[introduction.]
p Recent philosophy, Lenin pointed out, is as partisan as philosophy was two thousand years ago. In other words, today as in the past, the philosophers are divided into two mutually opposed camps, materialism and idealism. In the final analysis, the struggle between them is an expression of the tendencies and ideologies of opposed social classes and groups. In the modern world a grim struggle is going on between the communist and bourgeois ideologies. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. appraises this struggle as "a reflection, in the intellectual life of mankind, of the historic process of transition from capitalism to socialism".^^11^^ The reactionary burgeoisie, of course, wages war not only against the ideas but also against the practice of scientific communism.
p The philosophy of dialectical materialism is the ideology of the working class, of the progressive social forces of our time. On the other hand, the different trends in idealist philosophy express the world outlook of the reactionary forces, the imperialist bourgeoisie. Anti-communism more and more becomes an inseparable feature of all modern bourgeois ideology. In the philosophical field it finds expression in endless but ineffective attempts to refute the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, to uphold the position of bourgeois philosophy in the struggle against these teachings, and to defend the capitalist order of things.
47p Modern bourgeois philosophy is split into a multitude of trends and schools, but basically they are merely different variants of open or camouflaged idealism, that is, variants of a false and illusory world outlook.
p In our day, philosophical idealism has become even more reactionary and decadent than at the close of the last century. Irrationalism has become a fashionable trend; it holds that the universe and life have no rational meaning, and that the human mind is incapable of apprehending reality. Also widespread are diverse doctrines that exploit scientific discoveries for the perversion of science. Lastly, there is the growing influence of outspoken theological doctrines.
p Intellectual life in the capitalist countries is characterised by this paradox: science is irresistibly advancing, deepening our knowledge of the material world, and, in co-operation with technology, indefinitely increasing man’s mastery over nature. A genuinely scientific explanation of phenomena in nature and society is offered by dialectical and historical materialism, the progressive materialist philosophy that has been developing for more than a century. But many philosophers—and sometimes even scientists—continue to insist that the external world has no objective existence, that the statements of science do not contain objective truth, that man cannot know the real nature of things, so that the wisest course is to place one’s trust in the supernatural and accept the teachings of the Church.
p Why is this? How can intelligent men, including honest-minded scientists, hold idealist views that run counter to science and social practice?
p The decisive obstacle to acceptance of materialism is the class interest of the bourgeoisie and the anti-communist prejudices of bourgeois intellectuals. If consistently applied, modern scientific materialism, i.e., dialectical and historical materialism, logically leads one to the position of the working class and acceptance of scientific socialism. That is one of the reasons why those who are reluctant to break with the bourgeoisie—and they include scientists—are afraid to adopt materialism. The outspoken, active defenders and ideologists of imperialism see in dialectical materialism their relentless theoretical opponent and have made it their aim to refute it by any means. They employ all the media of ideological and moral pressure for this purpose: the press, radio, television, the class-room and pulpit, learned treatises and journalism. This propaganda is kept up day after day, year after year, and is naturally bound to have its effect.
An examination of the basic trends in modern bourgeois philosophy will reveal some of the other reasons why idealism has proved so tenacious.
48Philosophy Against Reason
p The pessimism, irrationalism and hostility to a scientific world outlook characteristic of the ideology of the present-day bourgeoisie are very clearly seen in one of the most fashionable philosophical doctrines of the bourgeois world, viz., existentialism. Its founder, the German idealist philosopher Martin Heidegger, borrowed much from the doctrine ofSoren Aabye Kierkegaard, the early nineteenthcentury Danish mystic. Among other German existentialists, Karl Jaspers is prominent on account of his reactionary, pessimist views. In France existentialism does not constitute an integral trend. Its left tendency is linked with the name of Jean-Paul Sartre (“atheistic existentialism”), and the right tendency with Gabriel Marcel (“ Christian existentialism”).
p The most general problem raised by the existentialists is that of the meaning of life, of man’s place in the universe, and the path he chooses in life. It is an old problem, but at the present time it has acquired special importance for the many people who feel they must determine their place in the complex and contradictory conditions of bourgeois society and express their attitude to the worldwide struggle between progressive and reactionary forces.
p Existentialism, therefore, touches on one of the burning questions of the time, but the solution it offers is based on a decadent, idealist world outlook. Its starting-point is the consciousness of the individual isolated from and standing opposed to society and living by his own thoughts and feelings. That wrong starting-point predetermines the fallacy of the whole doctrine.
p The adherents of existentialism claim that it is a doctrine of being in general; actually, it deals exclusively with the “existence” of the individual. Disregarding the arguments of some existentialists about the “hereafter”, or, in other words, about God, the sole reality they recognise is the consciousness that "I exist”. The external world is depicted as a mystery inaccessible to reason and logical thought. Like all subjective idealists, the existentialists deny the objective reality of nature, space and time. According to Heidegger, the world exists only inasmuch as man exists: "If there is no existence, neither can the universe exist.”
p By contending that the most important thing for man is the fact of his existence, the existentialists indulge in fine-spun reasoning about human existence having an end and man’s whole life being lived in fear of death. The function of philosophy, in their view, is to awaken and keep alive this fear. To philosophise, says Jaspers, is to learn to die.
p The existentialists realise, of course, that the easiest way to indoctrinate this feeling of fear is to sever the individual from society, make him feel isolated and helpless. Accordingly, they seek to instil the idea that the individual is “alone” in an alien and 49 hostile world, that in relation to other men his is an “unreal” existence, that society robs him of his individuality.
p The existentialists adroitly exploit the indubitable fact, tragically felt by many people, that capitalist society does oppress the individual, that it does suppress his personality. But the feeling of protest against the oppressive capitalist system arising among a section of the intellectuals is directed by this philosophy along the false path of protest against society as such. For, in the existentialist view, although the individual cannot exist without intercourse with other individuals, he nevertheless remains in complete solitude, and only by withdrawing into himself can he acquire freedom. The existentialists do not recognise obligations imposed on the individual by the community or generally accepted ethical standards: the hero of existentialist plays and novels is usually a person without firm convictions and often of an amoral nature. All human activity and struggle are futile, the world is a kingdom of absurdity, and all history meaningless.
p The subjective-idealist philosophy of existentialism is above all false because it reduces all reality to the existence of man and his emotions and, at the same time, completely distorts the very nature of man. For man’s life is bound up with society. What has raised him high above the level of the animal world? His life and labour as a member of society. It is in society that man develops his mind and emotions, will and conscience, acquires a meaning and purpose in life. He who lives a full social life and is inspired by progressive ideas, is concerned with the problem of life, not death—how to shape his life as a useful member of society, what contribution he can make to its progress. But once a person is artificially severed from society, he becomes a trembling, frightened being, always in fear of death and not knowing what to do with his life.
p Existentialism involuntarily demonstrates the degree of spiritual emptiness and moral degradation resulting from bourgeois individualism.
The decadent "philosophy of existence" is profoundly reactionary. It has a demoralising effect on those who have succumbed to its influence, especially the youth. Its preaching of fear, hopelessness, and the meaninglessness of existence fosters anti-social inclinations and justifies amorality and lack of principle. In certain situations, the existentialist can easily become a pawn of the most reactionary forces and be converted from an hysterical malcontent into a fascist thug. In Germany, existentialism, along with some other reactionary doctrines (neo-Hegelianism, the "philosophy of life”, etc.), played a definite part in the preparation of fascism. In France the political positions of the existentialists were of a different nature. During the war, Sartre and some other existentialists actively participated in the Resistance movement, and in the post-war period they repeatedly came forward as supporters of peace and as opponents of the 50 French government’s war in Algeria. However, continuing to be adherents of extreme individualism, they counterposed the latter to the principles of class solidarity and organisation of the proletariat and its Communist Party.
Pscudo-"PhiIosophy of Science"
p Another philosophical trend that enjoys wide currency in the capitalist world is neo-positivism, or "logical positivism”. In recent times it has most often made its appearance under the name of " analytical philosophy" and it is vociferously advertised by its supporters as the "philosophy of science”. At first sight it might appear to be the antithesis of the irrational philosophy of existentialism, but actually it is an idealist doctrine definitely related to existentialism, and shares its pessimism, disbelief in human reason and capacity for cognition.
p The basic tenets of neo-positivism were formulated by Bertrand Russell and the Austrian philosophers Wittgenstein, Schlick and Carnap. Its most prominent exponents today are Quain and Pape in the U.S.A. and Ryle and Ayer in Britain. The neo-positivists tried to answer certain questions raised by the rapid development of science and new methods of research, by the appearance of new fields of mathematics and the rise of such an important subject as mathematical logic. They set out to find a reliable criterion of the scientific authenticity of every theory, to apply it to philosophy itself, and to analyse thoroughly the epistemological and logical bases of mathematics, etc. But the neo-positivists formulated these important philosophical and logical problems in such a way as to preclude in advance a materialist solution of them, for from the outset the founders of neo-positivism were convinced opponents of materialism, and especially of Marxist materialism. In the final analysis neo-positivism proved to be nothing but a renovated variety of subjective-idealist philosophy, in particular of Machism, more or less adapted to the modern level of physics, mathematics and logic.
p Its underlying idea is that the basic problems of world outlook have no place in philosophy, which should deal solely with "logical analysis of language”. These problems, and above all the fundamental problem of philosophy, we are told, are only “pseudo-problems” from the scientific point of view. Philosophy cannot give us any knowledge of the external world and its laws; it should confine itself exclusively to logical analysis of the language of science, that is, analysis of the rules for applying scientific concepts and symbols, the combination of words in sentences, the deduction of one proposition from another, etc., and "semantic analysis" [50•* of the meaning of scientific terms and concepts. But though logical analysis of the 51 language of science may be important, reducing all philosophy to such analysis is tantamount to abolishing it altogether.
p The neo-positivists are right when they argue that science must be based on the data of experience, on facts. But like theMachians, they refuse to admit the validity of the facts of experience. In their judgement, for instance, the question whether a rose exists objectively is absurd: all that can be said is that I see the red colour of the rose and smell its perfume. Only that fact, they allege, is scientifically valid. In other words, they interpret facts to mean not objective things, events or phenomena in the objective world, but sensations, impressions, perceptions and other phenomena of our consciousness. In spite of their own assertion that inquiry into the essence of reality is meaningless, they in fact deny only the material character of the world, thereby, in effect, ascribing to it a spiritual character.
p What, then, is the function of science? Its primary function, they assert, is only to describe “facts”, i.e., human sensations, for science cannot know the objective world, and knowledge based on experience can have no objective authenticity.
p This description of facts, arbitrarily selected, furnishes the material for scientific theories constructed with the aid of logic and mathematics. The neo-positivists assert that in contrast to the empirical sciences, which are based on the data of experience, logic and mathematics rely on a system of axioms and arbitrarily selected rules that are just as conventional as the rules of chess or a game of cards.
p The conceptual elements of a theory must not contradict these conventional rules, and that is all that is required for the theory to be accepted as true. In applying this to concrete problems the neopositivists arrive, for instance, at the anti-scientific conclusion that to take the sun, and not the earth, as the centre of the solar system is purely conventional.
p Needless to say, such an interpretation of scientific theory deprives science of all value as a method of objective cognition and turns it into a sort of parlour game.
p Paradoxical though it may seem, these absurd views, which to all intents and purposes negate science, are held by eminent scientists who have made significant contributions to modern learning. The intricate methods employed in modern science, the complexity of the phenomena it studies, and the difficulties that arise in explaining some of these phenomena, create the possibility of idealist waverings among scientists, and bourgeois environment helps to turn this possibility into reality.
p Thus, the discovery of non-Euclidian geometry (by Lobachevsky, Riemann and others) reflecting the objective laws of space in conditions different from those we are accustomed to, led some scientists to conclude that no geometry can be regarded as true and that its basic principles are merely conventional.
52p The abstract mathematical nature of physical theory, tho impossibility of constructing graphic models of microparticles, or of directly observing them, are chiefly responsible for idealistic interpretations of physical phenomena.
p For the physicist cannot observe the microparticles (electrons, protons, mesons, etc.) he studies even with the most powerful optical instruments, nor reproduce them in a model. All the experimental physicist can see is the recordings of his instruments, flashes on the screen, etc. His conclusions about the existence of microparticles and their properties are founded on complex theoretical arguments and mathematical calculations. When the physicist experiments, he acts as a spontaneous materialist. But his reflections on the general problems of science, in the absence of clear-cut philosophical views, might well lead him to the distorted opinion that the microparticles, with all their properties, do not exist in reality, but are merely a theoretical concept, a “logical” or “semantic” construction, or a complex aggregate of symbols created for the express purpose of co-ordinating and predicting the recordings of his instruments.
p One of the greatest physicists of our day, Werner Heisenberg, has expressed the opinion that the elementary particle "is not a material particle in space and time but, in a way, only a symbol on whose introduction the laws of nature assume an especially simple form".^^12^^
p As for the theoretical physicist, who is concerned with mathematical treatment of the results of observation obtained by other investigators, the very nature of his work, and the constant replacement of one scientific theory by another, might lead him, if he does not understand dialectics, to the erroneous conclusion that his hypotheses and theories are arbitrary and their underlying principles purely subjective. James Jeans, the distinguished astronomer, held the idealist view that the "objective and material universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds".^^13^^
p However, though we cannot build models of microparticles, or observe them directly, this in no way refutes their materiality, which consists in the fact of their existence outside and independent of human consciousness. That has been proved by the progress of science and by the technical application of data obtained from the study of microparticles.
p Today, as fifty years ago when Lenin wrote his Materialism and Empiric-Criticism, the idealist philosophers play on these difficulties encountered by science, on the vacillation of scientists, on their hesitation to uphold and apply the materialist standpoint. That is why the battle against idealism requires knowledge of modern science and ability to solve its problems in the light of dialectical materialism.
p Modern positivism has found its way also into the social sciences— sociology, philology, psychology. Its adherents, exponents of what is termed "universal semantics”, claim that social reality depends 53 on what people say about it, and that social evils arrive from wrong conceptions and wrong usage of words. Hence, to change social life one has only to change language, the significance attributed to words. Stuart Chase, an American semanticist, even suggests that words like “capital” and “unemployment”, etc., are meaningless, and that if there were no such “evil” word in our vocabulary as “exploitation”, there would be no exploitation.
p The neo-positivists reject as unscientific not only “metaphysical” judgements, but also ethical and moral valuations and judgements. Any ethical judgement, they say, is necessarily subjective, that is, is only a personal view, an expression of the emotional outlook of the speaker. From that standpoint, the judgement that aggressive wars are unjust would have to be regarded merely as a subjective opinion, and no more valid than the opposite opinion that aggressive wars are just. Thus, neo-positivism, which is seemingly far removed from politics, proves to be a very suitable instrument for justifying reactionary policies. At the same time, it invites people who are unwilling to abandon ethical principles having objective validity to seek such permanent standards outside the realm of science, primarily in religion.
p By disparaging science as incapable of giving us an objective and true picture of the world, the neo-positivists play into the hands of the theologians and fideists, who preach implicit faith in religion. Nor is that denied by the neo-positivists themselves. The wellknown idealist physicist, Pascual Jordan, says that "the positivist conception offers new possibilities of granting living space to religion without contradiction from scientific thought"."*
Lenin wrote: "The objective, class role of empirio-criticism consists entirely in rendering faithful service to the fideists in their struggle against materialism.”^^15^^ These words fully apply to the neo-positivists.
Revival of Medieval Scholasticism
p Fideism is being widely and vigorously disseminated in contemporary bourgeois society. The Church and its diverse organisations have also become more active. Clericalism acquires ever greater importance in the political and ideological arsenal of imperialism. Ruling class ideologists harp on the argument that "only religion is the serious business of the human race"^^16^^ and that the only solution of pressing social issues "lies in a more effective infusion into our lives of the spirit of Christianity".^^17^^
p Intensified religious propaganda is attended by the spread among bourgeois intellectuals, and the bourgeoisie generally, of all manner of mystical doctrines—spiritualism, astrology, chiromancy and other types of superstition.
p The class implications of this were revealed by Lenin: "The bourgeoisie, out of fear of the growth and increasing strength of the 54 proletariat, Is supporting everything backward, moribund and medieval.”^^18^^
p Medieval philosophy is being revived in the literal sense: the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic philosopher of the Middle Ages, have been resurrected in neo-Thomism, which the Vatican has officially recognised as the philosophy of the Catholic Church.
p It might be thought that this preaching of a frankly religious philosophy that attempts to re-establish medieval scholastic doctrines as "eternal philosophy”, would have little or no appeal to the scientist. That is not so. Neo-Thomism is a subtle and crafty doctrine and, in the capitalist world, often misleads not only ordinary people, but men of science.
p The fundamental basis of neo-Thomist doctrine is recognition of God as the creator and omnipotent ruler of the world. Nature is the "realisation of divine ideas”, and history the "realisation of a divine plan”. But unlike the neo-positivists, existentialists and similar .subjective idealist schools, the neo-Thomists recognise that the external world, being a world created by God, has a real existence independent of man and his consciousness and can be known through feeling and reason. In fact, they even criticise existentialist irrationalism and are loud in defending reason, with which, they affirm, God endowed man in order that he might aspire to know truth.
p Such views are readily accepted by people who are not satisfied with the sophistry of positivism and irrationalism, but who are unwilling or unable to accept philosophical materialism. They consider that neo-Thomism successfully blends a correct, healthy attitude to scientific cognition with a faith in God that satisfies the religious needs of the individual.
p That, however, is entirely erroneous. For neo-Thomism cannot be reconciled with reason and science. Its fundamental idea is that science is subordinate to religion, and knowledge to faith. The neo-Thomists interpret “reason” to mean a mode of thinking that does not transcend the teachings of the Church, and, conversely, denounce as unreasonable, as a "revolt against reason”, defence of scientific propositions that contradict religious dogma.
p They indicate three ways of arriving at truth: science, philosophy and religion. The lowest of them is science, and the knowledge it provides, we are told, is untrustworthy and restricted to the corporal shell that conceals the genuine spiritual truth of the world, the latter being inaccessible to science though it is partially accessible to philosophy, or “metaphysics”. In contrast to science, philosophy deals with the primary cause of the world, and reaches the conclusion that this first cause is a supreme spiritual principle or divine creator. But supreme truth is reached only through revelation, religious faith, with which all the fundamental conclusions 55 of science and philosophy of importance for a world outlook have to accord.
p The ultimate object of theoretical science, according to the neoThomists, is to furnish evidence of the existence of God, evidence that "Catholicism and science were made for each other”. All the difficulties confronting science, all its unsolved problems, are exploited for the benefit of the dogmas of the Church.
p One of the favourite proofs of the divine creation of the world that Catholic philosophers put forward is the theory of the " expanding universe”. It is based on the discovery in 1919 of the displacement of the lines towards the red end of the spectrum in the case of radiation reaching us from the very distant galaxies. Science has not yet fully established the cause of this, but the most probable explanation—the rapid recession of the galaxies from our solar system—was immediately seized on by idealist philosophers as proof that the universe began from a God-created "primordial atom" in which at one time all matter and energy were concentrated.
p There is absolutely no scientific justification for that conclusion, if only because we are not justified in extending conclusions based on facts observed now, and confined to a limited portion of the universe, to the whole infinite universe and to a time separated from us by thousands of millions of years.
p Nonetheless, this and similar “theories” were used by Pope Pius XII in his address of November 22,1951, "Proofs of the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Science" for the statement: "Thus, creation in time; and hence a creator, and, consequently, God! That is the admission ... we demand of science, the admission our generation expects from it.”^^19^^
p That example is typical of how the idealist philosophers and theologians utilise incompletely explained scientific data for idealist and fideist conclusions. Only by firmly adhering to philosophical materialism and consistently applying the dialectical method can the scientist avoid vacillation and steer clear of the traps the idealists set at each difficult point in the advance of science.
p The neo-Thomists often claim that unlike the subjective idealists, they lay great stress on moral questions. But the morality they preach is one of meek submission, the doctrine that man should be concerned not so much with life on this earth and his sinful body as with his "immortal soul”, "eternal life”, and God. It is a Morality of passive acceptance and, consequently, justification of the existing social evils, exploitation and inequality; a morality that substitutes prayer and appeal to God in place of protest and struggle against social injustice; hence a morality of advantage only to the ruling exploiter class.
p As regards their social and political doctrine, the neo-Thomists combine attacks on socialism with “criticism” of some of the defects of capitalism. The existing evils of society, the Catholic philosophers 56 argue, are due to the fact that many people, among them capitalists, have forgotten their religious beliefs and ceased to he good Christians. That type of “criticism” shows that the neo-Thomists have no intention of combating capitalism and are, in effect, its defenders.
p There are many other philosophical trends and schools in the capitalist world—instrumentalism, [56•* neo-realism, phenomenology, personalism, etc.—but all of them come within the framework of idealism and possess the same reactionary features and tendencies that are more clearly expressed in the typical idealist doctrines discussed above.
Idealist philosophy cannot give us a correct answer to scientific and social problems. Imbued with hostility to the scientific, Marxist world outlook and social progress, it is an expression of the deepening decline of capitalism and the crisis of capitalist culture.