical activity will lack perspective and lose its fundamental designation
The Dialectic of Practice:
Practice resolves contradictions between subject and object and unites them — this union is complete in the sense that what is subjective converts into objective, not only by content but by form of existence
BUT it is relative — each act of practical activity, while uniting subject and object, establishes new contradictions between them
Practice is simultaneously the absolute and relative criterion of the truth of ideas
Practice surpasses existing ideas and simultaneously cannot embrace, in any of its concrete results, all the content of the idea — cannot fully realize it
When an idea is realized → it ceases to be a subjective image with objective content to convert into the object itself
The Social Function of Ideas:
Idealist sociology hypertrophied the role of ideas in social life — seeing them as the principal motive force, divorced from material practical activity
Marxism-Leninism determined the true transforming and active role of ideas in social development
The communist idea in the last decades: "The content of our epoch is the transition from capitalism to socialism" — one third of humanity building a new life under the banner of communism — demonstrates the enormous role of Marxist-Leninist ideas that revealed the laws of social development
The CPSU Program: "The Party sets the task of educating the entire population in the spirit of scientific communism, so that workers understand profoundly the course and perspectives of world development..."
Ideas convert into a powerful force of social development when they transform into the patrimony of the masses and act practically, modifying reality in consonance with those ideas
Anticientific ideas (religious, idealist, philosophical) brake the progressive development of society — hence the fight against surviving old and outdated ideas
The foregoing outline demonstrates that dialectical logic — far from being a mystical supplement to formal logic — is the rigorous scientific method through which the contradictory, developing, practice-verified truth of the objective world is apprehended in all its concrete, living, interconnected richness.
