MATERIALISM and EMPIRIO-CRITICISM S.Hrcm;Sqxj
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
V. I. LENIN MATERIALISM AND EMPIRIO-CRITICISM S.Hrcm;sqxJ VORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! V. T. LENI MATERIALISM AND EMPIRIO-CRITICISM FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1,972 First Edition t9t2 PUBLISHER'S NOTE The ptesent English edition of V. I. Lenin, Materialis'n and. Empirio-Criticism, is a reprint of the text given in the book under CONTENTS the same title published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow. It contains "Ten Questions to a Lecturer," a given Collected Lenin, reprint from the text in Vorks ol V. I. TEN QUESTIONS TO A LECTURER English edition, Vol. 14. The notes at the end of the book are based on those given in the Chinese edition published by the MATERIALISM .A.ND EMPIIItrO-CRITICISM People's Publishing House, Peking, Aptil r97r. Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy ) PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION t PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION In Lieu ol lntroducliott HO\fl CERTAIN "MARXISTS" IN 19OB AND CERTAIN IDEALiSTS IN 1710 REFUTED MATERIAI,ISM Chaptet One Ti]E THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE OF EX,{PIRIO-CRITICISM .A.ND OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISA,{. I 3r r. Sensations and Complexes of Scnsations 1r z. "The Discovery of the r#orld-Elements" 41 l. The Principal Co-ordination and "Naive Realism" 65 4. Did Nature Exist Prior to Man? 7t 5. Does Man Think with the Help of the Brain? 9o 6. The Solipsism of Mach and Avenarius 99 Cbapter Tzoo THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE OF EMPIRIO.CRITICISM AND OF DIALECTICAL MITTERIALISM' II to4 Priued in tbe People's Republic ol Cbina 111 11 CONTENTS CONIENTS r. The "Thing-in-Itself," or V. Chernov Refutes Frederick Cbapter Fiae Engels to4 THE RECENT REVOI,UT]ON IN NATURAL SCIENCE AND ry8 z. 1'Transcendence," or Bazarov "Revises" Engels I]' P}I[OSOPHICAI, IDEALISM Modern PhYsics ,oI 3, L. Feuerbach and J. Dietzgeo on the Thing-in-Itself 129 r. The Crisis in 4. Does Obfective Ttuth Exist? 13t 2. "Matter Has DisaPPeated" 308 5. Absolute and Relative Ttuth, or the Eclecticism of Engels 3. Is Motion W'ithout Matter Conceivablc? 1r8 as Discovered by A. Bogdanov r47 4. The Two Trcnds io Modern Physics, and English Spitit- 6. The Criterion of Practice in the Theory of Knorvledge rt, ualism 328 The Two Ttends in Modern Physics, and Getman Idealism 139 Cbapter Tlsree J. 6. The Two Trends in Modern Physics, and Frenctr Fideism 349 TIIE THEORY OF KNOTTLEDGE OF DIALECTICAL MATE- Russian "Idealist Physicist" 36o RIALISM AND OF EMPIRIO-CRITICISM. III $1 7. A The Essence and Siglificance o[ i'Physical" Idcalism ,64 r. What Is Matter? What Is Experience? fii 8. z. Plekhanov's Error Concerning the Concept "Experience" r72 Cb(llter Six 3. Causality and Necessity in Nature r7t EMPIRIO-CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL MATERIALISM 179 4. The "Principle of Economy of Thought" and the Problem r, The Excutsiotrs of the Getman Emp'irio-Criticists into the of the "Unity of the rJ/orld" t9, Field of the Social Sciences 380 5. Space and Time 202 z. How Bogdanov Corrects and "Develops" Marx t89 6. Freedom and Neccssity 2rS 3. Suvorov's "F-oundations of Social Philosophy" 400 Philosophy and Philosophical Blockheads 4c,6 Cbapter Four 4. Patties in Ernst Haeckel and Ernst &Iach 420 IFIE PHILOSOPHICAL IDEALISTS AS COMRADES-IN-ARMS ;. AND SUCCESSORS OF EMPIRIO-CR]TICISM CONCLUSION 413 r, The Criticism of Kantiar.rism from the LeIt and frorn the Cbaqtil Four, Section I Right Supplement to FROM WHAT ANGLE DID N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY 2. How the "Ernpirio-Symbolist" Yushkevich ttre Ridiculed CR.ITICISE KANTIANISM? $6 "Empirio-Criticist" Chernov 24r ,. The Immanentists as Comradcs-in-Atms of Mach and NOTES 440 Avenarius 24t 4. Whithet Is Empirio-Criticism T'ending? 256 5. A. Bogdanov's "Empirio-Monism" 267 6. The "Thcory of Symbols" (ot Hieroglyphs) ancl tbe Criticism of Helmholtz 27t 7. Two Kinds of Criticism of Diihring 283 8. How Could J. Dietzgen Ilave For:nd Fevour with the Reactionary Philosophets ? 28g TEN QUESTIONS TO A LECTURER'I I. Does the lecturer acknowledge that the philosophy of Marxism is dial.ectical ruaterialis m? If he does not, why has he ncver analysed Engels' countless statemeflts If he do Machists call their "revision" of dialectical e philosophy of Marxism"? z. Does cknowledge Engels' fundamcntal 2 TEN euESTroNs ro A LECTURER 6. Does the lecturer acknowledge as correct Engcls' asser- tion that "matter without motion is as inconceivable as motion without matter"? (Anti-Dtibring, 1886, zrrd ed, p. 45, ia part 6 on natural philosophy, cosmogony, physics and chemistry.)3 7. Does the lecturer acknowleclge that the ideas of causal- ity, necessity,law, etc., ate a reflection in the human mind of MA.TERI,{LISM AND EIVffi'IRtrO-CR.ITICISM laws of flature, of the real world? Or was Engels wrong in saying so? (Anti-Dtibring, S. zo-zt, in part III on aprior- Critical Comments on a Reactionary ism, and S. to3-o4, in part XI on freedcim and necessity.)" Philosophyto 8. Does the lectr-lrer know that Mach expressed his agtee- ment with the head of the immanentist school, Schuppe, and evcn dedicated his last and chief philosophical work to him? How does the lecturer explain this adherence of Mach to the obviously idealist philosophy of Schuppe, a defender of clericalistn and in general a downright reactionary in phi- losophy? S. rMhy did the lecturer keep silent about "adventure" with his comrade of yesterday (according to the Studiess), the Menshevik Yushkevich, who has today cleclared Bog- danov6 (following in the wake of RakhmetovT) an ideatist? Is the lecturer aware that Petzoldt in his latest book has classed a number of Mach's disciples arnong the idealists? ro. Does the lecturer confirm the fact that Machism has nothirig in common with Bolshevism? And that Lenin has repeatedly protested against Machism?8 And that the Mensheviks Yushkevich and Valentinove are "pure" empirio- criticists ? Written in May-June r9o8 Published according to the manuscflPt First published in r92\, in Lenin, Miscellany lll PREFACE TO TFIE FIR.ST'EDITION A number of writers, would-be Marxists, have this year undertaken a veiltable campaign against the philosophy of Marxisrn. In the course of less than half a yer four books devoted mainly and almost exclusively to attacks on dialectical materialism have made their appearance. These include first and foremost Studies in l? - it would have been more proper to say "against"lLt ilre Philosopby ol A4arxisru (St. petersburg, r9o8), a symposium by Bazarov, Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Rerman, Helfond, Yushkevich and Suvorov; yushkevich's Materialisru and Critical Realistn; Berman's Dialectics in tbe Ligbt ol the Modern Tbeory ol Knoza;tedge and Valentinov,s The Pbilosopbical Constructions ot' Marxism. All these people could not have been ignorant of the fact that Marx and Engels scores of times termed their philo- sophical views dialectical materialism. Yet all these people, who, despite the sharp divergence of their political views, are united in their hostility towards dialecticaT materialism, at the same time claim to be Marxists in philosophy! Engels' dialectics is "mysticism," says Berman. Engels' views havb become "antiquated," remarks Baz-arov casually, as though 6 PREFACI] TO TTIE FIRST EDIT]ON PREFACE To THE FIRsT EDITIoN 7 it n'ere a self-eviden t f act. Materialism thus appecrs to be and thoroughness that no one has ever found anything ambig- refuted by our bold warriors, who proudiy allude to the uous in such literary uttefances. "modern theory of knorvledge," "receflt philosophy'l ("r For the rest, there is in the Studies "in" tbe Pbilosopby ot' "recent positivism"), the "philosophy of modern natural Marxistn one phrase which resembles the truth. This is phrase: science," or even the "philosophy of natural science of the Lunacharsky's "Perhaps we li.e., all the collaborators of tire Stwdies evidently] have gone astray, but are seek- twentieth cefltury." Supported by all these supposedly reccnt we ing" (p. 16r). That the first half of this phrase contains an doctrines, our destroyers of dialectical matetialism proceed absolute and the second a relative truth, I shall endeavour fearlessly to downrigtrt fideism*12 (in the case of I-unachar- to denronstrate circumstantially in the present book. At the sky it is most evident, but by flo means in his casc alone!l3). moment I would only remark that if our philosophers had Yet when it comes to an explicit definition of their attitude spoken not in the name of Marxism but in the name o[ a and Engels, all their courage and all their towards Marx few "seeking" Marxists, they would have shown more respect once disappear. In respect for their own convictions at for themselves and for Marxisrn. dialectical materialism, deed a complete renunciation of As for myself, I too am a "seeker" in philosophy. Name- - attcmpts to i.. e., ot Marxism; in word - endless subterfuges, ly, the task I have set myself in these comments is to find to evade the essence of the qucstion, to cover their retreat, out what \tras the stumbling block to these people who under put some materialist or other in place of materialism in the guise of Marxism are offering something incredibly mud- general, and a determined refusal to make a ditect analysis dled, confused and reactioflary. materialist declarations of Marx and of the innumerable Tlte Autbor Engels. This is truly "mutiny on one's knees," as it was lustly characterised by one Marxist' This is typical philosoph- September r9o8 ical revisionism, fot it was only the revisionists who gained a sad notoriety for themselvcs by their departure from the fundamental views of Marxism and by their fear, or inability, to "settle accouflts" openly, explicitly, resolutely and cleady with the views they had abandoned.