Materialism: Difference between revisions

Line 9:

'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.'''<ref>On this point Hegel even gives points to Bayle who, though having "not a trace of the speculative element in him ... is acute enough as a dialectician," for ridiculing Spinoza's "idea that all particular content is only a modification of God .... from it that God modified as Turks and Austrians, is waging war with Himself." Hegel, ''Lectures on the Philosophy of History,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />

For Spinoza ''only God exists.'' Against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.

For Spinoza ''only God exists.'' Against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process.<ref>this is the false and stupid idea of an opposition between Hegelian method and system </ref> Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.

In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate position of one or another class engaged in struggle.''

It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 '''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.'''<ref>On this point Hegel even gives points to Bayle who, though having "not a trace of the speculative element in him ... is acute enough as a dialectician," for ridiculing Spinoza's "idea that all particular content is only a modification of God .... from it that God modified as Turks and Austrians, is waging war with Himself." Hegel, ''Lectures on the Philosophy of History,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />
-For Spinoza ''only God exists.'' Against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.
+For Spinoza ''only God exists.'' Against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process.<ref>this is the false and stupid idea of an opposition between Hegelian method and system </ref> Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.
 In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate position of one or another class engaged in struggle.''
 It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.