The critical role played by method in making philosophical generalizations

Scan page 8

Descartes: Developed the theory of two separate worlds-mind and matter. 'Here we see counterposed two opposite methods of investigating nature. The idealist method is to try to determine the laws of physics by thinking—by deducing them from The materialist method is to investigate the material world directly—to look at it, and touch B SOCIALIST ACTION NOVEMBER 1991 This is the third in a series of articles on the philosophical foundations of Marxism. The articles are based on classes given by Cliff Conner at a Socialist Action national educational conference in August 1989.

In the previous articles, the author described the development of philosophy in ancient Greece. He showed that, although the first Ionian philosophers were materialists, idealist philosophy (as expounded by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) began to predominate. This was because idealism served as ideological support for a privileged ruling class.

Up to this point, there has been a certain simplicity to our story. It seems that from the standpoint of social justice and social progress, the materialists have been the "good guys" and the idealists have been the "bad guys."

But the correlation becomes much less clear-cut in more recent times. In 17thcentury England, for example, we find the great materialist philosopher Thomas Hobbes in the most reactionary political camp, and we find the most militant revolutionaries attached to mystical religious sects. We also find the most important contribution to materialist philosophy being made by the great idealist philosopher René Descartes—who based his system on the proposition: "I think, therefore I am."

Descartes developed the notion of two real worlds, completely separate—one of the mind and one of matter. This was a more modern version of the idea that the gods exist but don't interfere in the world of nature.

Descartes said that we can't really examine the world of the mind, but we can examine the world of nature, and so he directed most of his attention to the material world. Many of the scientists and philosophers that he influenced only paid attention to what he had to say about the material world, and they ignored the other part.

On the other hand, Descartes' method was purely idealist. It was the same method Plato used. And I want to focus on this as one of the main points of this class, because it is such a common methodological error. It has even caused problems in the Marxist movement, as we will see.

A priori method of reasoning What I'm talking about is the a priori method of reasoning. Plato took mathematics—and in particular, geometry—as his model of inquiry. In geometry, as you know, you start with certain very simple, basic propositions, or axioms, and by deductive logic you can discover a great body of truth, all by pure reason, all by just using your mind. Plato believed that that was the road to all truth. Any truth that couldn't be found by pure reason wasn't worth knowing.

Descartes also believed that all truth, all knowledge, could be deduced from basic a priori truths which he defined as "clear and distinct ideas." He tried to deduce a whole system of physics from a few axioms, but the results he achieved in physics are quite forgettable. The real advances in physics came from scientists like Galileo, who actually manipulated and observed physical objects as a way of determining physical laws.

Here we see counterposed two opposite methods of investigating nature. The idealist method is to try to determine the laws of physics by thinking—by deducing them from abstract first principles. The materialist method is to investigate the material world directlyto look at it, and touch it, and experiment with it.

Materialists like Galileo also used it, and experiment with it.' their minds, of course. They reflected upon what they saw; they reasoned about their experiments. Their starting point, however, wasn't mind, but matter.

This is all pretty obvious, isn't it? Everybody should know this. What's the big deal? Well, as I said before, even people who consider themselves Marxists can get caught up sometimes in trying to argue from first principles. Let me give you a relatively recent example. (I say relatively recent, because up to now we haven't gotten beyond the 17th century.)

This involves the Cuban Revolution.There was a British Trotskyist organization that held the position that Cuba had not had a revolution but remained a capitalist country-and they could prove it. Look, they said, we've always agreed that to make a revolution in the epoch of imperialism a Leninist party is necessary. We all agree that there was no Leninist party in Cuba. Therefore, there could not have been a revolution in Cuba. It's as simple as one-two-three.

This is a classic example of a priori reasoning. It is always tempting because it is so much easier to come up with answers when you save yourself the trouble of actually looking at what's happening in the real world.

There's nothing wrong with using this kind of reasoning in a provisional way. In fact, it is necessary to do so. But if you reach a conclusion based on a priori reasoning, you can't assume that you've finished the job. You have to abstract first principles. test that conclusion against the material world to see if it holds water.

This is an important point, because Marxists are routinely accused of arguing from a priori principles. But dialectical materialism can't be treated as a set of abstract propositions from which you can deduce knowledge about the real world.

Friedrich Engels wrote a book to make this point. The central purpose of his "Anti-Duhring" was to show that Eugen Duhring's philosophical and political conclusions were worthless because they were derived from an a priori method.

Reject all generalizations?

There is a mirror-image problem of going too far in the opposite direction. Avoiding the a priori method does not mean rejecting all generalizations. Generalizations are indispensable to any method of obtaining scientific know!edge.

To take an up-to-date example: with regard to China today, what should our attitude be toward the reform wing of the bureaucracy represented by Zhao Ziyang? We could start by thinking in general terms. The Chinese bureaucracy is a Stalinist bureaucracy. Stalinist bureaucracies cannot be reformed.It follows that Zhao Ziyang is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

That chain of reasoning is based upon the proposition that "all Stalinist bureaucracies are unreformable." Is that simply an a priori that should be rejected out of hand? Not at all. It is a century of historical experience with Stalinism.

That proposition was a hard-won generalization, paid for in blood, and we are not inclined to discard it lightly, without good reason, without some solid evidence to the contrary. We don't treat it as an absolute truth, but as a provisional conclusion that we will use as a basis for political action. If we simply rejected all such generalizations, we couldn't take any action; we'd be paralyzed.

The a priori method is an idealist method, but not all idealists were as thoroughly committed to it as Plato was. Aristotle, for example, was a much more down-to-earth kind of scientist. He wrote volumes and volumes on biology and he drew many conclusions by actually looking at nature, not by deduction from a priori principles.

But Aristotle was an idealist in another sense: his whole view of the world was a teleological one. Now, "teleological" is one of those $25 words that just can't be avoided; there's no substitute for it. And since Marxists are often accused of teleological thinking, I think it's worth discussing.

Teleology is the proposition that everything that happens is a step toward some definite end; everything that happens is part of the unfolding of a predetermined plan that is built into nature. It is not hard to see where this idea comes from and why it seems attractive.

Consider Aristotle, who was one of the greatest biological observers of all time. Consider the acorn that invariably develops into an oak tree as if according to plan. Consider the chick embryo that grows into a chicken. Everywhere Aristotle looked he saw things apparently changing according to the unfolding of a built-in plan. And he generalized that to all of nature.

All "natural" motion, Aristotle thought, was an attempt by nature to reach a state of perfection. In physics, solid objects fall to earth because that is part of their built-in need to return to the center of the universe. The sun, moon, and stars go around the earth in perfect circles because that is their built-in plan.

Why is this an idealistic conception? Because if there is a built-in plan, then there must be some kind of universal mind or cosmic intelligence that devised the plan. Whether it is called God, or nature, or the absolute ideal, it is all the same thing-mind is assigned priority over matter. Furthermore, if everything in nature is striving toward some ideal, perfect state, then that must be true for humans and human society, too.

One of the major themes in the development of modern science has been the struggle against Aristotle's teleology. The biggest step forward was probably Darwin's explanation of evolution, which took the teleology out of biology.

Marx's method

How is it that Marxists-and even Marx himself-have been accused of teleological thinking? Well, didn't Marx say that there has been a natural progression in the development of human society from feudalism to capitalism, and that there is a natural next step to socialism? Doesn't that imply that society is developing according to an inner logic, or plan, toward some ideal state?

When summarized in this brief manner, Marx's view of history does bear some resemblance to a teleological schema, but the resemblance is only superficial.

First of all, Marx based his account of the development of societies in the past on a careful study of the historical evidence. Secondly, his projection of future social developments was founded on the same empirical basis. In principle, then, Marxism is no more teleological than Darwin's explanation of natural selection, or an astronomer's prediction of (continued on next page)

Scan page 9

By MIKE ALEWITZ