best satellite television
16-07-01: Summary Of Essay Seven -- Engels's Second Law, The Interpenetration Of opposites
These are Introductory Essays, which have been written for those who find the main Essays either too long, or too difficult. They do not pretend to be comprehensive since they are simply summaries of the core ideas presented at this site. Most of the supporting evidence and argument found in each of the main Essays has been omitted. Anyone wanting more details, or who would like to examine my arguments and evidence in full, should consult the Essay for which each is a précis. [In this particular case, that can be found here.]
Dialectical Logic Cannot Explain Change
The doctrine that change occurs through 'internal contradiction' is analysed in detail in Essay Eight Part One and Part Two; however, the thesis that everything is a UO -- which is intimately connected with that doctrine -- has not yet been dismantled.
[UO = Unity of Opposites.]
Objects Change Into Their 'Opposites' -- Or Do They?
Engels depicted the second 'Law' as follows:
"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... [M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]
Lenin put things this way:
"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58. Emphases in the original.]
However, DM-theorists (like Lenin and Engels) are decidedly unclear as to whether objects/processes change because of (1) a contradictory relationship between their internal opposites, or because (2) they change into these opposites, or even whether (3) change itself creates such opposites.
[FL = Formal Logic; NON = Negation of the Negation: UO = Unity of Opposites; DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
Lenin's words merely illustrate this confusion in an acute form -- where he declares, for instance, that: "the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other…" take place in nature. Engels is equally unclear: "[M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other...." The same can be said of Plekhanov and Mao:
"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77. Bold emphases added.]
"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....
"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42. Bold emphases added.]
All this seems to suggest that objects and processes not only change because of their internal opposites, but that they change into them (and, according to Lenin, they change into all of them!), and that they also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change.
As we are about to see, the idea that there are such things as "dialectical contradictions" and unities of opposites (etc.), which cause change, presents DM-theorists with some rather nasty dialectical headaches, if interpreted along the lines expressed in the DM-classics.
To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal contradictory opposites" O* and O**, and it thus changes as a result. [The same problems arise if these are viewed as 'external' contradictions.]
But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.
Now, it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it
is now
said to be what
O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless
O** is already there in the present to make that happen!
So, if object/process A is already composed of a 'dialectical union' of
O* and
not-O* (interpreting
O** now as not-O*), how is it possible for
O* to change into not-O* when
not-O*
already exists?
Indeed, at the very least, this 'theory' of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about in the first place. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere, too.
Now, not-O* cannot have come from O*, since O* can only change because of the operation of not-O*, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past (via a 'reversed' version of the NON) will merely reduplicate the above problems.
It could be objected that all this seems to place objects and/or processes in fixed categories, which is one of the main criticisms dialecticians make of FL. Hence, on that basis, it could be maintained that the above argument is entirely misguided.
Fortunately, repairs are easy to make: let us now suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal/external opposites" O* and O**, and it thus develops as a result.
The rest still follows: if object/process A is already composed of a changing dialectical union of O* and not-O*, and O* 'develops' into not-O* as a result, then the above objections still apply. Once more: how is it possible for O* to change into not-O* when not-O* already exists?
Of course, it could be argued that not-O* 'develops' into O* while not-O* 'develops' into O*. [This objection might even incorporate that eminently obscure Hegelian term-of-art: "sublation".]
But, even if this were the case, and such process were governed by "sublation", this alternative will not work.
Let us once again suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and not-O*, and thus develops as a result. On this scenario, O* would change/develop into a "sublated" intermediary; to that end, let us call the latter, "O*1" (which can be interpreted as a combination of the old and the new; a 'negation' which also 'preserves'/'sublates').
If so, then O*1 must remain forever in that state, unchanged, for there is as yet no not-O*1 in existence to make it develop any further.
But, there has to be a not-O*1 to make O*1 change further. To be sure, we could try to exempt O*1 from this essential requirement, and yet, if we do that, there would seem to be no reason to accept the version of events contained in the DM-classics, which tell us that all things/processes change because of the operation of opposites (and O*1 is certainly a thing/process).
Furthermore, if we make an exemption here, then the whole point of the exercise would be lost, for if some things do and some things do not change according this dialectical 'Law', we would be left with no way of telling which changes were and which were not subject to it.
This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that such a subjectively applied exemption certificate (issued to O*1) would mean that nothing at all could change, for everything in the universe is in the process of change, and is thus already a sublated version of whatever it used to be.
Ignoring this, even if O*1 were to change into not-O*1 (as we suppose it must, given the doctrine laid down by the DM-prophets), then all the earlier problems would simply reappear, for this could only take place if not-O*1 already exists to make it happen! But not-O*1 cannot already exist, for O*1 has not changed into it yet!
This, of course, does not deny that change occurs, only that DM cannot account for it.
[The above argument is spelt-out in more detail here, where obvious objections to it are neutralised. As far as social change is concerned, see here, here and here.]
Does Everything Have An Opposite?
Leaving that aside and ignoring for the moment the question of how Hegel, Engels, Lenin and Plekhanov knew this 'Law' was true of everything in existence for all of time (this topic is examined in more detail in Essay Two), it is worth pointing out that some things seem to have no internally interconnected opposites. For example, electrons, which, while they appear to have several external opposites (but not only it is not clear what the opposite of an electron is -- is it a positron or is it a proton? --, it is clear electrons do not seem to turn into either of them), they seem to have no internal opposites as far as can be ascertained. In that case, they must be changeless beings -- either that, or if they do change, it cannot be as a result of "internal contradictions". And neither do they change into their alleged opposites (contrary to what the DM-Classicists believed). [Well, do electrons turn into protons?]
Despite this, once more, it is difficult to believe Lenin and the others were serious in claiming that everything is a UO -- just as it is impossible to give credence to the idea that "every determination, quality, feature, side, property [changes] into every other…."
Are we really supposed to believe that, say, a domestic cat is a UO? But, what is the opposite of a cat? A dog? A tulip? A tin of beans?
Is it a 'non-cat'? And yet, if a 'non-cat' were the opposite of a cat, it would mean that if everything does indeed change into its opposite, cats must change into everything that they are not -- that is, they must change into any one or more of the following 'non-cats': oak trees, sandy beaches, cuff links, dog baskets, rift valleys, petrol stations and galaxies, to name but a few. [The 'obvious' dialectical response to this objection will be considered shortly.]
Not only that, but according to Lenin cats must contain all these things if they are indeed unities of their opposites (or, they must be "internally related" to them in some way) -- i.e., they must presumably be a unity of cat and 'non-cat' --, especially if the latter (i.e., this 'non-cat') is what causes a cat to change. Is, therefore, each unassuming domestic moggie a repository of all its myriad opposites, and do these opposites contain their own sets of opposites, ad infinitem, like glorified Russian dolls?
Well, it seems they must if, according to Lenin: "every determination, quality, feature, side, property [changes] into every other…." If change is the result of an internal struggle between opposites (declared above to be an "absolute" by Lenin), and everything changes into everything else, then cats must both contain and change into (at some point) a host of things, which must in turn contain and change into even more (or, perhaps, back into cats).
It is little use complaining that these are ridiculous conclusions; if everything changes into its opposite, then they must follow. Those who still object should rather pick a fight with dialecticians -- not me -- for championing such a crazy view of reality.
So, if cats do change, as they do, then they must change into their opposites. But where are these 'opposite cats'? And how do they feature in and cause the changes they allegedly produce in the original animal? On the other hand, if they do not do this, does this mean that feline parts of nature are not subject to dialectical law?
Now, Engels did try to answer these fatal objections by arguing that we must learn from nature what the actual properties of objects and processes are in each case, and hence, presumably, what each can legitimately change into. [To be sure, he made this point in relation to the first and third of his 'Laws', but there is no reason to believe he would have denied this of the second 'Law'.] He also pointed out that dialectical negation is not annihilation. [Engels (1954, p.63 and (1976), p.181.]
However, nature is annoyingly ambiguous on this score. For example, lumps of iron ore can turn, or be turned into many different things (with or without the addition of labour, etc.). These include: cytochrome nitrogenase, haemoglobin, hematite, magnetite, taconite, countless ferrous and ferric compounds (including rust, Ferrous and Ferric Sulphides, Fools Gold, etc., etc.), car parts, aeroplane components, ships, magnets, cutlery, pots and pans, anchors, scaffolding, chains, bollards, cranes, tubes, engines, ornaments, jewellery, girders, weapons, tools, instruments, wire, furniture, doors, gates, railings, railway tracks, wheels, zips, bars, handcuffs, bullets, iron filings, rivets, nails, screws, steel wool, and helmets -- again, to name but a few.
Are we to believe that all of these reside inside each lump of iron? If not, what exactly is the point of this 'Law'? Again, if these items don't exist inside each lump of iron -- or even if they do not confront them as antagonistic external opposites --, how is it possible then for human labour and natural forces to turn iron into such things while remaining in conformity with 'dialectical Law'? Does human labour counteract, or work with, the 'Laws' of dialectics? If a lump of iron does not ('logically', or physically) contain, say, a carving knife, how is it possible for human beings to change iron into carving knives, and to do so dialectically? Are there changes in reality that are not governed by DM-principles?
Are these iron 'Laws' not in fact applicable to iron itself?
In that case, exactly which opposites are united in iron ore? Of course, it could be argued that the above considerations completely misconstrue the nature of this Law. No one supposes that cats and nuggets of iron ore contain their opposites.
Indeed, this is how Woods and Grant explained things:
"Nature seems to work in pairs. We have the 'strong' and the 'weak' forces at the subatomic level; attraction and repulsion; north and south in magnetism; positive and negative in electricity; matter and anti-matter; male and female in biology, odd and even in mathematics; even the concept of 'left and right handedness in relation to the spin of subatomic particles.... There are two kinds of matter, which can be called positive and negative. Like kinds repel and unlike attract." [Woods and Grant (1995), p.65.]
However, if nature works in pairs (at least), what is the paired opposite of a cat that causes that animal to change? If cats have no opposites, then it must be the case that feline parts of nature (at least) do not work in pairs. But, what applies to cats must surely apply to countless other things. What then are the external or internal opposites of things like Giraffes, Snowy Owls, Mountain Gorillas, Daffodils, Oak trees, Chinese Puzzles, broom handles, craters on the Moon, copies of Anti-Dühring, and the question mark at the end of this sentence? Now, all of these are subject to change, but not it seems because of any obvious oppositional pairing or tension. [Is a question mark, for example, really locked in a life-and-death struggle with other items of punctuation? Or with its 'other'? But, what is the 'other' of a "?"? An "!"?]
It could be objected to this that in the case of cats (and many of the other objects listed above), the opposites concerned are plainly "male" and "female". But even if that were so, these are manifestly not "internal opposites" (and neither are they "internally related" to each other -- they are causally, historically and biologically related, to be sure; sexual diversity is not a logical feature of reality -- if it were there would be no hermaphrodites or asexual organisms), so change here cannot be the result of 'internal contradictions'. But even if this were not so, is it really the case that males and females must always conflict? [Anyone who has, for example, seen Leopard Slugs mating might be forgiven for thinking that these fortunate creatures have had a dialectical exemption certificate encoded into their DNA at some point. They do not 'conflict'!]
Moreover, while it is true that cats are able to reproduce because of well known goings-on between males and females, cats themselves do not change because of the relationship between male and female cats. If they did, then a lone cat on a desert island would be capable of living forever (or, at least, of not changing). Hence, as long as this eternal (and miserably celibate) moggie stayed clear of members of the opposite sex, it would be able to look forward to becoming a sort of feline Super-Methuselah.
But, what are we to say of those organisms that do not reproduce sexually --, and worse what are we to make of, say, hermaphrodites? Are the latter an expression of some sort of cosmic/natural bourgeois plot against DM?
And what should we conclude about things like broom handles and copies of Trotsky's IDM? Do they change because of the tension created by their own inner/outer opposites? But what could these possibly be? Is the opposite of IDM, Mein Kampf or Stalin's Problems of Leninism? Could it even be these Essays?!
Does this mean, therefore, that IDM will change into one of my Essays? Well, perhaps TAR will, since my work was originally aimed specifically in opposition to that book. In which case, had this work not been undertaken, would TAR and IDM have been eternally changeless books?
[IDM = In Defense of Marxism, i.e., Trotsky (1971); TAR = The Algebra of Revolution, i.e., Rees (1998).]
In that case, the above passage from Woods and Grant really does not help resolve this problem.
On the other hand, if cats change not as a result of the machinations of their external opposites, but because of their 'internal contradictions', then factors internal to cats must surely be responsible for their development. Should we now look inside cats for these illusive opposites? If so, do these appear at the level of its internal organs? But what is the opposite of, say, a cat's liver? Does it have one? If not, is it an everlasting liver? On the other hand, if it does, will a cat's liver one day turn into a cat's non-liver (a bus stop, say)?
Maybe we should delve even deeper into the inner workings of these awkward, feline aspects of 'Being'?
If cats' livers have no opposites, then perhaps their liver cells do? But once more, what is the opposite of a cat liver cell? A kidney cell? A blood cell? (An onion cell?)
As we ferret further into the nether regions of feline inner space, perhaps these elusive opposites will appear at the molecular or atomic level? Some dialecticians seem to think so -- but they have only been able to pull this dodge by ignoring their own claims that all of nature works in pairs. So, we have yet to be told what, say, the River Amazon is twinned with, let alone what the Oort Cloud's dialectical alter ego could possibly be.
Nevertheless, it could be argued that 'internal opposites' actually involve the relations that exist between sub-atomic and inter-atomic forces and processes at work inside lumps of iron, cats, and much else besides.
But, if each thing (and not just each part of a thing), and each system/process in the Totality, is a UO (as we were assured they were by the above DM-luminaries), then cats and iron bars (and not just electrons, π-mesons (Pions) and positrons, etc.) must have their own internal and/or external opposites -- that is, if they are to change.
So, for a cat to become a 'non-cat' -- which is, presumably, the 'internal/external' opposite it is supposed to turn into --, it must be in dialectical tension with that opposite right now if the latter causes it to change. [We saw this in an abstract form earlier.] If not, then we can only wonder what dialecticians imagine the forces are (and from whence they originate) that cause cats and lumps of iron to change into whatever their opposites are imagined to be.
And even if molecular, inter-atomic or sub-atomic forces actually power the development of cats, the latter will still have to change because of their paired macro-level opposites (whose identities still remain a mystery). It is not as if each cat is struggling against all the protons, electrons and quarks that exist beneath its skin. Nor are we to suppose that cats are constantly conflicting with their internal organs, fur and whiskers. If they were, then according to DM-lore recorded here, cats would have to turn into their internal organs, fur and whiskers, and the latter would have to turn into cats!
And even if these sub-atomic particles were locked in a sort of quantum wrestling match, one with another, the changes they induced in the average dialectical moggie must find expression in macro-phenomena at some point, or cats would not alter at all. But what on earth could those macro-phenomena be?
Furthermore, if change is to be located ultimately at the quantum level, then what are all those sub-atomic particles changing into? Many are highly stable. But even if they weren't, then whatever they changed into must exist right now to cause them to change into it. And yet, if these opposites already exist, the original particles cannot change into them. The best that could happen here, assuming the truth of DM, is that these 'opposite particles' must replace the originals (which then magically disappear). But, we have been here already.
In that case, given this view of nature, things do not actually change, they just vanish, and other things take their place (and they do so undialectically, since their opposites will have have just vanished). But, plainly, with no opposites, they can change no further.
[The idea that there are internal opposites of 'fundamental particles' is discussed in more detail in Essays Seven and Eight Part One.]
Suicidal Cats
Moreover, if the forces that cause change to cats are solely internal to cats, then as far as the mutability of such mammals is concerned, they must be hermetically sealed-off from the rest of nature (as must everything else -– in fact, this dire dialectical difficulty is examined in more detail in Essay Eight Part One, and Essay Eleven Part One and Part Two), otherwise change would not be internal to cats.
If, on the other hand, the causes of feline change are external to cats, then 'internal contradictions' can't be responsible for changing them into 'non-cats', and we are back where we started.
And if we now ignore this 'either-or', and claim that cats change because of 'internal' and 'external' contradictions, then we would be faced with the prospect of cats changing into these internal and external opposites, if the Dialectical Prophets are to be believed. But, and once more, if these opposites already exist (which they must do if they are to bring about such changes), then cats could not change into them!
The same applies to sub-atomic particles: if the forces that cause change are solely internal to such particles, then as far as their mutability is concerned, they must be hermetically sealed-off from the outside world, otherwise change would not be internal to these particles. If, on the other hand, the causes of particulate change are external, then 'internal contradictions' can't be responsible for changing them into a 'non-whatever'.
Alternatively once more, if the opposites of such particles cause them to change into such opposites, then they need not bother, for those opposites already exist. If those opposites do not already exist, what then could cause the change?
In the macro-world, the doctrine that objects and processes change because of their 'internal contradictions' would seem to mean that when, say, a cat gets run over, that cat actually self-destructs and that the car involved had nothing to do with flattening it. One might well wonder why nature produced such suicidal mammals.
Of course, it could be argued along Leibnizian lines that had the cat been internally strong enough it would have survived this unequal tussle with the car. So, the real cause of this cat's changed shape is in fact to be found inside that cat. [This argument is outlined here.] As we will see in Essay Eight Part One, some DM-theorists do indeed argue along such lines.
There is something to be said for this argument, but luckily not much. Whatever it is that causes a cat to alter when run over is clearly not whatever it is that maintains its anatomical integrity from day to day. Something must have upset this 'balance' in order to transform that cat's shape; cats do not spontaneously flatten themselves. Few of us would be happy to be told by a Leibnizian drunk driver that it is not his fault that the family pet is spread half-way across the road since the cat itself is the cause of its radically new anatomy. In such cases, we clearly have an example of interacting causes for the demise of that cat, none of which can be put down solely to events internal to that unfortunate animal. Of course, dialecticians do not deny this, but as Essay Eight Part One will show, their 'theory' cannot account for it.
Someone could maintain that dialectics can account for such catastrophic reconfigurations of cats. A combination of internal and external forces is the cause of their new geometry. But even that will not work, for if a cat is to change into a flat cat, then according to the DM-worthies quoted here (where we are told that all objects and processes "inevitably" turn into their opposites), such a flat cat must already exist to flatten the non-flat cat into a flat cat. So the driver (unless we are desperate enough to describe her/him as a "non-flat cat", on the basis that he/she is the obvious cause of the flattened cat in question), given this new turn of events, did not flatten the cat, the non-existent non-flat cat did that.
Despite this, and whatever their commitment to this 'Law' amounts to, one supposes(!) that no dialectician still in command of her/his reason would excuse, say, a policeman for inflicting on her/him actual bodily harm on the grounds that Leibnizian nature unwisely failed to incorporate into the heads of militants the ability to withstand Billy Clubs. Once again, dialectics would be disproved in practice; gashed heads are not produced by "self-development".
Alternatively, if the causes of feline (or cranial!) mutability are both internal and external, then change cannot be the sole result of 'internal contradictions', and things would not be self-developing, as Lenin alleged.
In which case, it remains a mystery what the opposite of a cat is (which a cat turns into) which is part of the UO that brings about such topological re-configurations --, if the above DM-worthies are to be believed.
In that case, can DM help explain dead moggies?
Are You About To Change Into A Giant Squid?
Furthermore, if "every determination, quality, feature, side, property [changes] into every other…", as Lenin maintained, that would seem to suggest that everything (and every property) must change into every other property!
If Lenin is correct, heat, for example, must change into, say, colour, hardness and generosity (and much else besides); liquidity must transform itself into brittleness, circularity and inquisitiveness (and much else besides); gentleness must mutate into velocity, opacity and bitterness (and much else besides); squareness must turn into arrogance, honesty and duplicity (and much else besides), and so on.
In that case, are you about the change into a Giant Squid?
Is there a single person on the planet not suffering from dialectics who believes any of this?
Once again, if these bizarre changes are not the case (as they plainly are not!), and if such things are not implied both by these terminally vague 'Laws' and by what Lenin said, what is the point of him asserting that this is precisely what everything does?
Furthermore, is it really the case that everything turns into its opposite, as Engels, Lenin, Mao and Plekhanov said? To be sure, certain states of matter do change into what we might conventionally call their "opposites" (e.g., a hot object might change and become cold; something above might later be below, and so on -- but here, these opposites do not cause even these changes!), but this is certainly not true of everything. Do men, for instance, turn into women, fathers into sons, brothers into sisters, left- into a right-hands, the working class into the capitalist class, forces of production into relations of production, use values into exchange values, negative numbers/electrical charges into positive numbers/electrical charges, electrons into positrons, and matter into 'anti-matter'? If not, what is the point of saying that everything does do this? And why claim that objects and processes have internal or external opposites if in most cases they feature nowhere in the action, or, again, if many things do not turn into them?
Of course, that was the point of the observation made earlier about dialecticians vacillating between the idea that UOs cause change and the belief that things change into their opposites -- sometimes veering toward the doctrine that change produces these opposites. The first of these alternatives is examined in Essay Eight Part One, but if the second alternative were the case, we would surely witness some bizarre transformations in nature and society as men changed into women, cats into dogs(?), banks into charities and the Capitalist Class into the Working Class -- and then back again.
Naturally, as has been argued in detail above, if change merely creates these opposites then, plainly, that could not have been the result of a tension between two opposites that actually exist simultaneously -- clearly so, since at least one of them would not yet exist. Hence, with respect to objects in the latter category, change would create them, not them it.
This completely scuppers the DM-account of change for it is now clear that there is nothing in the DM-scheme-of-things that could cause the many different sorts of change we see in nature and society.
In which case, if change occurs, dialectics -- the much vaunted theory of change -- cannot explain it.
Word Count: 5,060
Latest Update 13/09/08
© Rosa Lichtenstein 2008
Hits Since December 20th 2007: