IDEALISM [In Philosophy]
The view that the “spiritual”, or mental, or non-material reality is primary, and that
material reality (if it exists at all) is secondary. One of the two great trends in the
history of philosophy, the other being its opposite,
materialism.
The graphic at the right shows the main
forms of idealism, with reference to adherents of particular forms. [From:
Marxist-Leninist Philosophy: Diagrams, tables, illustrations for students of Marxist-Leninist
theory, (Moscow: Progress, 1987, p. 18.]
See also sub-topics below and:
MATERIALISM VS. IDEALISM,
SUBJECTIVE IDEALISM, and
Philosophical doggerel
about idealism.
“Disagreement with ‘common sense’ is the foul quirk of an
idealist.” —Lenin, criticizing Hegel for his slander against the materialism of
Epicurus, “Conspectus of Hegel’s Book Lectures on the History of Philosophy”
(1915), LCW 38:283. [Of course for us materialists the existence of the physical
world is the foundation of common sense, and those who deny that the material
world exists must of necessity be disagreeing with basic common sense. —S.H.]
IDEALISM — Disagreements Within
“When one idealist criticizes the foundations of idealism
of another idealist, materialism is always the gainer thereby. Cf.
Aristotle versus Plato, etc., Hegel versus Kant, etc.” —Lenin, “Conspectus of
Hegel’s Book Lectures on the History of Philosophy” (1915), LCW 38:283.
IDEALISM — Origin Of
If you go far enough back into pre-history, there will be a time when human beings—or
our recent hominid ancestors—were not at all capable of abstract symbolic thought. And,
even today, the subtleties of abstraction are often a
difficult thing for many people to fully comprehend. If we can conceive of the concept
of “God”, must a God therefore actually exist? Some people still think so! And in churches,
movies and literature there is still a constant stream of indoctrination which succeeds
in getting millions of people to believe that “incantations” or “prayers” can magically
change the world.
Young children, in particular, are
often very confused by the difference between an object in the world and a picture of
it, or a model of it, or the name of that object in contrast to the object itself.
As the American psychologist Judy S. DeLoache and her colleagues have found in their
experiments, “young children often conflate the item and its symbol”. Moreover the full
appreciation of the difference between an abstract symbol for a thing, and the thing
itself, is something that develops by stages over time. By the age of around 18 months
babies generally begin to understand the difference between an object and a picture of
that object, but it still “takes several years for the nature of pictures to be
completely understood”. The relation of models of the world to the world itself is a
still more difficult thing for children to grasp. They show that young “children cannot
maintain the distinction between a symbol and its referent”. DeLoache concludes that “As
these various studies show, infants and young children are confused by many aspects of
symbols that seem intuitively obvious to adults.” [Cf. Judy S. DeLoache, “Mindful of
Symbols”, Scientific American, Aug. 2005.]
But adults, too, often have difficulties
in fully comprehending various types of more sophisticated abstractions. This is true
even among highly-educated people in bourgeois society. To this very day, there is
tremendous confusion and disagreement within bourgeois philosophy over the nature of
universals (such as the concept of “chairs”)
as opposed to individual physical things (such as some particular chair). These
sorts of confusions about the nature of abstraction are the intellectual source of
philosophical idealism. The more practical source, of course, is the desire of the ruling
classes to maintain their rule by promoting religion, in either primitive traditional
forms or idealized metaphysical forms.
See also:
PYTHAGOREANS
“Primitive idealism: the universal (concept, idea) is a particular
being. This appears wild, monstrously (more accurately, childishly) stupid. But
is not modern idealism, Kant, Hegel, the idea of God, of the same nature
(absolutely of the same nature)? Tables, chairs and the ideas of table
and chair; the world and the idea of the world (God); thing and ‘noumen,’ the
unknowable ‘Thing-in-itself’; the connection of the earth and the sun, nature in
general—and law, logos, God. The dichotomy of human knowledge and the possibility
of idealism (=religion) are given already in the first, elementary
abstraction:
“The approach of the (human) mind to a particular thing, the taking
of a copy (= a concept) of it is not a simple, immediate act, a dead mirroring,
but one which is complex, split into two, zig-zag-like, which includes in it
the possibility of the flight of fantasy from life; more than that: the possibility
of the transformation (moreover, an unnoticeable transformation, of which man
is unaware) of the abstract concept, idea, into a fantasy (in the final
analysis = God).” —Lenin, “Conspectus of Aristotle’s Book Metaphysics” (1915),
LCW 38:372.
“The philosophy of antiquity was primitive, spontaneously evolved
materialism. As such, it was incapable of clearing up the relation between mind and
matter. But the need to get clarity on this question led to the docrtine of a soul
separable from the body, then to the assertion of the immortality of this soul, and
finally to monotheism. The old materialism was therefore negated by idealism. But in
the course of the further development of philosophy, idealism, too, became untenable
and was negated by modern materialism. This modern materialism, the negation of the
negation, is not the mere re-establishment of the old, but adds to the permanent
foundations of this old materialism the whole thought-content of two thousand years
of development of philosophy and natural science, as well as of the history of these
two thousand years. It is no longer a philosophy at all, but simply a world outlook
which has to establish its validity and be applied not in a science of sciences
standing apart, but to the real sciences. Philosophy is therefore ‘sublated’ here,
that is, ‘both overcome and preserved’; overcome as regards its form, and preserved
as regards its real content.” —Engels, Anti-Dühring, Chapter XIII. [MECW
25:128-9].
IDENTITY POLITICS
The view (or theory) that the best way to
go about struggling against the discrimination and oppression of various groups of people
(because of their “race”, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual
preferences, religion, etc.) is for each of them to organize themselves independently
to fight for their own group interests as a separate identity.
There are two basic flaws with this
approach: First, instead of building a united people’s movement against all forms of
discrimination and oppression, it tends to keep individual struggles isolated and less
effective. And second, it ignores the fact that all these separate forms of discrimination
and oppression are closely connected to one central and much deeper problem: the continued
existence of the capitalist system. The biggest flaw in identity politics is therefore
that it springs from reformist notions, that separate forms of oppression within
current society can be dealt with and overcome separately and without the need for social
revolution.
Of course this does not mean that specific
groups of oppressed people should not have their own organizations to struggle against
that oppression and to educate the rest of the masses about this problem. It is certainly
good and correct for women to have organizations to fight for equality for women, for
example. But such separate organizations must focus most of all upon making the struggle
for women’s rights an integral part of the overall social and revolutionary movement. For
any one of these separate struggles to be truly and completely successful, it must be
united with the rest into one powerful general struggle of the people for social
revolution.
There are many evils in present capitalist
society and many forms and types of discrimination and oppression. But the central problem
is the class oppression of the working class, and only if the bourgeoisie can be
removed from all power can both the class contradiction and all other social contradictions
(which are at the very least enormously intensified by the capitalist system) be fully
resolved.
See also:
INTERSECTIONALITY
“Identity politics as anti-labor politics
“A new term was introduced to the
English language: Identity Politics. Its aim is for voters to think of themselves as
separatist minorities – women, LGBTQ, Blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats thought they
could beat Trump by organizing Women for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), LGBTQ for
Wall Street (and a New Cold War), and Blacks and Hispanics for Wall Street (and a New
Cold War). Each identity cohort was headed by a billionaire or hedge fund donor.
“The identity that is conspicuously
excluded is the working class. Identity politics strips away thinking of one’s interest
in terms of having to work for a living. It excludes voter protests against having their
monthly paycheck stripped to pay more for health insurance, housing and mortgage charges
or education, or better working conditions or consumer protection – not to speak of
protecting debtors.”
—Michael Hudson, “Trump is Obama’s
legacy. Will this break up the Democratic Party?”, Real-World Economics Review, #78
(March 22, 2017), online at:
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue78/whole78.pdf. [Hudson is a radical-liberal,
non-mainstream bourgeois economist, who promotes a reformist type of politics. His
comments here are interesting in that they bring out that “identity politics” is not
only opposed to a Marxist revolutionary program based most centrally on class struggle,
but has even been made use of by the section of the bourgeoisie associated with the
Democratic Party in a more or less conscious scheme to weaken the reformist economic
struggle against Wall Street and the big banks within the current capitalist
system! In effect it has been an attempt to divert class struggle (reformist or
not) into separate and isolated concerns over secondary social issues. —Ed.]
“In the popular imagination, identity politics is the stuff of
queer-studies seminars and Hillary Clinton rallies. The excesses of intolerant university
students raging against misogyny, racism and homophobia have been rigorously catalogued.
Rather less attention has been paid to the appetite for a different kind of identity
politics—one centred around whiteness and championed by President Donald Trump. This
kind of right-leaning identity politics is more potent than the left-leaning version.
There is no single cause which unifies the Democratic Party like the sense among some
white voters that their status as top dogs is threatened, which binds the Trumpian
Republican Party together.” —“Caravan of Copycats: To excite the base, Republicans fall
back on identity politics”, The Economist, Nov. 3, 2018, p. 25.
[It is in fact true that in the
“identity politics” game, the masses are destined to lose out because if all “identities”
are on their own, the capitalist establishment white racist identity will inevitably
come out on top in this horrendous society. —Ed.]
IDENTITY THEORY (In the Philosophy of Mind)
The view that mental states and processes are identical to the corresponding
neural states and processes in the brain that give rise to them. This is a common and
prominent type of naive materialism. Of course
there are indeed physical structures and processes in the brain which give rise to
mental phenomena such as thoughts, memories, feelings, etc. But while we are well
aware of these thoughts, memories, and feelings themselves we ordinarily have no
direct knowledge of the precise neural networks, structures and processes which give
rise to them. If our thoughts, memories and feelings were actually identical to
some physical neural structures and processes, then to be aware of one would be the
same as being aware of the other! In reality our awareness of mental phenomena is
only a high order internal indication or characterization of what are actually very
complex brain states and processes.
An analogy: For the image of an
automobile to appear on a TV screen, an enormously complex series of material
processes must occur in the video camera, the transmission equipment, and the TV
receiver set. It would be just as foolish to identify that image with all the
material structures and processes that allow it to be shown as it is to identify
my memory of that image with the complex brain processes which allow me to have
that memory. Our description of the specific TV image as “an automobile” is only a
high-level characterization of one aspect of the functioning of the TV equipment at
that moment, just as my memory of that image is only a high level characterization of
one aspect of the functioning of my brain at that moment.
See also:
ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM
IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE — Within the Revolutionary Movement
“I cannot help recalling ... a conversation I happened to have at
the [2nd R.S.D.L.P.] Congress with one of the ‘Center’ delegates. ‘How oppressive
the atmosphere is at our Congress!’ he complained. ‘This bitter fighting, this
agitation one against the other, this biting controversy, this uncomradely
attitude!...’ ‘What a splendid thing our Congress is!’ I replied. ‘A free and open
struggle. Opinions have been stated. The shades have been revealed. The groups
have taken shape. Hands have been raised. A decision has been taken. A stage has
been passed. Forward! That’s the stuff for me! That’s life! That’s not like the
endless, tedious word-chopping of your intellectuals, which stops not because the
question has been settled, but because they are too tired to talk any more...’
“The comrade of the ‘Center’
stared at me in perplexity and shrugged his shoulders. We were talking different
languages.” —Lenin, “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back” (May 1904), LCW 7:347.
IDEOLOGY
The totality of political, legal, philosophical, religious, ethical and aesthetic views
of an age, a class, a group, or an individual, considered as a whole. As opposed to vague
and isolated ideas and feelings on these topics, ideology is usually considered to be
more or less coherent, developed and systematized. In class society there can only be
class ideologies; that is, ideologies which represent the views and material interests of
specific social classes.
See also:
WORLDVIEW
“[T]he only choice is—either bourgeois or socialist ideology.
There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a ‘third’ ideology, and,
moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or
an above class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way,
to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois
ideology.” —Lenin, What Is To Be Done? (2002), LCW 5:384.
IDIOSYNCRASIES
Although an idiosyncrasy in a person’s ideas or conceptions can sometimes amount to
an eccentricity, most often it is just an “individualizing characteristic or quality” as
dictionaries note. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that we each have a number of
individualizing characteristics in our thoughts and and ideas? It is both! It means that
there are some differences among us in our conceptions and therefore there is also error.
But it also means that some of these idiosyncrasies might oppose existing errors and
currently dominant mistaken ideas. The very existence of diverse ideas among the people
(and also within the revolutionary party) is a reason to think that whatever errors now
exist can be overcome though further discussion and struggle. From the standpoint of
dialectics, some stubborn idiosyncrasies in people’s ideas can indeed help lead everyone
to a more correct understanding and to more effective political action.
“Weren’t there some idiosyncrasies in the ideas of Galileo, Darwin,
Einstein, and Marx—at least compared to the prevailing conceptions during their times?
Idiosyncrasies in ideas are not to be lightly discarded!” —Scott’s painfully obvious
conclusion, #6.
IGNORANCE
“I believe there is no greater hatred in the whole world, than that
of ignorance for knowledge.” —Galileo, in a letter to a friend after his first
brush with the Inquisition.
“It is to the advantage of despots to keep people ignorant; it is
to our advantage to make them intelligent. We must lead all of them gradually away
from ignorance.” —Mao, a directive regarding the Cultural Revolution, Feb. 11, 1966,
SW9:405.
ILLUSORY TRUTH EFFECT [Psychology]
The proven fact that human beings are more likely to believe statements are true when they
read or hear them repeatedly, and regardless of whether those statements are plausible or
implausible on the face of things.
This is one of many scientific findings which
sadly show that we human beings are not entirely rational. It also explains, in part, why it
is difficult to disabuse people of erroneous or even nonsensical beliefs which they have had
drummed into their heads. It may also explain why changing people’s minds about things may
often require numerous repetitions of the true situation too, as well as of the various
supporting arguments and the rebuttals of the erroneous view. In other words, we need to be
patient with people, just as they hopefully are with us!
See also:
REPETITION OF IDEAS
“Abstract
“Repetition increases the likelihood
that a statement will be judged as true. This illusory truth effect is well established;
however, it has been argued that repetition will not affect belief in unambiguous statements.
When individuals are faced with obviously true or false statements, repetition should have
no impact. We report a simulation study and a preregistered experiment that investigate this
idea. Contrary to many intuitions, our results suggest that belief in all statements is
increased by repetition. The observed illusory truth effect is largest for ambiguous items,
but this can be explained by the psychometric properties of the task, rather than an
underlying psychological mechanism that blocks the impact of repetition for implausible
items. Our results indicate that the illusory truth effect is highly robust and occurs across
all levels of plausibility. Therefore, even highly implausible statements will become more
plausible with enough repetition.”
—Lisa K. Fazio, David G. Rand & Gordon
Pennycook, “Repetition Increases Perceived Truth Equally for Plausible and Implausible
Statements”, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, volume 26, pages 1705–1710 (August 16, 2019),
online at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-019-01651-4
Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index
MASSLINE.ORG Home Page