“Why?“
We all ask this question from the moment we're born. It's a basic living instinct to want to understand the world around us. We're all born curious – humans and most other living creatures – and this drive to learn and figure things out stays with us our whole lives. Even though we have this instinct, we often limit our pursuit of knowledge, intentionally or not.
Do we think it's only for scientists in lab coats or philosophers who are lost in their thoughts?
Does the concept of acquiring knowledge feel too complicated?
Or, in a world that feels increasingly chaotic, do some choose ignorance as a form of self-protection?
Regardless of these limitations, the fundamental question of 'why?' will still persist no matter how much we resist. That said, I find it puzzling that we resist new knowledge. Life can feel repetitive, of course. But we're here for such a short time – shouldn't we make the most of it? Not to mention, human consciousness possesses a unique depth and complexity compared to other living beings on this planet, a quality that we personally overlook. Sure, pretentious academics make things unnecessarily complex, but remember the wisdom of Confucius: 'Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.'
So, if complex ideas can shape how we think and live, then anyone – including you – has the power to understand them. And if you can understand them, you can craft them too. Like Why Marxism?, we will start simple for absolute beginners and then work our way up with each section.
Scientific theory tries to answer life's biggest questions, but there's a lot of disagreement about the best way to do that. You'll hear all sorts of fancy terms tossed around. But really, most ideas fall into two categories:
Materialism: These thinkers want objective proof. They believe explanations should be based on what we can see, test, and measure.
Idealism: They subjectively think there's more to the world than just physical stuff. Ideas, feelings, and the things that make us human matter – even if you can't see them under a microscope.
The main question that dominated the battleground of knowledge was:
”How do we understand the physical things in front of us, and what's the deal with our thoughts and ideas?”
I: What is Idealism?
Everyday language can muddy the waters around terms like materialism and idealism. It's important not to conflate it with the concept of moral idealism, the pursuit of a cause, with the philosophical concept. Philosophical idealism posits that thought (or consciousness) is the principal element of existence, the primary source from which Being or matter is derived. This view is the basis for religions, which claim a pure consciousness (God) as the creator of the material world.
Over time, science began to explain natural phenomena without relying on a divine creator. Idealism had to evolve to combat these explanations. This led to even more extreme claims, such as the denial of matter itself. The work of Bishop Berkeley exemplifies this shift. He argued that our perceptions are simply ideas in our minds. Therefore, objects (and matter in general) only exist in our minds, and cannot exist independently.
To fully grapple with idealism, we need to invest effort to understand the complex arguments, even if we ultimately disagree. Berkeley's goal was to demonstrate the non-existence of matter. His reasoning strips objects of all their properties: color, smell, temperature… all are subjective according to him. Because our senses can deceive us about an object's properties, he concludes the object itself cannot have a material existence.
Logically, if only the mind exists, the external world must be an illusion. This extreme form of idealism is called solipsism – the belief that only oneself truly exists. While Berkeley avoids this conclusion, it underscores the slippery slope of denying the material world.
Understanding Berkeley is key because all idealist perspectives echo his arguments with variations in terminology. They share the following core beliefs:
The external world is a product of our minds.
Our ideas create the perception of 'things'.
Everything we think of as 'reality' is merely a reflection of our own thoughts.
Simply, the fundamental flaw of idealism is that it only asks why a thing is, which really gets us nowhere.
So, what’s the alternative perspective?
II: What is Materialism?
Because idealism relies on the idea that a more powerful mind (God) creates our own and imposes these ideas upon us, we're left to consider the alternative: materialism. This perspective provides a dramatically different answer to the fundamental question of what is primary – matter or mind.
Materialism offers a starkly different answer to the question of the relationship between being (matter) and thought (consciousness). Unlike idealism, materialism sees the material world as primary. It asserts that the material world, or matter, existed before thought and is the source from which thought itself emerges. Materialists believe man thinks because of his physical brain, not because of a supernatural being.
Matter has an objective existence, independent of our thoughts or any higher power. Things do not come into being because we think of them; rather, our thoughts are formed in response to things. Science and experience provide the tools to accurately understand the world. Our ideas about the world become progressively more accurate as scientific knowledge advances. This stands in direct opposition to the idealist view that the outside world is unknowable or simply a product of our minds.
When we examine the idealistic arguments, we realize they lead to problematic conclusions. Can the world truly exist only in our minds? Are things simply products of our own ideas? The criterion of practice, i.e., real-world experience, refutes these claims. Materialists assert that the world has an objective existence, independent of our minds.
The ultimate question in this debate is whether consciousness created matter. Idealists claim that God, the purest form of consciousness, has always existed and fashioned the material world. However, this assertion rests on faith, not evidence. Materialists, supported by science, argue the opposite: there's no proof of consciousness existing without matter. In fact, our minds themselves are dependent on our physical brains. Science does not support the notion of a creation event driven by a non-material force.
That said, materialists are correct in their core assertions:
The world and its contents have an objective reality, existing independently of our thoughts.
Things themselves give rise to our ideas, not the other way around.
It is matter that produces consciousness, not consciousness that creates matter.
Simply, materialism doesn’t just ask why a thing is, but asks the what a thing is.
It's important to be aware that idealists often pose problems in a way that reverses the true relationship between matter and consciousness.
III: What About a Mix of Both?
Now, the idea of combining idealism and materialism seems appealing at first, but it quickly runs into trouble. Idealism focuses on the abstract realm of ideas, while materialism emphasizes the concrete, physical world. Building a consistent worldview on such contradictory foundations is incredibly difficult. It's like trying to mix socialism and capitalism – the core principles of each system clash, especially capitalism's relentless pursuit of dominance.
Despite these challenges, some thinkers have sought a middle ground between materialism and idealism. We call these thinkers agnostics. Simply, they doubt our ability to know if the world is truly real. While this might sound similar to Berkeley's focus on subjective experience, agnosticism takes it further by questioning the very existence of objective knowledge.
Yet, if we look at our everyday lives, we see proof that we can understand the world around us. We build bridges, cook meals, and interact with our environment successfully. Science isn't perfect, yes. But its key strength compared to other forms of knowledge lies in learning from mistakes. Every successful experiment brings us closer to understanding how things work – our bodies, minds, society, and everything else. Even agnostics must act like materialists when conducting scientific research.
One of the most famous agnostics, Immanuel Kant, coined the term ‘thing-in-itself’ to describe things that we can’t truly explain. While I do agree that our knowledge has limits; dreams, for example, can’t be fully analyzed with a scientific explanation. But the fundamental flaw of agnosticism isn't that ‘we can’t know everything,’ it's their belief that ‘we can't know anything’. This type of subjective skepticism stops us from actually understanding things in this world.
This 'we can't know anything' stance is a convenient excuse for agnostics. It allows them to pick and choose scientific findings while ignoring their deeper significance. The truth is, there's no middle ground here. Attempting to combine materialism and idealism only creates confusion. Materialism offers a path to understanding the world through reason and evidence. Rejecting this path inevitably leads to a reliance on superstition.
Why? Because one outlook was lost and deliberately suppressed, and the other was promoted as a substitute. To understand this, we need a quick history lesson on materialism and its original analytical method, metaphysics.
IV: Metaphysics
Metaphysics, a term coined by Aristotle, began as the study of the basics of reality – what things are truly made of and why they exist. Thinkers asked questions about what stays the same even when the world changes. Over time, metaphysics grew to ask even bigger questions, like ‘why do things happen?’, ‘do we have free will?’, and ‘what is the mind?’
Early Greek materialists like Heraclitus intuited the interconnectedness and constant change inherent in the world. Their insights were groundbreaking, but science was too young to provide the evidence they needed. This led to a long period in the West where idealistic views, often intertwined with religious doctrine, held sway.
However, when Alexander the Great conquered vast territories, especially in the Middle East, Greek philosophy spread alongside his empire. So even after the Ancient Greece collapsed, the Islamic empires inherited much of its knowledge, including various forms of mathematics and philosophy. This is evident in Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah (1377), which incorporates materialist concepts like the influence of climate and geography on societal development. These ideas, central to Greek thinkers, were largely absent in European discourse of the time. This is largely in part why the Islamic world's scientific advancements are seen ‘ahead of it’s time’ compared to its European counterparts.
It wasn't until the invention of the printing press in 1440 that Europeans gained wider access to classical texts, fueling a renewed interest in knowledge. Yet, it wasn’t until the 17th century where thinkers like Baruch Spinoza and René Descartes challenged the status quo, emphasizing the power of reason and scientific inquiry. Though Descartes held an agnostic position of having both materialist and idealist views, both of him and Spinoza’s work revived a focus on the natural world, paving the way for a resurgence of materialism in the West.
The French materialists of the 18th century, influenced by English thinkers like John Locke, built on this foundation. Denis Diderot and Jean-Jacques Rousseau weren't just armchair philosophers – they were activists, using materialism as a weapon to challenge social injustice and the stifling power of the Church. This was a high point for materialism, as it gained widespread acceptance among intellectuals and the educated public, coinciding with the decaying corpse of feudalism.
While various thinkers across history held differing analytical views, a common point has been the search for a stable foundation to understand a chaotic world. This goal for certainty and order led to a set of core assumptions that shape what we might call the ‘metaphysical method’:
This views the world as a collection of isolated things and static concepts.
At first, this seems like a sensible method. But there are numerous problems with this:
Fixation on Identity: Focusing on what stays the same in things, ignoring how they change over time. It's like insisting those yellow shoes are the same pair you bought ages ago, even though they've been repaired countless times.
Isolation: This leads us to categorize things rigidly, seeing them as fundamentally separate and unrelated. This is why old-school zoology missed the connections between different animal species. The same logic keeps science, philosophy, and politics in their own boxes, as if they never influence each other.
Eternal Barriers: Because things are seen as unchanging and distinct, this leads to believing the divisions between them are permanent and impossible to cross. For example, we talk about the rich and the poor as if these categories have always existed and always will.
Fear of Contradiction: This worldview insists that things cannot be opposites at the same time. It's life or death, democracy or dictatorship. Contradictions become unthinkable absurdities, which leads to the oversimplification and flatness.
This creates a rigid and artificial view of the world. It misses the connections between things which ignores the fact that change is constant and that contradictions aren't just possible, they often drive change. This is closer to a personal belief than a scientific theory. True science, depends on observing, experimenting, and testing ideas.
While this method of observation may seem like a relic of the past, it’s far from gone. I'm bringing this method up because it's still the predominant way of thinking. Its persistence is evident in most forms of analysis – we see it in journalism, mainstream discourse, and sadly, even in contemporary scientific fields like biology and psychiatry. This inevitably fragments our sense of consciousness and fosters a sense of ignorance.
Simply, metaphysics rightfully asks the what and the why, but it doesn’t ask the most important question, how. So if we actually want to understand the world, we need to look at how things became, not just how they are.
V: Dialectics
The dialectical method finds its origins in ancient Greece, with Plato's dialogues demonstrating an idealistic form. In this model, a thesis (argument) and antithesis (counterargument) engage in a dialogue. Through this exchange, a synthesis (resolution) emerges, offering a richer understanding. This synthesis becomes the new thesis, open to further refinement.
Influenced by his mathematical background, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel saw inherent tensions within relationships driving them towards resolution. He applied this view to history, understanding it as a dynamic process where opposing forces clash, leading to new syntheses. These syntheses fuel ongoing cycles of conflict and transformation, constantly reshaping history. This model provides a basis for understanding dialectics, but it doesn't fully capture the version that shaped Marx's thinking as a Young Hegelian.
Marx and Engels, deeply influenced by Hegel's work, ultimately diverged from his idealism with the formulation of their dialectical materialism. Here, dialectics becomes a fundamental scientific principle explaining the processes of change within nature, human society, and even thought. This method highlights the dynamic tensions between concepts like master and slave, exploiter and exploited, proletariat and bourgeoisie. Specifically, they came to the conclusion that their existence is inseparable, bound together by a relationship of inherent conflict.
Interestingly, the term itself was rarely used by Marx and Engels themselves. They didn't produce a single, definitive text on the concept; instead, their ideas were scattered throughout their works. It was primarily after Engels's death, through the compilation of his writings and manuscripts, that The Dialectics of Nature was published. This work played a pivotal role in codifying Dialectical Materialism, solidifying broad scientific application with it’s emphasis of the interconnected and ever-changing nature of reality, focusing on internal contradictions within systems that drive transformation. He outlined three key principles to this methodology that are often called the laws of dialectics:
Unity and Struggle of Opposites: Everything contains internal contradictions. These opposing forces are connected, yet struggle against each other, driving change.
Transformation of Quantity into Quality: Small changes can gradually build up and trigger a sudden, major shift in the nature of something. Think of water slowly heating until it boils.
Negation of the Negation: A process where something is replaced by its opposite, but then a new thing emerges combining elements of both. This isn't simply going back to the old way, but creating something different.
First Negation: A new subject emerges, opposing the old one (think capitalism rising against feudalism).
Second Negation: The new subject undergoes a major transformation, creating something fundamentally different (like a socialist revolution).
Importantly, new resolutions or states rarely completely erase those they replace. Elements of the old inevitably persist, creating challenges and shaping interactions within the new synthesis. These laws exist analytically and phenomenally.
Analytically, let's apply this to one of Marx's most misinterpreted quotes – ironically misunderstood by both his opponents and supporters
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people.1
This is usually seen as a condemning of religion, but to interpret it like this is metaphysically rigid. Why? Because Marx clearly highlights its complexity by calling it contradictory: “at one and the same time.”
So, let’s break down this quote dialectically:
Unity and Struggle of Opposites: Religion is both an "expression of real suffering" and a "protest" against it. It reflects the contradictions of a world where people experience oppression, while simultaneously offering a means of coping and expressing dissent.
Transformation of Quantity into Quality: The "sigh of the oppressed creature" suggests small, ongoing acts of seeking solace or expressing discontent through religion. These seemingly minor actions could gradually build up, contributing to larger shifts in consciousness and potentially fueling revolutionary change.
Negation of the Negation: Marx sees religion as the "opium of the people," numbing them to oppressive realities (first negation). However, the potential for protest and transformation implicit in the earlier phrasing suggests a potential for a new social order (second negation). This new state wouldn't simply return to a world without religion, but would address the underlying sources of suffering, potentially transforming the role of religion itself.
Simply, Marx's analysis isn't a dismissal or a defense of religion but a critique of its use as a tool to maintain oppressive systems. This dialectical lens highlights the tension between religion's role in reflecting and perpetuating suffering, and its potential as a seed of dissent and change.
Phenomenally, this dialectical framework is evident throughout natural and human systems:
Sociology:
Old power structures and values clash with emerging ones, driving change within the new system.
Gradual shifts of consciousness (e.g., in power or awareness) culminate in revolutions, fundamentally transforming society.
Parts of the old system influences the new, shaping fresh challenges (first negation). Further struggle may lead to a more integrated order (second negation).
Geology:
Opposing forces (erosion, tectonics) reshape geological formations over long periods.
Gradual changes can trigger sudden shifts (landslides).
Formations embody their history (first negation) while undergoing constant transformation (second negation).
Biology:
Species adapt to pressures or decline, driven by the contradiction of mutation vs. environment.
Advantageous mutations form, resulting in new species (qualitative change).
New species negate aspects of predecessors (first negation) but retain ancestral traces (second negation).
Ecology:
Disruptions (e.g., invasive species) challenge the existing balance within ecosystems.
Gradual or sudden shifts in populations lead to a new equilibrium.
The invasive species disrupts (first negation), and the ecosystem adapts to a new balance influenced by both old and new (second negation).
Psychology:
Internal conflicts (conscious vs. unconscious, beliefs vs. repressed experiences) propel psychological change.
New insights can trigger cognitive shifts in self-understanding.
Repression surfaces (first negation), leading to reframed self-awareness that incorporates the past (second negation).
That said, dialectical materialism views the world as interconnected, defined by constant change, and driven by internal contradictions. This framework suggests that systems and processes naturally undergo cycles of transformation. However, instead of a fixed resolution, it emphasizes an ongoing dynamic where the remnants of the past continue to play a role in shaping the present and future.
VI: The Scientific Method
If you've reached this point, I think you likely possess the foundation for developing your own theories! However, to truly generate transformative ideas, approach this endeavor with both enthusiasm and seriousness.
Any form of science isn't just about abstract ideas. It demands consistency in thought and action. Somebody who engages in science views reality as the primary factor that shapes our ideas and actions, not the other way around. Here's how to know if you're slipping into idealism without realizing it:
Selfishness: Focusing solely on yourself and your own needs is an idealist trap. Materialists understand that they are part of a larger reality.
Knowledge for its own sake: Learning without applying knowledge or sharing it reinforces the primacy of ideas over the material world.
Self-Centered Analysis: Judging situations based solely on how they affect you personally reflects an idealist mindset.
Sectarianism: Assuming that everyone must understand and agree with your perspective ignores the role of material conditions in shaping people's perspectives.
Doctrinairism: Relying exclusively on memorized quotes and formulas, even when they are correct, separates ideas from their material context.
Impracticality: Focusing on grand visions without considering concrete realities reveals an idealist tendency.
Remember: The ruling class wants us to prioritize utopian ideas over our material circumstances. Recognizing and fighting these tendencies within ourselves is a crucial part of being scientifically consistent.
The following method I've outlined here is simply one approach – consider it a starting point for your own exploration. Customize it, add your unique perspective, and let the process be intellectually stimulating:
1. Observation, Problem Identification & Questioning:
Begin by mindfully observing the world around you.
Pinpoint a specific problem or question to investigate.
Identify internal contradictions within the issue:
What are the opposing forces at play?
How do they interact and create tension?
2. Hypothesis Formation & Resolution Imagining:
Hypothesis: Formulate an educated guess offering a potential answer or solution to the problem.
Resolution: Imagine how contradictions could be resolved to create transformative change.
Transformation: Consider where small, gradual changes could lead to a major shift in consciousness.
3. Prediction & Experimentation:
Predictions: Determine the logical outcomes expected if your hypothesis and envisioned dialectical resolution were accurate.
Experimentation: Design tests or trials, including:
Traditional experiments.
Thought experiments.
Changes to personal behavior or social structures.
4. Analyze, Draw Conclusions & Evaluate
Analyze experimental results.
Does data suggest old methods being replaced, followed by the emergence of something fundamentally new?
5. Iterate, Refine, & Communicate:
If Unsuccessful: Use the understanding of contradictions and historical shifts to refine your hypothesis and resolution approach.
If Supported: Keep testing, seeking points of potential transformation within your area of study.
Communicate: Share findings clearly along with the insights that influenced your work.
Remember: Theories cannot be definitively proven, only disproven. Just as solutions to complex challenges may require ongoing refinement. We must constantly emphasize critical thinking, problem analysis, and an understanding of how subjects change over time. It promotes personal and collective growth, flexible problem-solving, and adaptability in the face of potential future shifts.
When drawing inspiration from other theoretical concepts, critical analysis, not just basic crItical thinking, is essential to grasp their true meaning. Even if you admire a specific work, repeated readings are crucial for deep understanding. Aim for a level of comprehension where explaining the core concepts becomes effortless and intuitive. As a wise man once said, 'If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.' Or as Giles Deleuze put it:
Never presume to have an idea without having determined the problem to which this idea corresponds. Never, otherwise it’s no more than small talk, it’s just opinion, and while opinions may be interesting, they are only ever mildly so. Every sentence that you come across, that can be enunciated in the logical form of “according to me…” is, philosophically speaking, null.2
This is important because I've encountered too many self-proclaimed 'experts' who lack a genuine understanding of their own beliefs. This can lead to a mindset similar to that of religious fundamentalists, where individuals cling to a surface-level interpretation of the texts and bastardize it. As mentioned above, this represents a form of selfish idealism. You must apply this principle when understanding other people's theories and when crafting yours, because it will affect when you applicate it. Do not be afraid to take your time; nobody is rushing you!
Let's wrap this up by illustrating how this scientific method can be used to create and examine concepts. I’ll give an example with one of my own original concepts, 'synchronicity bias'.
While inspired by Carl Jung's theory of synchronicity – the idea of finding meaning in coincidences – I developed a more grounded perspective. Synchronicity bias describes our predisposition to seek out and inflate the significance of coincidences that align with our pre-existing beliefs or desires. This can create a feedback loop, leading to increasingly rigid worldviews and, in extreme cases, paranoia or fundamentalism. I took Jung's abstract concept, flipped it, and focused on materialistically observable behavioral patterns.
Some might dismiss this as a simple combination of confirmation bias and illusory correlation. However, I believe synchronicity bias involves a crucial additional element: ideology. That said, ideology acts like a protective buffer, preventing individuals from recognizing the irrationality of their beliefs and further validating their biases. So, I synthesized Marx and Engels' concept of false consciousness into this, where societal structures obscure reality from individuals. This hypothesis isn't meant to replace other cognitive biases, but rather to provide another lens through which we can analyze the ways our minds construct and solidify our understanding of the world. Let’s break down how I did this:
1. Observation, Problem Identification & Dialectical Questioning
Observation: I observed a phenomenon in the world - people finding meaning in coincidences with potential negative consequences (paranoia, fundamentalism).
Problem: The existing Jungian concept of synchronicity, while intriguing, seemed overly abstract and potentially harmful in how it reinforced beliefs.
Dialectical Analysis:
Contradiction: Meaningful pattern seeking exists in tension with the potential for misinterpretation and delusion.
2. Hypothesis, Resolution Imaging & Dialectical Analysis
Hypothesis: There exists a specific cognitive bias (synchronicity bias) responsible for the tendency to overemphasize meaning in coincidences.
Resolution: Understanding this bias could help break down harmful thought patterns.
Dialectical Inspiration:
Transformation: The abstract becomes concrete – synchronicity materialized into a definable bias.
Negation of the Negation:
First Negation: Rejecting the purely metaphysical concept.
Second Negation: Creating a new concept integrating aspects of the old (focused on meaning-making) with a grounding in cognitive psychology.
3. Prediction & Experimentation
Predictions:
People prone to synchronicity bias will be more likely to hold strong, potentially unshakeable beliefs.
Interventions disrupting synchronicity bias patterns could reduce extreme perspectives or further them.
Potential Experiments
Thought Experiments: Analyzing specific cases where synchronicity is cited as evidence of belief systems.
Psychological Studies: Correlating belief strength with tendency to find meaning in random events.
4. Analyze, Draw Conclusions & Dialectical Evaluation
Analyze: Experimental findings would need to be analyzed to validate or disprove the existence and nature of synchronicity bias.
Dialectical Lens
Historical Systems: Synchronicity bias likely played a role throughout history:
People finding "divine signs" as justification for maintaining oppressive social structures.
Leaders citing coincidences as evidence of their special status or destiny.
Ideology's Role: Synchronicity bias strengthens pre-existing ideologies:
Reinforcing faith in religious dogma by attributing coincidences to the divine.
Supporting reactionary stances via manipulated information meant to discourage change or progress.
5. Iterate, Refine, & Communicate
Iterations: Based on findings, this concept of synchronicity bias would either be abandoned, refined for greater specificity, or strengthened in its definition.
Communicate: Sharing the concept, along with its origins, allows others to critique it and design experiments for further validation.
This will hopefully give you an idea for how you can to craft your own theories.
But remember, this is a method, not a doctrine.
VII: Conclusion
While this may seem like a lot to take in, it's actually just a starting point – a glimpse into a much bigger world of ideas. I've given you the basic tools and a framework, but it's up to you to refine and apply them. The next step is exploring original works and diverse perspectives. Don't limit yourself to summaries or videos; seek out primary sources whenever possible. The key is to absorb the big picture, then distill it to a level where you can apply your knowledge with confidence. Think of it like learning boxing, martial arts, or playing an instrument. It takes practice to master the fundamentals until they become second nature, or to put it in Heideggerian terms, 'ready-to-hand’. The same applies to these thinking tools – the goal is to achieve a 'ready-to-think' state.
There's so much to discover in psychology, sociology, biology, and beyond – suppressed cultures, new species, ideas lost to time... the world is waiting to be explored!
And if we make mistakes?
That just gives us a reason to live and never stop asking “why?”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
https://archive.org/details/differencerepeti0000dele