ديالكتيك الطبيعة

by Friedrich Engels, فريدريك إنجلس, توفيق سلوم (المترجم)

يمثّل \"ديالكتيك الطبيعة\" واحداً من أبرز أعمال فريدريك انجلز، والكلاسيكيات الماركسية عامة. ففيه يبسّط الفهم المادي الديالكتيكي للطبيعة وعلومها، فيكشف عن الديالكتيك الموضوعي في ميدان الطبيعة ويعمم أهم نتائج تطور العلوم الطبيعية، ليبين أن القوانين الأساسية للديالكتيك عامة وشاملة، وأن المادية الديالكتيكية هي الرؤية العلمية الوحيدة التي تعتمد على العلم اعتماداً كلياً، وتجد فيه ميداناً لاثبات صحتها. ويتصدّى المؤلف للايديولوجية البرجوازية، التي عمل ممثلوها على إشاعة الأمزجة المثالية واللاأدرية في أوساط علماء الطبيعة. وفي سياق هذا يطرح انجلز عدداً من التنبؤات الهامة، التي أثبتت مسيرة العلم اللاحقة تمام صحتها.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory, History, Ecology

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1883

About the author

German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.

With the help of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894).

Friedrich Engels, a philosopher, political, historian, journalist, revolutionary, and also a businessman, closest befriended his lifelong colleague.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...

Reviews

[Luís · Rating 3 out of 5]

A posthumous and unfinished work, the Dialectic of Nature's influence can be noticed from its first publication, whether in the writings of prominent figures of the labor movement and Soviet Marxism or decisive controversies of the so-called Western Marxism. Furthermore, it has been widely recovered by contemporary Marxist ecology. Therefore, it is unavoidable not only for those who understand the formation of Marxism but also for those who want to know the paths opened by it today.

[thekar · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not exactly a book; it is a collection of notes, and this is it's main problem.

First, of all these notes are loosely connected to each other, mostly chronologically, making it a book hard to read. Moreover, Engels had not the chance to revise his notes due to his death. For example, in the first chapters Engels seems to embrace the old Lamarkian theory of Evolution, and has a limited knowledge of Darwin. In the last chapters, Engels is by then a Darwinian evolutionist, after carefully read the lastest development. Had the chance of revision, Engels would probably omit some of his early notes.

Engels' main goal is to support the claim that nature follows the principles of dialectic materialism. The problem is that many of his scientific examples to stengthen his claim, are now considered absolete, like the existance "aether", and this may alienate many scientist readers.


Overall, it is a valuable book for every scientist and a marxist, because, between the lines, teaches the principles of dialectic materialism. But it is not the best book to read for marxist philosophy of science, especially for begginers.

[Venmathi · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books on the general laws of nature which
has not been refuted so far. A good read of research students in
science since it gives an integrated look into science subjects
and very very informative.

[jimena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Como zoóloga, pienso que este ensayo deja bastante que desear (hay que tener en cuenta que se escribió en el siglo XIX y muchas de las cosas que hoy en día sabemos sobre los animales no se sabían, y la visión general de los científicos era muy antropocentrista y situaba a los humanos como una especie absolutamente excepcional, cuando la realidad es que hay una lista muy corta de rasgos que se encuentren sola y exclusivamente en el Homo sapiens), aunque es cierto que el "resumen" que hace sobre la evolución de la ciencia en la historia es muy interesante.

Como persona de izquierdas, opino que tiene puntos muy acertados con respecto a las consecuencias del trabajo en la sociedad (es curioso que muchas de las cosas que señala pueden aplicarse perfectamente a las hormigas, que son la otra especie que practica algo que encajaría bastante bien en nuestra definición de agricultura y ganadería). Como siempre, se nota lo inteligente que era este señor, es un grande. Una pena que se quede a medias justo en la parte más interesante.

[Никола Будић · Rating 4 out of 5]

Нека опросте господа вегетаријанци, али човек није настао без месне хране.

Занимљива књига, мало тежа за читање јер се стално цитира Хегел и његова не баш најјаснија објашњења. Међутим принцип је јасан, дијалектика постоји свугде, у целој природи и то кроз закон прелаза квантитета у квалитет и обратно, закон прожимања супротности и закон негације негације. Ова три закона се у идеалистичкој филозофији чине тајанствени, међутим Енгелс их објашњава и одмах постају једноставни и јасни као дан. Показао је да су ти закони мишљења, како их је Хегел назвао у Логици, прави закони развоја природе, дакле да вреде и за теоријско-практичнонаучна истраживања. С обзиром на време када је написана, сасвим солидна књига.

[Ahmedasal · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب في مجملة جيد غير انه غير مترابط لكونه تجميع لعدد من المقالات و لعدم اكتمال الفكرة الكلية في عقل المؤلف لحظة كتابة الكتاب

[Bruno · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vaya tío el Engels

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nature is the proof of dialectics. -1 star for being so unbelievably dense in outdated 1880s science, but I guess that’s not really Engels’ fault

[Bahattin Cizreli · Rating 2 out of 5]

Benden önce bu kitabı yorumlayanların da belirttiği gibi Marksizm üzerine ileri düzeyde araştırma yürütenler için önemli bir kaynak olabilir ama Marksist ideoloji veya kuramı öğrenmek için yanlış bir başlangıç olur. Engels'e ait pek çok makalenin birleştirilmesinden oluşan kitap Engels'in doğa bilimleri hakkındaki görüşlerini ve diyalektik materyalist felsefesini içeriyor. Benim asıl merak ettiğim ise şu: Marksist bir fizikçi, Marksist bir kimyager, Marksist bir biyolog veya Marksist bir antropolog bu kitabı okuduğunda ne düşünüyor? Dönemi içinde bile tartışmalı kabul edilebilecek iddialar var. Bugün Engels'in bu kitaptaki açıklamalarını Marksist bilim insanları nasıl değerlendiriyor? Marksizmin bir sömürü, çatışma ve yabancılaşma kuramı olarak sosyal bilimlere olan katkısı yadsınamaz. Ancak onların 19. yüzyıl düşünürü oldukları da hep aklımızın bir köşesinde bulunmalı.

[Tiffany K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sure, some theories are outdated and whole chapters (Electricity, for instance) are obsolete, but applying dialetical reasoning to the natural sciences and expanding on "the part played by labour in the transition from ape to man" is wholly fascinating and worthwhile. Engels flexes his understanding of physics, mathematics, and even chemistry here but also reminds us of what an exceptional thinker he is -- the pages about the gradual perfecting of the human hand are truly something. Grab a friend with a STEM background and read the shit out of this.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was never published in Engels’ life and is actually a collection of notes he left behind from his studies of the natural sciences in the late 19th century. It has some interesting sections for those interested in philosophy and history of science. The scientific sections are dense, but they sometimes end without a conclusion and then the reader is thrust into the middle of a different topic. It would be interesting to read a very thorough commentary of this book with explanations for those of us outside the natural sciences.

[D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kitabın bölümleri arasında pek bir bağlantı yok. Sanırım el yazmalarından derleme yapılmış. Ayrıca elektriğin doğası üzerine olan bölüm biraz sıkıcıydı açıkçası. Verdiği örneklerde "esir" den söz ediyor. Michelson-Morley deneyi ile esirin varlığı ispatlanamadığı için bu kısımları da dikkate almamak gerekiyor.

Diyalektiğin yasaları üzerinde daha fazla durmasını beklerdim. Ama olsun goministsin. 4 yıldız benden sana.

[Karim essam · Rating 3 out of 5]

.كتاب مهم و استفدت منه فكرياً ، أو بمعنى أصح الكتاب رسخ لدي أفكار عن المادية الجدلية كانت موجودة لدي من قبل
فريدريك إنجلز كتب هذا الكتاب وهو عبارة عن مقالات متفرقة بهدف ترسيخ المادية الديالكتيكية كأساس لفهم الظواهر الطبيعية، في مواجهة المثالية والمادية المبتذلة التي سادت الأوساط العلمية في أواخر القرن التاسع عشر.

يواجه إنجلز في هذا المؤلف محاولات توظيف العلوم الطبيعية لتقويض الماركسية، ويؤكد على أن التطور في الطبيعة، كما في المجتمع، يخضع لقوانين التناقض، والتحول الكيفي، ونفي النفي، وهي قوانين الديالكتيك

ينتقد إنجلز بشدة الدروينية الاجتماعية التي حاولت إسقاط مفاهيم الانتقاء الطبيعي على المجتمع الإنساني لتبرير الاستغلال الطبقي، ويشدد على أن الظواهر الاجتماعية لا تُفهم إلا من خلال تحليل علاقات الإنتاج والتاريخ المادي.

كما يدافع عن وجود حقيقة موضوعية ويهاجم التيارات النسبية واللاأدرية التي تنفي إمكانية المعرفة العلمية بالعالم.
رغم أهمية الكتاب ولكن الكتاب كان عصي على الفهم بالنسبة لي في بعض مواضيعه خاصة فيما يتعلق بشرح دور المادية الدياليكتيكية على علوم مثل الفيزياء و الرياضيات و الكمياء ، و ليست المشكلة في الكتاب نفسه أو في شرحه لهذه العلوم بل ضعفي انا في الإلمام بمبادئ هذه العلوم البسيطة التي سبق و أن شُرحت لنا في المدارس.

[not. antonimo. .exe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lejos de ser un libro es más bien una recopilación de notas sobre los esfuerzos de Engels de fundar la Dialéctica como fundamento no sólo de la historia humana sino de la historia del mundo. Resulta más interesante este libro para iniciarse en Ontología y Filosofía Marxista (pasar de este libro a Meliujin, Lukacs o Vygotski) más que por las propias conclusiones que se puedan sacar de su lectura aislada

[T · Rating 4 out of 5]

Too colossal a book to simply review, but I have to take it both as an impressive ambition and a flawed precedent.

Engels could simply not decide what science, nature, philosophy, materialism, and dialectics meant to him. Some of these terms were associated with strictly 19th century conflicts (like his ambivalence towards “spiritual” matters, which complicated his obvious respect of Hegel), some of them with new fields (“scientist” didn’t exist until the 1830s), others with questions of the future and his speculations.

The biggest contradiction (and not the good kind): was dialectics a method or a system? Engels wrote in his work on Feuerbach (to paraphrase) that dialectics and Hegelianism became conservative when treated as a “system” building approach vs a method, which generally destroyed in order to create. In Dialectics of Nature (and Anti-Dühring, to a lesser, more crude extent) Engels can’t decide which he wants. Is dialectics an arbitrary set of “laws” of an (unchanging?) nature, or is it rather a method of critique of existing thought-determinations, closer to Hegel’s approach? Does thought=being (or “nature,” in Engels’ formulation) mean that our thoughts and nature are the same or that they are the same *insofar as* we can only think about nature through thought? In one case, we have a crude reversion to Kantianism and the basis of Lukacs’ critique or in the second case we have an awkward but promising application of Hegel.

Nevertheless, this would have been impossible for Engels to solve then. The sciences were in flux and this project was too massive. More importantly, as seen in his letter exchange with Marx on the arrangement of Capital, Engels tended to sacrifice conceptual development for “clarity” (in my opinion, his desire to simplify often made things more complicated, as he ironically treated his concepts as “ready-made”), and in so doing he clearly was no match for Marx’s approach in Capital, which was one of the best applications of dialectics ever written (it’s possible we would not even think of Hegel without it).

Most importantly, because this text has been so brutally used to bastardize dialectics it is important to keep in mind it has flaws, which isn’t to say that its promise is dead. It just needs a new crucible.

[Juan Pablo · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a challenging read, mostly because of the science discussed in the bulk of the book. I understand core concepts & interactions on a basic level but Physics & Chemistry are not strong points for me. That being said, the core concepts of materialist dialectics are what I was going for & assuming Iunderstood what I read, I believed this book helped tremendously. I wanted a better understanding of how Marxists ground their worldview & what helps them arrive at their conclusions. Some of the concepts I feel I have picked up on by reading Marxist literature in general & this book confirmed some of what I felt I picked up on & brought other things to light.

I’m sure others have better understood the book & can give a better review. By no means does this book mean you have a thorough understanding of dialectics but I believe it’s a good starting point. The shortcomings of the book are pointed out in the preface but they do little, as best I can tell, to interfere with the overall messages in the book. A good read & I recommend it for anyone with leftist leanings.

[Yossi Khebzou · Rating 4 out of 5]

El análisis que hace Engels de la naturaleza me parece interesante. Algunas ideas ya están anticuadas desde el punto de vista sociopolítico, pero me parece que la tesis de la relación entre una sociedad capitalista y la naturaleza es correcta y todavía vigente.

[Static · Rating 5 out of 5]

Old but gold.

Pese a ciertos matices, podría pasar por un texto escrito en el siglo XXI.

[Zack · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this because it seemed talked about in other articles. I think there’s a lot wrong with it.

I guess my first big contention is that whatever the virtues of a “dialectical approach” to science and nature, it is not a necessary extension of Marxism. Marxism doesn’t imply a particular approach to science.

My second is that it seems pretty thin in what a “dialectical approach” does offer science, that you can’t get from studying science and thinking seriously. Not saying nothing, but… I’d certainly recommend the Origin of Species before this. https://bit.ly/origin-s

Below notes from the reading itself, then notes from other articles and things.

Very good article: https://workersliberty.org/story/2019...

With a good follow on corrective on dialectics by Martin (+ Paul): https://workersliberty.org/story/2019... (Paul follows on from…)

Also interesting and useful for context https://workersliberty.org/node/32880

Notes on Kircz
"Engels and Natural Science: A Starting Point" — an article.

Interesting, and some useful critiques of Engels and many who seek to follow that approach. I don't think he goes far enough: where he points to the failings and limitations of supposedly dialectical approaches to science, I think instead of trying to rescue it he'd do better to leave it.

Kircz's too-easy critique of the big bang theory I think is indicative. As is his enthusiasm for Bohm Theory. I support scientific exploration, and multiple research programs into the issues posed by Quantum Theory. But Bohm Theory seems like a dead end, sticking to it like dogmatism more than science, and certainly not preferable to other interpretations. (My preferred is Parallel Lives https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.10016.pdf .)

His four poses questions:

1) Is science a weapon in the fight for socialism?
2) Is socialism itself a science?
3) Does a socialist outlook help the development of science?
4) Does a socialist science exist?

And gives complex answers to each. Some enthusiasts for Engel's Dialectics of Nature would, I think, give an enthusiastic "yes" to all of these. I think yes to 1, in the sense, as Kircz says, that science is necessary but not sufficient for the fight for socialism. The rest, if pushed, I'd say "no" to if understood at least in a straightforward way; and give a more complex answer to in reality.

Against sociological relativism is fair enough to some degree, though I think such philosophical commitments are not necessarily needed for Marxism as a theory and practice of social change.

Notes on Foster articles

Foster article: https://monthlyreview.org/2020/11/01/...

“Positivism” is thrown about. I think what he may mean is not that so much as non dialectical approach to science?? But not sure, I get the sense he is confused about what he is meaning by it...

“Engels as a Scientist” by the celebrated Marxist scientist J. D. Bernal sounds good Engels and Science :

"As a historian of science, Engels, according to Bernal, was remarkable in his insights into the three great scientific revolutions of the nineteenth century: (1) thermodynamics—the laws of the conservation and interchangeability of forms of energy, and of entropy; (2) the analysis of the organic cell and the development of physiology; and (3) Darwin’s theory of evolution based on natural selection by innate variation. As Ilya Prigogine, winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was later to observe, Engels’s great insight was to recognize that these three revolutions in physical science “rejected the mechanistic worldview” and drew “closer to the idea of an historical development of nature.”

In this respect, Engels’s pioneering achievement was to utilise his dialectical conception of nature to throw light on all four materialist problems of “origin” that remained after Darwin: (1) the origin of the universe (which Engels insisted was a self-origin as envisioned in the nebular hypothesis of Immanuel Kant and Pierre-Simon Laplace); (2) the origin of life (in which Engels refuted Justus von Liebig’s and Hermann Helmholtz’s notion of the eternity of life and pointed instead to a chemical origin focusing on the complex of chemicals underlying the protoplasm, particularly proteins); (3) the origin of human society (in which Engels went further than any other thinker of his time in explaining the evolution of the hand and tools through labour, and with them the brain and language, anticipating later discoveries in paleoanthropology); and (4) the origin of the family (in which he explained the original matrilineal basis of the family and the rise of the patriarchal family with private property).”

Georg Lukacs apparently critical of dialectics of nature, and others since ‘20s.

Also Foster article: https://monthlyreview.org/2023/06/01/...

My notes from when I read it: I don't know about the critiques of Saito, about how academically correct they are, but I don't think this is a good article overall. I don't think the perspectives are particularly politically or theoretically useful.

More broadly, I think a lot of the talk of "dialectical" natural science is kind of silly. As it acknowledges here, a lot of people ascribed as doing dialectical science don't realise they are. So the "dialectical" or "Marxist" perspective doesn't bring much. And then a lot of the talk at best ends up simply rephrasing science in ways in which no-one understands it, and at worst means that people who've read a bit of Marx/Engels and Hegel think that they can wade into natural science and make proclamations without really taking the time to understand the science.

Likewise, I think talk of "metabolism" tends to confuse more than it enlightens.

I think Saito is wrong by the same stroke.

My notes on Hegel’s logic: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Notes on Engels and Science by J.D. Bernal
Some of the history and quotes, if true, are useful. The overall approach though is deeply flawed.

Detailed notes and extracts from the Dialectics of Nature itself:

Intro by a brilliant scientist but terrible Stalinist, who (later) defended Lysenko.

Engels never published it, which suggests something about how (not) important he saw it.

He’s against dogma of everything being as is, as if set in perfection by a creator. Things (biology, geology, cosmology) evolved.

Eternal cycles of matter? Not sure what this means, or whether it is implying a steady state universe.

Against excessive division of labour in science… fine but too far and not possible nowadays? As in he thinks that being clever and philosophy can get you quite far, more than they perhaps can.

Useful perhaps for the time in trying to pull together a coherent non religious and scientific world view. I suspect not particularly new in that in general. Leviathan was 2 centuries earlier.

Hand and tools and brain interaction and reaction and coevolution (dialectics).

Feels like rephrasing science sometimes in less intelligible more Hegelian concepts.

Darwin writing of free competition as the natural state of the animal kingdom? No, a bit simplistic. We need to raise ourselves above that, above the animal kingdom by co operation? Well that's not the reason we should do that.

Don't know future of universe. Can think our way forwards? A bit but only a bit.

Universe is eternal? Well he's a bit writing of his time. I think. But perhaps that he thinks that is something that can be deduced from dialectical reasoning shows a flaw in it.

With no creator… matter must have been made by matter. So previous cycles. Theory of eternal repeating universe. You can see the logical argument, but also I think it’s probably premature compared to the possibility of natural science shining light on the question.

Maybe big crunch maybe parallel ones but not a priori nor with his reasoning.

Doesn't seem to appreciate entropy or the degradation of energy that is usable.

“Dialectics
(The general nature of dialectics to be developed as the science of interconnections, in contrast to metaphysics.)

It is, therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are
abstracted. For they are nothing but the most general laws of these two aspects of historical
development, as well as of thought itself. And indeed they can be reduced in the main to three:

The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
The law of the negation of the negation.

All three are developed by Hegel in his idealist fashion as mere laws of thought: the first, in the first

part of his Logic, in the Doctrine of Being; the second fills the whole of the second and by far the most important part of his Logic, the Doctrine of Essence; finally the third figures as the
fundamental law for the construction of the whole system. The mistake lies in the fact that these laws are foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not deduced from them.

1) Is obvious (as Engels acknowledged) and ubiquitous

2) Is about the relationship of forces etc. in tension, and conservation of various quantities, etc. (Every action equal and opposite reaction in modern speak). Not sure it brings much. Mysticism without much to boost it. Poles of electromagnetism etc. Some of it outdated with quantum mechanics.”

Some of his bad science is just outdated. But some, trying to base it on dialectics as theory, shows flaws.

Dialectics means you can understand some things without the mathematical complexities of mathematical mechanics?

Shows he takes science seriously which is nice

Got to electricity and skipping, also skipping tidal forces.

More... see comments

[Heinrich · Rating 4 out of 5]

A "Dialética da Natureza" é um importante trabalho do filósofo e economista alemão Friedrich Engels. Nesta obra, Engels expande a aplicação dos princípios da dialética, que eram inicialmente desenvolvidos por Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel na filosofia, para o domínio da ciência e da natureza.

Resenha da "Dialética da Natureza" de Friedrich Engels

Introdução:

A "Dialética da Natureza," de Friedrich Engels, representa uma exploração notável da aplicação da dialética, uma abordagem filosófica que considera as mudanças e contradições inerentes a todos os processos, ao estudo da natureza. Engels amplia o escopo dessa abordagem, argumentando que a dialética não se limita apenas à esfera humana, mas também é fundamental para compreender o funcionamento da própria natureza.

Dialética Aplicada à Ciência:

Engels sustenta que a dialética não deve ser considerada uma abstração filosófica distante, mas sim uma ferramenta essencial para entender os fenômenos naturais e os processos científicos. Ele argumenta que a dialética é intrínseca ao desenvolvimento da ciência e que as contradições e interações na natureza podem ser examinadas por meio desse prisma.

Contradições na Natureza:

Uma parte fundamental do livro é a exploração das contradições na natureza, incluindo exemplos como as oposições entre atração e repulsão, movimento e repouso, evolução e estabilidade. Engels enfatiza como essas contradições são essenciais para a dinâmica da natureza, impulsionando o desenvolvimento e a transformação de sistemas naturais.

Materialismo Dialético e a Natureza:

Engels também relaciona sua abordagem à dialética com o materialismo, sustentando que a dialética e o materialismo são complementares na compreensão do mundo. Ele argumenta que o estudo da natureza deve ser fundamentado em uma abordagem materialista, o que significa que a realidade é independente da mente humana, mas pode ser conhecida por meio da observação e análise científica.

Conclusão:

A "Dialética da Natureza" de Friedrich Engels é uma obra desafiadora que amplia a aplicação da dialética para o domínio da ciência e da natureza. Engels destaca a importância de reconhecer a presença de contradições na natureza e como essas contradições são fundamentais para o entendimento do mundo natural. A obra de Engels influenciou pensadores posteriores e contribuiu para a integração da dialética no estudo da natureza e das ciências naturais.

"Dialética da Natureza" é um exemplo notável de como a filosofia pode ser aplicada à compreensão das leis e processos que regem o mundo natural, transcende as barreiras entre a filosofia e a ciência e destaca a interconexão intrínseca entre o mundo humano e o mundo natural.

[Voyager · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although tragically left unfinished and, as such, assembled from scraps and notes by Soviet editors, that does not by any means diminish the merit of this important work of Engels. In his famous Anti-Duhring, Engels' had written “Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasing daily, and thus has shown that, in the last resort, nature works dialectically and not metaphysically” and it was to this treasury of rich materials that Engels intended to add with this book, filled with pages and pages of notes and drafts aimed at proving the method of dialectics in mathematics, chemistry, electricity, and other aspects of natural science.

It must be said that Maurice Cornforth's warning to the effect that “parts of this book are hard to follow for readers who have not at least some knowledge of the natural sciences” definitely rings true as pages and pages are presented full of all sorts of equations, numbers, etc. that will seem very daunting to the inexperienced reader. But the introduction (which is often reproduced in various Marx-Engels selected works editions), chapter titled “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man”, and chapter simply titled “Dialectics” all prove very important and are quite universally understandable, offering first-rate insight into the dialectical materialist method of analysis that can best be described as a continuation of Engels' explanations in Anti-Duhring, while the chapter “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man” can be taken as an introduction (or appendix) to The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, all, at any rate, serving to deepen and harden the foundations of Marxist philosophy (and a work that would reach its apex in the form of Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, hence making this work indispensable in the study of dialectical materialist philosophy and a worthwhile primer to Lenin's aforementioned book where the ideas Engels here expresses are fleshed out in greater detail.

[Tomás · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un libro disperso: se trata de un conjunto de anotaciones que encontraron, anotaciones que buscaban ser el proyecto de un libro que Engels jamás logró hacer. Su estructura, aunque dispersa, pretende apegarse a la forma en que fueron ordenadas las anotaciones, cosa que parece un tanto mal lograda. Y es que las notas son un tanto inconexas. Tocan temas que aunque tienen un común denominador (la naturaleza), no se hilan a partir de la dialéctica. De hecho, el asunto de la dialéctica misma es un tanto marginal.
Sobre la dialéctica, se extraen algunas cosas que no son menos importantes, cosas que aparecen en otros textos de Engels como «Anti-Dühring» y «Ludwig Feuerbach y el fin de la filosofía clásica alemana». Dichas cosas son:
1. Que la dialéctica, lejos de aparecer como un asunto derivado del pensamiento mismo y que remite únicamente a él, se confirma en el desarrollo de la historia de la naturaleza. De nuevo, la idea de la naturaleza como piedra de toque de la dialéctica aparece aquí.
2. Que, además, la dialéctica (y esto es un tanto peculiar con respecto de otros textos) trata con las leyes que rigen las «interrelaciones» del pensamiento y de la naturaleza.
3. Que las leyes mencionadas son las que Hegel despejó en su «Ciencia de la lógica», a saber: la ley de la transformación de la cantidad en cualidad, la ley de la negación de la negación y la ley de la interpenetración de los contrarios.
Hay, sin embargo, más: y es el hecho de que, en la tentativa de Engels por confirmar la dialéctica en el estudio de la naturaleza, el autor articula un diálogo muy interesante (aunque problemático, dado el momento en que lo hizo) con las ciencias naturales de su época: la física, la química y hasta las matemáticas, por ejemplo.
Pese a todo, se trata de un trabajo que, como marxistas, conviene leer.

[Dinis Contente · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A matéria move-se num ciclo eterno: ciclo que descreve provavelmente a sua órbita em períodos de tempo para os quais o nosso ano terrestre já não é suficiente como unidade de medida, ciclo em que o tempo do desenvolvimento supremo, o tempo da vida orgânica, e mais ainda, o da vida de seres sem consciência de si próprios e da natureza, é medido de forma tão breve como o espaço no qual existem a vida e a consciência de si; ciclo no qual todo o modo finito de existência da matéria - seja ele sol ou nebulosa, animal singular ou género de animais, combinação ou dissociação químicas - é também transitório, e em que nada existe de eterno a não ser a matéria em eterna transformação, em eterno movimento, e as leis segundo as quais ela se move e se transforma. Mas, sejam quais forem a frequência e o rigor inexorável com os quais este ciclo se realiza no tempo e no espaço; seja qual for o número de milhões de sóis e de terras que nascem e morrem e o tempo necessário para que, num sistema solar, se estabeleçam as condições de vida orgânica NUM SÓ planeta, por muitos numerosos que sejam os seres orgânicos que têm de nascer e morrer antes que deles derivem animais com um cérebro capaz de pensar e possuindo, por um curto período de tempo, as condições necessárias para a sua vida, para logo em seguida se verem também eles inexoravelmente exterminados - temos a certeza que, em todas as suas transformações, a matéria permanece eternamente a mesma, que nenhum dos seus atributos se poderá perder e que, consequentemente, pela mesma necessidade férrea com que um dia desaparecerá da face da terra a sua suprema floração, o espírito pensante, este será reproduzido algures e noutro tempo."

[Mason Groves · Rating 4 out of 5]

As both a physicist, mathematician, and a Marxist, this collection helped to outline the general laws of dialectics with astounding levels of evidence and explanations. Spanning multiple fields of study, the impact of the laws of this branch of philosophy were shown in immense detail.

Similar to other reviews, the drawback of it being a collection are that some sentences are cut out and placed in any order, relating only to the subject it is in. Even when the reference to dialectics is light, it could do with more context and referencing.

It is quite entertaining as a 21st century scientist to see the minds of 19th century science and spirituality attempt to postulate the existence of otherworldly entities as being in a fourth or higher spatial dimension, as this was a new frontier at the time. But the fact that Engels - a man so determined to bring around a philosophical revolution - seems so invested in the possibility of reproduction with otherworldly entities, is hilarious. This is something expected from the depths of celestial fanfiction, not quite from one of the developers of one of the most important philosophies to date.

[J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great overview of the history of scientific discovery and the corresponding evolution of human society. Straightforward in showing the ways in which dialectical laws, first discussed by Hegel, can be derived from nature (rather than simply projected onto it by humans). Though the individual chapters on different branches of science are a bit dense, and sometimes outdated, the introduction is great and the notes and dialectics sections give the reader insight into how universal the perspective of Engels truly was. As this was also an unfinished project, it gives insight into his writing process as well.

[Luís · Rating 2 out of 5]

Livro bastante complicado de ler para quem não gosta ou não percebe de física, química, biologia e variantes.
Ainda li cerca de 1/3 do livro, mas acabei por desistir pois não estava a conseguir concentrar-me bem no assunto por não gostar mesmo deste tipo de livros. A linguagem do Engels não é difícil, mas tive imensa dificuldade a extrair informação interessante dos capítulos que li.
Recomendo apenas a quem gostar destas temáticas e/ou queira ver uma análise de materialismo dialético aplicado à ciência da natureza.

[Gordon Goodwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reread after seeing the fascinating resurrection of dialectics of nature in eco-socialist theory. Obviously a lot of the science is outdated, he does provide a great survey of the state of science at the time of his writing (invaluable for situating theory from this period) and through application presents one of the clearest practical explanations of material dialectics. Some favorite moments is when Engels gets depressed over the heat death of the universe, his beef with Isaac Newton, and his humourous diatribe against the supernatural at the end.

[Богдан Малиш · Rating 4 out of 5]

7/10. Набагато краще пояснена філософія природи у марксизмі. Наведено приклади діалектики у різних дисциплінах. Незавершеність роботи стала її перевагою, бо у фрагментах головні істини розкрито стисло, але достатньо, зате відсутня вода, як наприклад у статті про електрику. Але є кілька запитань, на які я так і не отримав відповіді: що таке матерія?, з чого Енгельс взяв, що нічого за нею не існує? та останнє: З чого Енгельс взяв, що мислення та буття ��дині. Тому лише 7

[Xochi Flores · Rating 3 out of 5]

if you are not a 19th century scientist or mathematician, you probably don't need to read this. Although, the arguments Engels presents are intetesting on the notion of a dialectics in nature, now taken up in the orthodox marxism, Anti-duhring is a better and more nuanced read than Dialectics of Nature on this topic. We can't be too hard on Engles here, he had to orgamize Marx's large body of work. Engela died before he could revist and finish DoN, hence the 3 star rating.

[Mehmet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Doğa bilimleri alanındaki buluşların sürecini bilim felsefesi eleştirisi ile ele alan ve bilim alanında diyalektik materyalizmi kullanılabilir kılan bir kitap. Bilim felsefesini kavramak için çok iyi. Somut buluş konularının 19yy ait olması motivasyonu düşürebiliyor ama felsefenin kavranması için de somut konuların güncel için basit olması daha faydalı da denebilir.