Theological Instructions

LESSON FIFTEEN: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND ITS CRITICISM

Mechanical materialism and dialectical materialism

Materialism comes in different forms, and each one has a distinctive explanation for the beginning of the universe and its phenomena. In the beginning of the modern age, materialism by utilising the concepts of Newton on physics, interpreted the appearance of phenomena on the basis of mechanical movement. They considered every movement as an effect of a particular moving force, which entered from outside upon the momentary body.

They assumed that the universe was like a large machine from within which there was a moving force. This force would then transfer itself from one section to another causing the ‘large machine’ to move.

This theory was named as mechanical materialism. This belief however contained many weaknesses and was subsequently criticised by their adversaries. An example of such a criticism was:

If every movement is an effect of an external moving force, then there must be an external force for that prime matter (māddah al-awwaliyyah). This therefore necessitates the acceptance of a force beyond the physical realm (metaphysical), which has become the source for the initial movement in the realm of matter.

Another such criticism was that only conventional and transitional movements could be interpreted as mechanical forces. The phenomena in the universe could not all be limited to spatial changes, and this further necessitates the acceptance of other causes and agents for the appearance of several such phenomena.

The incapacity of mechanical materialism to answer these criticisms caused the materialists to search for other reasons to explain the metamorphosis of the universe.

They sought to at least prove that some movement was based on dynamics and that matter was in some way self-erupting.

Some of the founders of dialectical materialism (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles) by using the philosophical concepts of Hegel regarded the cause for movement to be the internal contradictory factor of the phenomena. In addition to accepting that matter is eternal and uncreated, and in the acceptance of the universal movement and the efficacy of the phenomena upon each other, they explain their assumption based upon three subjective principles:

1. Principle of internal contradictions.

2. Principle of sublimation or conversion of quantity (kammi) to quality (kayfi).

3. Principle of negating the negation or the dialectic of nature.

It is here that we will give a brief explanation of these principles followed by a criticism:

a. The principle of contradiction

Dialectical materialism recognises every phenomenon to be composed of two incompatible elements: thesis and anti-thesis. They cause the transmutation of the phenomenon in such a way that the anti-thesis dominates, synthesising a new phenomenon.

For example an egg, which contains within itself an embryo, eventually develops by consuming the food provided and turns into a chicken, through the processes know as synthesis. Positive and negative electricity are a good example of contradiction within the phenomena of physics. Also addition and subtraction is known as antilogy in elementary mathematics, and integral and non-integral are known as antilogies in higher mathematics.

These consequences are also present in the sociological history of man. For example, in Capitalism the working class is the anti-thesis for the capitalist class. If they gradually take over, then this synthesis will result in a socialist and communist society.

Criticism of the principle of contradiction

It cannot be denied that by arranging two material existents next to each other, it can result in such a way that one affects the other by weakening or even destroying it. For example we know of the effects that water has on fire. However this outcome is not universal and cannot be recognised as a principle. There are several instances contrary to this rule.

The presence of this type of contradiction between the phenomena is not considered impossible under the understanding of classical logic, philosophy and metaphysics.

Rather it is the combination of two opposites in one subject, which is considered impossible. They have brought absurd examples for the combination of two opposites, such as the combination of addition and subtraction or integral and non-integral etc, aswell as the false prediction for the establishment of a dictatorship of proletarianism in capitalist countries.

If every phenomenon was composed of two opposites, then there must be another combination for every thesis and anti-thesis. Each one is a phenomenon and according to the principle mentioned they must have a combination of two opposites. This would mean that every limited phenomenon would have to contain infinite opposites.

However, the most basic criticism, that can be levied against this assumption (internal contradiction being considered as the cause for movement, supposedly compensating for the flaw in mechanical materialism), is that there is no intellectual argument to support it. In addition to this there is no denial in accepting the existence of a mechanical movement due to external force acting upon it. Unless of course, it can be accepted that the movement of a football is an effect of its internal contradictions and not an effect of the contact of the foot of a football player!

b. The principle of the quantum leap

By focusing upon the transformations in the universe, we realise that not all these transformations are gradual or step-by-step. In several instances a subsequent phenomenon may appear, but is dissimilar to the former phenomenon, and therefore cannot be counted as a result or outcome of a

former movement and transmission. The materialists have interpreted another principle for this process known as the quantum leap or conversion of quantity to quality. They explain that the conversion of quantity occurs when it reaches a special point and causes the appearance of quality. For example, when water increases in temperature to a degree whereby it changes into a vapoury state, and when metal changes its form and state from a solid to a liquid when it is heated to a certain level. Also an example can be that when conflicts in a society reach a certain level, they can cause a revolution.

Criticisms of the principle of the quantum leap

Firstly, a quantity could never be converted into a quality. At most, it is possible that the appearance of a phenomenon could be conditional upon the existence of a specific quantity. For example, it is not the temperature level of water, which changes it into vapour, (which is another quality), but this change is conditional upon the existence of a certain temperature.

Secondly, it is not necessary that this quantity is acquired as an effect of the gradual increase in the temperature of antecedent quantities. However it is possible that it is acquired as an effect of the decrease of antecedent quantities. For example vapour changing into water, is conditional upon the decrease in temperature.

Thirdly, the qualitative transformation (quality related) is not always sudden and impulsive, rather in many cases it occurs gradually, as the melting of glass and wax is gradual.

On these bases the only thing that can be accepted is that the necessity of a particular quantity is needed for the actualisation of some natural phenomena. However this cannot be considered, as the conversion of quantity to quality and one cannot accept the gradual increase of quantity as a necessity for the transformation of a phenomenon. Furthermore one cannot accept this condition as universal for the qualitative changes (of phenomena). Hence sublimation cannot be recognised as a universal rule.

c. The principle of negating the negation

The meaning of negating the negation, sometimes also known as the principle of exploring nature or the perfection of contradiction, is that during the course of change in dialectics, a thesis is always negated by an anti-thesis, and an anti-thesis is negated through synthesis in turn. A plant negates the seed and is negated by subsequent seeds, and an embryo negates an egg and is negated through a chicken. The new phenomena however, are always more perfect than the former ones, and the dialectical course is always vertical and towards perfection. This is the most significant element in the principle of negating the negation, which highlights the developing aspect with a tendency towards perfection.

Criticisms of the principle of negating the negation There is no doubt that in every transformation and transition there is the disintegration of previous states and circumstances, before the appearance of a new state and environment. If this is considered as the principle of negating the negation then this principle is nothing but solely a change or transformation. However the explanation -they give for this principle, with which they

justify the direction of movement being towards perfection, and upon which they claim that all movements are towards perfection, as well as each transformation of the universe is evolutional, meaning, that every new phenomenon is necessarily more perfect than the previous one- is not acceptable. Is uranium, which turns into lead through the effect of radiation more perfect? Is the plant, which dries producing no seed or fruit more perfect? Therefore the only conclusion that can be accepted is that some natural phenomenon can, as a result of movement and transformation, reach perfection. Perfection cannot be considered as a universal rule for all of the phenomena in the universe.

It would be appropriate here to remind the reader that the assumption upon which these principles were universally established, only define the rules which have already been proven in the natural sciences, such as how the phenomena come into appearance.

However the existence of universal rules does not mean that we are without need of an originator or the cause, which bestows existence. We have already established in our previous lessons that matter and materiality are possible existents and they require a necessary existence.

Questions:

1. What is the difference between mechanical and dialectical materialism?

2. Explain the principle of contradiction and its criticism?

3. Explain the principle of the quantum leap?

4. Explain the principle of negating the negation?

5. Does the universality of the assumption of the principle of negating the negation, establish the needlessness of the cause that bestows existence?