dniprovska

Что нам чєсть, колі нєчєго єсть

(ісконна приказка)

Не було б добра - не було б і зла

(українська приказка)

A prudent question is one-half of wisdom

(Francis Bacon)

Я оце помічаю, що чим підліші часи настають, тим більше красивих, високопарних слів виголошується. І чим високопарніше поняття, тим важче знайти для нього чітку й загальноприйняту дефініцію. Є явища, які осягаються переважно на інтуїтивному рівні, а коли намагаєшся дати їм якесь вербальне оформлення - то губишся, настільки воно виходить розпливчасте й однобоке. В англійській мові є слово slipping - ось воно дуже добре характеризує високі, абстрактні поняття.

Я, наприклад, жодного разу не зустрачала задовільного визначення таких загальновживаних слів, як ЧЕСТЬ, ДОБРО і МУДРІСТЬ , що дозволило б легко відрізнити чесну людину від безчесної, добру від злої, а мудру від нерозумної. Підозрюю, що поняття ці взаємопов'язані і співвідносяться, як фундаментальні взаємодії у фізиці, що є суть проявами однієї базової сили.

Є навіть наука така філософія - любов до мудрості, але навіть філософи не спромоглися остаточно розібратися, ЩО ж вони насправді люблять :)

Although Marx’s impact on minds and historic process can be hardly overestimated, he is not the only ruling influence of industrial and post-industrial epoch. There is a considerable part of intellectual public for which the ideas of revolution and class struggle are completely alien. They are persons that do not have any vocation for politics; they disgust violence and are afraid of mass movement as they are not able to find common language with the masses; being not gifted with the qualities necessary for struggle they avoid participation in class clashes as they understand: in any case they will be inevitably defeated. Being unsatisfied with the conditions of life, they prefer not to rebel but to escape.
In the age of mass production, mass movements, mass media and pop art many intellectuals (especially humanists) feel themselves lost, lonely, unprotected and incapable to resist the ruinous pressure of alien social environment. From the very early days of their life they hear: even the greatest virtue or wisdom is worthless if it does not bring success and profit. So, instead of developing their skills and talents they have to waist much time and nerves to defend their dignity and identity. Such circumstances engender plenty of individuals with highly developed intellect, but weak will and shaky self-esteem, whose spirit is exhausted by unequal and unsuccessful struggle with the hostile environment, whose souls are split and torn by controversial intentions.[1] Such individuals have very little opportunities to get a decent place in social system where the laws of competition dominate over the principles of humaneness and stipulate no quarter for outsiders. Getting neither support nor understanding from the others these weak but ambitious misfits try to gain the foot-hold in their own selves and in the realm of ideas. This part of intellectual public finds inspiration and consolation in the works of Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Spengler, Husserl, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre and others, who themselves were deeply disappointed subjects. Their original concepts have a number of common features and points of contiguity. They are: anti scientism, subjectivism, idealization of the past, concentration on the problems of human existence and consciousness as well as common belief in absolute significance of free individuality, whose unique inner world will always remain a mystery for experimental/rational research and may be partially comprehended only by senses and intuition. So, they may be united in a single humanitarian (existential) trend that includes Irrationalism, Phenomenology, Philosophy of Life and Existentialism. 
This ideological current appeared as a reaction on the complacency of rationalistic thought which optimistic mood and tendency for total generalisations are not always in line with the real state of things, as well as its reluctance to attach much importance to the individual cases that do not submit to general rules. Existential philosophy rejects optimistic frame of thinking and is imbued with pessimism and foreboding of the approaching catastrophe.
The idea of crisis is a leading idea of many post-classic studies, although the nature of the crisis is interpreted in different ways. For Marx and his followers it is the bankruptcy of economic system based on private property and free market (capitalism); for existential philosophy it is the crisis of culture and civilisation based on rationalistic principles.
But to say the truth the conclusion concerning the overall crisis was caused rather by subjective perception than by objective state of things. A person that has got into desperate situation often takes his personal drama for the tragedy of the whole mankind, seeing no prospects within a certain social system he may consider that there are no prospects for anybody, trying to solve his own problems he may be sure that he solves the problems of the whole humanity. The way one chooses to resolve contradictions with social environment depends mainly on his individuality: leftist intellectuals call for forcible upheaval; the less decisive intellectual public prefer the war of words and rejection to participate in practical activities hoping for spiritual revival of society under the influence of their ideas.
A specific feature of existential philosophy is its deep scepticism concerning scientific, technical and economic progress that some times evolves into barefaced hostility. Such attitude is caused both by objective and subjective reasons. Rapid development of science and industry dramatically increased the volume of information and it became twice difficult to analyse and generalise it. One should be gifted with a unique universal mind to systematise all important data and develop a fundamental and comprehensive philosophic concept. But as usual the persons that demonstrate high competence in the sphere of arts and social sciences have moderate aptitudes for maths and natural sciences (and vice versa). That is why many philosophers of 19 and 20 c. viewed metanarratives as out-of-date to conceal their own inability to apprehend all aspects of Being. Moreover, the industrial revolution altered the status of different branches of culture.       
In the ages of Renaissance and Enlightenment the humanists enjoyed deep respect. The nobility, who worshiped power and glory, gave protection to arts and social studies that reflected and celebrated the greatness of Man and his deeds. The bourgeoisie which idol is profit changed the priorities. If capitalists decide to support culture they give primary support to the branches that give profit – in the Industrial epoch naturalists producing “useful” knowledge gained the laurels that formerly belonged to humanists.
The latter could not forgive and started blaming science and technique for all disasters. They put in question any positive role of science and technical devices and emphasized only on negative consequences of economic and scientific development (consumerism, standardization of life, ecological problems, etc.), holding that scientific and economic progress destroy sincere and cordial relations between human beings and enthral human individuality. The insult was so deep that the critics ignored the obvious fact, that all pre-industrial societies oppressed human individuality many times more, practicing strict regulations of all aspects of private and social life. In the societies, not “spoiled” by science and machine production, each social group had detailed and obligatory scenario of behaviour, compulsory standards of clothes, dwelling, the daily routine, working process, etc. Those who dared to violate the rules were mercilessly punished. The most individuals living in pre-industrial societies were free from the demonic power of technique, but fettered by slavery or servility. And only the industrial revolution broke these limitations and liberated more individuals than all pundits and moral authorities taken together.
But who cares! This epoch is unfavourable for us, so it is the worst time in history! This world does not value our unique individuality, so we avert our eyes of it and create our own (imaginary) world to hide from this condemned civilization!
But whatever are the realities those who refuse to face them are doomed to fruitless thoughts and deeds. The one who view the world from the ivory tower will always be a captive of illusions. The philosophic texts written without any regard to objective facts, proven by science and practical activities, serve as a kind of opium, creating a parallel world in which disappointed individuals could escape from the unpleasant reality and opening an infinite field for exquisite intellectual games that compensate the absence of constructive objectives. And as any kind of opium these narratives cause only temporary effect being unable to strengthen the spirit of the adherents and become an effective stimulus for one’s spiritual renovation; instead they only widen the abyss between a person and the real life. After closing a volume of such treatises a “free and self-sufficient personality possessing transcendent knowledge” turns back into the former nervous and intimidated subject, entangled with worldly affairs and giving in to any difficulties...
Existential philosophy has many weak points: retrograde mode of thinking, withdrawal from objective reality and numbers of fabrications. But there is at least one truth that existentialists apprehend better than rationalists, tending to systematise everything and Marxists tending to view all social problems and phenomena in the light of class struggle and economic relations: everything general begins from the single; the true boon is the boon for everybody, so a social order can be considered neither normal nor rational if even a single individual remains in it restless and needless.      
In addition to “non-conformist” philosophic teachings sharply criticizing the industrial (bourgeois) society, there are philosophic schools (Positivism, Pragmatism, Logical Positivism, Structuralism, etc.) that try to adapt philosophy to the demands of the epoch. This trend reflects the convictions pertaining mainly to intellectuals practicing exact and natural sciences, being the most respected (and that is why the most loyal) part of the educated public. Having relatively comfortable conditions for self-realisation, they are not too much interested in the immediate reformation of socioeconomic structure and do not waist time on speculating about the sense of human existence, because they are quite aware concerning the sense and the purpose of their own life.
As the industrial/post industrial society required exact and verified knowledge, some thinkers (being representatives of scientific community) decided to make philosophic studies more clear, verifiable and useful for practical activities including business and everyday life. They held philosophic theories should avoid abstract/hypothetical statements and provide indisputable argumentation (either logical or factual) of their conclusions following the example of exact and natural sciences.
Such approach contradicts the very nature of philosophy and neglects factually proven ability of human reason to precipitate facts and produce true ideas without sufficient logical and empirical argumentation. Ancient Greek thinkers came to absolutely right conclusion that our cosmos originated from a single substance, also they could not prove it. Neither Democritus nor Lucretius could provide indisputable arguments for their genial atomistic ideas. Initially, the only argument in favour of Copernicus’ theory of solar system was its elegance. Such scientific concept as Relativity was rather the product of abstract speculations than the result of empirical studies. Darwin’s law of natural selection was prompted by Malthus, when the great naturalist looked through his works.  From the point of view of natural studies philosophic theories will always be hypotheses, but these hypotheses work as a lightning that flashes out in the dark illuminating the surroundings and showing the way to the truth.    
Having rejected classic paradigm, modern philosophy lost its unique role in culture and in the knowledge process. The existential (anthropocentric) trend, which abolished any limitations for imagination, but limited the subject of study by the problems of human existence, obliterated the border between philosophy and arts; scientistic trend clipped the wings of creative imagination and reduced philosophy to methodological supplement for natural studies or to a set of copy-book truths for practical persons.                        
In the Middle Ages philosophy was acknowledged to be the “handmaiden of theology” – some modern advocates of “useful” and “verified” knowledge turned it into the “handmaiden of Success”. They deprived it of independent status, dressed in the hempen uniform of strictly specialized theories and compelled it to rummage dusty heaps of facts, hand finished truths on the plate and assist stockbrokers.
But philosophy is too ancient and honourable science to play such a humiliating role. It appeared at the dawn of civilization when culture was in embryonic state and its main branches had not been yet separated from each other. The oldest European philosophers (Thales, Euclid, Pythagoras, and others) were mathematicians and expressed their philosophic ideas in metaphorical and aphoristic form. Being an autonomous knowledge, philosophy has always had common features both with sciences and with arts. Like science it observes and studies objective facts and formulates laws and maxims, but like arts and literature it does this in a free form comprehensible for broad intellectual public (but not only for a narrow circle of specialists). Unlike science philosophy does not have direct connections with industrial process and everyday life and does not provide direct and immediate proof (either logical or empirical) for its statements. Natural sciences study a certain aspect of Being and their conclusions may be verified by an experiment. Philosophy studies Being as a whole and the whole Being can not be a subject for experiment. Scientific knowledge finally evolves into technologies – philosophy produces not algorithms, but guides: its main function is facilitation of decision-making when the task is global but necessary information is not accessible. Universal truths and maxims serve a frame that limits the field for searches and reduces the amount of time and efforts necessary for taking adequate decision. Philosophic concept may be verified only by Time (or in other words by the further course of history that adds new facts confirming or disproving its statements). The way by which abstract theories reveal their true nature is similar to that pertaining to the works of arts and literature. A philosopher can not provide an immediate and exhaustive factual (experimental) or logical evidence of his rightness (as well as an artist or a men of letters can not prove that he created a true picture of reality), none-the-less those who read his works are able to make certain of their true nature through correlation the content with their own practical experience.
Existential philosophy relies only on feelings and intuition – scientistic schools fall into another extreme ignoring the important role of intuition and subjective perception for detecting truth. If a person sees that the ideas of a certain philosopher are quite in line with his own practical and life experience and help him to make correct decisions and find right ways for achieving constructive purposes, so he recognises his concept as a true.
The popularity of abstract studies depends on the character of tasks that confronting political and intellectual elite and increases dramatically during transitional periods as in such periods the process of decision-making and self-determination is especially complex: the old patterns have become out-of-date while the new ones have not been yet developed. Philosophy flourished in the ancient Greece and Rome and in the Western Europe of XV - the beginning of XIX centuries. Although these societies were divided by ages, they had much in common: they actively explored the surrounding world with very limited and undeveloped means, widened the area of civilization and invented new political forms. Unlike the previous periods that opened new horizons, the industrial/post-industrial epoch concentrated its efforts on deepening and specifying our knowledge of the World and strengthening the positions of civilization. The division of power and specialization of sciences had led to parcellization of tasks both in politics and in knowledge process, so the transcendent knowledge temporarily lost its former importance.
None-the-less, the twilight of philosophy has not come yet. It will revive as it revived after the dark period of the Middle Ages, because human culture has always stood on three “whales”, namely: science, arts and philosophy that symbolize three indispensable aspects of human nature. Sciences serve mainly to Man’s physical (biological) nature by making his life more safe and comfortable and providing him with powerful weapon against the external alien forces; Arts and literature reflect social nature of Homo sapience helping him to develop his human qualities and be a worthy representative of rational society; Philosophy reflects cosmic (or if use religious terms, divine) nature of the mankind – Man’s inherent interest to the transcendent, universal knowledge which he demonstrated from the earliest times, is the sign of his inherent ability to be the ruler of the Universe. While people are busy with the struggle against Nature and against each other, philosophers search for supreme laws and principles for human race could fulfil its ultimate mission.
The uncertain position of Philosopher in the industrial/post-industrial society made thinkers to set the tasks that contradicted with the nature of philosophy and exceeded its actual competence. But if somebody oversteps the objective limits of his power, all his aims and goals will slip of him and turn into their opposites.   
Karl Marx who devoted all his life to uncompromising struggle with capitalism formulated new maxim: philosophers have only given different interpretations of the world; the important thing is to make it different. This statement is very impressive, but not quite true, as philosophers have always made the world different, but their contribution to the overall changes was nor more nor less than that of scientists, artists, politicians or men of practice. Philosophy provides intellectual instruments for decision-making serving as a compass or a map of the world: these devices do not directly show where a new land is situated and what means one should use to find it, but they orientate the traveller, prompt right direction and help him not to be lost in the vast and unknown space.
A most widely spread delusion is the belief that knowing the most general principles of social being people can deliberately change social system like they change natural environment knowing the laws of nature.  Those who share this belief forget that the laws of nature are much better proved and verified than the laws of society formulated by philosophers. Moreover, natural processes have cyclical character and submit to constant laws being immutable for millions of years – the society is still developing and the principles of its existence perpetually mutate. While a philosopher/sociologist/economist studies the contemporary society new tendencies appear and change the very picture of social reality. Even the most up-to-date theory includes only a small portion of information that is actually contained in the objective reality. Developing plans and forecasts we use only the available facts while in the real life new forms and structures are the result of spontaneous and unpredictable interactions between all factors, both known and hidden. To carry on basic changes of the whole socioeconomic structure proceeding only from ideas and theoretical conclusions is like to construct a stone building on paper basement. If Marx studied the history of revolutions more carefully he could notice that none of successful social upheaval established quite new relations of production, but only widened the space for already existing ones and consolidated them with the help of new institutions and legislation. World is made different by mutual efforts of all individuals who take right decisions.
Formerly, when political climate for philosophic and social studies was much better philosophers understood: to give a new interpretation of the world is to make the first step to its transformation. Karl Marx whose brave and original ideas were not recognized by intellectual and political elite of his time, decided to take the process in his own hands. An author of The Communist Manifesto sincerely desired to create a new type of society being free from oppression and exploitation and providing unbounded opportunities for realization of men’s generic creative nature. Instead, his political and scientific activity directly or indirectly led to emergence of social system where working masses were oppressed and exploited even more severely than in the capitalist society and where free thought and creative individuality were completely fettered by totalitarian state. The great economist wanted to eliminate the irrational nature of market economy and submit industrial processes to the laws of Reason – trying to solve this problem he developed theoretical ground for absurdist economy that expended more than produced. The prominent German revolutionary desired to establish socialism in the leading Western European countries for his native land could freely break the chains of backwardness and occupy a decent place among other nations – his works served for the good of the state for which he had no special trust and sympathy, and which humiliated Germany so, as nobody had ever done.
As for other trends of the post-classic philosophy, they were not more successful in achieving their main objectives. While the aim of Marxism was to make the world different, existential philosophy stressed at the necessity to save the world. It considered itself to be the stronghold of humanism and the apology of a free individuality. But excessive concentration on the problems of human existence along with idealization of personal freedom and independent thought gradually leads to dehumanization of philosophic Weltanschauung. Those who deny or diminish the importance of objective (empirical) knowledge consciously or subconsciously act as allies of the forces that threat human beings with death and perpetual sufferings; the protest against the dictate of soulless and depersonalized rationalism (technocracy) that enthrals human individuality conceals deep disrespect to the individuality of those whose interests are in the sphere of science and production as well as subconscious intention to substitute the dictate of technocracy with the dictate of humanists; the apology of unbounded pluralism of ideas that stipulates the right for everybody to understand everything in his subjective way turns into exquisite intellectual barbarism that destroys culture from inside; the anxiety concerning the integrity of natural environment is the reverse of tremendous indifference to the needs and sufferings of the millions who wrest from the Nature necessary means of subsistence which these refined intellectuals condemn, but none-the-less consume.
The scientistic trend that on the contrary to existentialism rejected everything subjective also overstepped the limits of the possible. The adherents of positive knowledge wanted to create an unshakeable methodological basis of absolutely reliable and commonly accepted principles free from dubious metaphysical speculations... and constructed concepts being even more intricate and disputable than metanarratives of classics. Trying to put an end to any uncertainty they led the readers to the vicious infinity of verifications, definitions of terms and analysis of language games. Pragmatics who wanted to make philosophy useful even for strictly practical needs produced the ideas being absolutely useless for those who do need philosophy for solving global tasks and making strategic decisions...  
Frankly speaking, the post-classic studies may be called “philosophic” only relatively, as they have lost the main essential feature of philosophy, namely: love to wisdom. The industrial and post-industrial epoch engendered many original, prominent and popular thinkers, but none of them may be called wise. The essence of wisdom is special relations with Time – it is the ability to view things and events sub specie aeternitatis. Only from this point of view one can distinctly see the border between the constant and the temporarily, between the subjective and the objective. A wise man will never fight against Time, for such fight is senseless. Time can not be precipitated – it is like a restive horse: if one spurs it, it may throw the rider. Time can not be renounced – wherever you hide, it will find you, break the walls of your shelter and restore its power. Time can not be deceived by imitation of its rhythm – it will easily detect falsification and go forward leaving the impostor in the past. To survive in this gigantic stream of Being one should preserve his identity and continue to follow his true predestination whatever occurs, as Time, this double-faced Janus, perpetually changes its nature. It may be slow and fast, destructive and creative, merciless and merciful. It may fall into lethargy and let things and people slowly move in a circle for thousands of years, but suddenly awakes and fall upon them with the avalanche of events moving the layers of epochs. It may raze cities and civilizations to the ground, but later build new ones twice greater. It may avert its bright face off somebody, but if he stands the test, the Fortune will smile upon him.
This calculating and fussy epoch will not last eternally – the buds of new social relations will shoot through the thick crust of market pragmatism; like our ancestors who formerly ploughed seas and oceans and explored new continents the future generations will plough cosmic space and explore new planets. When humanity will face new, universal challenges it will refer to universal philosophic knowledge that has been always served as a reliable guide in this unbounded and unpredictable world.   
 

The laws of dialectics: unity of opposites (that save energy for establishing ties and bonds between things and systems), transition from quantitative changes to qualitative (which eliminates the least viable elements) and negation of negation (that preserves the most functional elements and forms basis for new changes), are the principles of the most efficient way of self-organization of matter.

The other problem that complicates the comprehension of dialectics is the problem of dialectical contradictions (antinomies). The adepts of dialectics hold that in contrast to formal (metaphysical) logic dialectical analysis operates with contradictions (antinomies), as everything is based on and moved by the unity and struggle of opposites (thesis and antithesis). This approach was sharply criticised by many post-classic philosophers (especially by positivists) and to say the truth, this critic was partially fair, as classic dialectical concepts failed to provide a clear criterions for distinguishing dialectical contradictions from formal ones.
The main reason of such theoretical uncertainty is that dialectics has not completely emancipated from formal logic. Great dialectics (such as Kant, Hegel and Marx) continued to mix the laws of dialectical and formal logic and applied the principles pertaining only to formal logic towards definition of dialectical terms.
It should be marked that Marx made important step forward holding that both formal and dialectical logic are not the logic of mind, but the logic of the objective reality reflected in human mind. So, if proceed from the axiom that the ultimate criterion for everything (including contradictions) is objective reality, then contradictions may be defined as incompatibility of things/aspects/processes (reflected in abstract logical constructions) in the objective reality. And vice versa: the statement reflecting things/aspects/processes that are actually coexist in the real life and this coexistence is experimentally proven can not be qualified as contradictory. That which is usually called “dialectical contradiction” is not contradiction but is complementary characteristic. “Dialectical contradictions” are none other than reflections of different aspects of a single thing made from different points of view, or different reflections of the same thing/aspect produced by two (or more) subjects/objects with different characteristics.
(N. Bohr and A. Einstein understood this idea very clearly; Bohr’s principle of complementarity and Einstein’s relativity principle are vivid examples of dialectical approach towards the problems of physics.)
Let us view the well known Heraclites’ antinomy reading that sea water is the clearest and the dirtiest (for fishes it is clear while for men it is dirty). This statement contains not a single contradiction as in objective reality sea water is used both by fishes and by Homo sapiens; as these organisms belong to different species they have different structure and metabolism, so the reactions of their organisms on sea water will be different. But the assertion that sea water is both salt and sweet will be by any means contradictory as in the real life sea water can not be simultaneously salt and sweet.
The ban on contradictions is valid both for formal and for dialectical logic. What should be remembered is that the final and universal criterion for qualifying any statement or conclusion as right or wrong, contradictory or not contradictory is not the laws of formal logic, but practice (reference to the objective reality).

For better comprehension of the very essence of dialectical method one should refer to etymology of the term. Dialectics comes from dialogue. Dialogues were very popular in Ancient Greece, whose philosophers contributed much to development of dialectics – Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and others widely used the form of dialogue for expression of their ideas. Each participant of the dialogue (contest) presented his point of view while clashes and combinations of different and even opposite opinions produced comprehensive (multidimensional) image of the discussed subject [thesis – antithesis – synthesis].
Hegel extrapolated this scheme (pertaining mainly to the development of thought) to the development of material systems which led to formalization of dialectical method and its divergence with practice. However, polysemantic character of dialectical statements (which seems contradictory for common sense) is not the whim of armchair pundits being fond of intellectual games – it is conditioned by fluid and multidimensional nature of the objective reality.
There are numbers of phenomena and processes that can not be described in terms of formal logic demanding strict choice between two alternatives (either ... or), they require synthetic description including both thesis and antithesis. In such case synthesis is achieved due to introduction of additional elements of thought which eliminate formal contradiction between opposites and turn them into complementary characteristics. For example, if we simply say that sear water is the clearest and the dirtiest it will be a contradiction, but if we specify that for fishes it is clear while for men it is dirty, the contradiction will be eliminated.

Hegel once marked that each kind of logic has its special field of application, to his mind formal logic is applicable to the problems of everyday life (submitted to the principles of common sense) while dialectical method is useful for solving more complex philosophical and scientific problems. This valuable remark was often ignored both by adepts and critics of dialectics who tried to apply dialectical principles to the problems that belong to the realm of formal logics which only discredited dialectical method.
Dialectics and formal logics are two types of logic with specific axioms and sphere of application, in this context they may be compared with and non-Euclid or classic physic and Relativity/quantum mechanic.
In the realm of formal logic (common sense) all objects and systems have constant structure (being immutable during a long period of time) and all processes have cyclical nature. In this sphere each thing has its permanent place and performs strictly definite function. According to formal (metaphysical) approach every thing may have only a single quality (meaning) and each event (process) has single and strictly definite sense. Common sense views all subjects separately and determines their quality through examining their structure and comparing it with the respective etalon. (Formal logic adequately describes the behaviour of such objects as planetary system where all objects have their permanent orbits, technical mechanisms constructed according to a certain scheme, where each detail performs definite function, living cells and organisms that have already finished their evolution and are reproduced in the same form, traditional society with constant socio-economical and political structure, etc.).
In the realm of dialectics all things and systems undergo perpetual metamorphoses and change their places and relations many times, so from the point of view of dialectics a thing as such does not have an immanent quality (predestination) – its quality appears at the intersection of connections with other objects; the same is with the sense of events – an event does not have a single interpretation, its meaning depends on the properties of the reflecting object/subject. That is why dialectical method never views a subject of study separately, but only in the context of its relations with other objects and observes all things and events from different points of view.
The subjects of study that require dialectical approach are the Universe as a whole where objects move with enormous speeds; biosphere, where living organisms undergo mutations and evolve into a new species; the industrial society with great dynamic of socio-economic changes, etc.
Formal logic is the realm of pure reason and verified knowledge – it describes systems where all important parameters may be exactly measured and which future state is quite predictable. Dialectics deals with the systems where only a part of information is accessible for study, so in this realm reason shares power with intuition.
In the sphere of common sense occasion is viewed as something unimportant which may not be taken into consideration. For dialectical mode of thinking accidental events are not less important than regular ones – a fortuity is a seed of future or a last straw that breaks the existing order and releases the Demon of changes.
The other difference between formal and dialectical mode of thinking is perception of time. Formal logic divides time into fragments that may be studied independently of each other. For common sense Past is that which has already gone, present is something which actually exists while Future is that which has not come yet.
For dialectics which views Being as a chain of negations, an object (event) is the focus of tenses. Past (the remnants of previous forms and traces of earlier events) is embedded in the Present which in its turn contains the embryo of Future. (This synthesis of time is splendidly revealed in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury that is a brightest example of dialectical mode of thinking in literature.)
For common sense Time is clocks and calendars – it views Time as something abstract and absolute that may be measured with universal etalons. Such “mechanical” approach (pertaining to Newton’s physics and metaphysic of 18-19 c.) is quite applicable to relatively small homogeneous systems consisting of standard elements which movement may be synchronised.
Dialectics views Time as an attribute of matter characterising its movement. This idea was developed and popularized by Marx and Engels, the creators of dialectical materialism; scientific proof of the relative nature of time was made by A. Einstein.
In the sphere of Being where matter is distributed not quite evenly universal etalons are senseless – each object has its own time.
Common sense prompts that the course of Time may follow only one direction (forward). In the realm of dialectics the course of Time depends on how a system uses its energy. If it is replenished with new elements its Time goes forward; if energy simply circulates from one part to another Time moves in a circle; but if he structure loses its energy and constituent parts the spiral of Time unfolds into opposite direction and the system returns to the past.
Although quantitative characteristics of Time are not absolute, this attribute of matter has universal nature and its power stretches everywhere, as the streams of energy that break ties and connections between things and elements causing more or less substantial changes, transpierce the whole Being. They may be slow down or turned into other direction, but they can not be completely stopped, so existence is none other than a perpetual dialogue with Time – different metamorphoses of material structures (regulated by the laws of dialectics) are (in their very essence) more or less adequate and successful answers to the challenges of Time.
As it has been already mentioned formal logic operates with ideal patterns and universal principles – from the point of view of dialectics any truth is relative, the only absolute recognized by dialectical mode of thinking is fruitfulness – the ability to produce results that exceed pains and losses. Dialectics justifies everything that tends to transform energy into a new quality and denies everything that leads to senseless and fruitless wasting of time and energy, as the supreme aim of Being is self-assembly – restoration of the lost integrity (namely: singularity, or if use Hegel’s terminology Absolute Idea ). Energy should be perpetually transmitted from one interim form to another until it finds the form being completely equal to the initial one which could involve in itself the rest of matter and transform it into a single entity containing the embryo of the future Universe...
It should be marked that fruitfulness (efficiency) is the universal criterion of Good. But in the static environment where all things, systems and processes exist/are reproduced in the same immutable form, the effect caused by an object/event is quite definite and predictable, so everything may be supplied with a tag: positive/negative/neutral, etc. Dialectics that deals with changeable and heterogeneous reality, considers nothing as a-priory good or vicious, right or wring, useful or useless, prospective or having no prospects. The actual meaning of everything is determined in the context of concrete circumstances, as the effect caused by something, depends not only its own properties, but also on the properties of the things it interacts with (a blow of hammer makes steel harder, but breaks glass).
An explosion of a supernova may be viewed as a destructive process, but if it leads to formation of a new planetary system serving as a cradle for highly organized biological and social forms, it may be qualified as constructive. A genetic mutation may be qualified as positive, negative or neutral only in relation with natural environment to which a mutated organism should be adapted.
Such social collisions as revolutions or civil wars may have both devastating and clearing effect depending on where and when they take place. For example Civil War of 1861-1865 in the United States (in spite of heavy losses sustained by the defeated side) was a progressive event that formed conditions for rapid economic growth. But numerous civil conflicts in Columbia (so vividly described by Garcia Marques) brought little boon to the country and turned into a chronicle disease gnawing formerly vital social organism.
Democracy with its division of power and wide civic rights and freedoms under certain conditions creates the best conditions for economic, social and cultural development, but the political order that demonstrates so many advantages, may as well be a source of disaster if a state meets with extremely serious challenges. Such situation was in ancient Athens in times of Peloponnesian War and in Western Europe in the period of World War II, when bourgeois democracy proved its inefficiency for resisting such totalitarian power as the Third Reich (Great Britain survived rather due to favourable geographical location).
Before French Revolution (1787-99) Napoleon Bonaparte was a clumsy, acrimonious and not very popular young man with very vague carrier prospects, as he possessed neither aristocratic origin nor good manners and connections necessary for achieving success in the feudal society. But after the Great Revolution had smashed the Order under which dancing skills were more important than intellectual faculties, the former outsider turned into the most powerful person in Europe.
Those who try to solve the problems of human existence (especially the problems of moral) should remember that they are much more complex and multidimensional than the riddles of Nature that is why their comprehension requires greater flexibility of mind.
Yet ancient thinkers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) marked relative and transient sense of moral and political credos as well as frequent divergence between individuals’ initial goals and final results of their deeds.
This problem interested not only philosophers, but also men of letters, and to say the truth the dialectics of human relations was much vividly reflected in the works of arts and literature than in philosophical treatises.
Since the epoch of Renaissance had renewed the progressive movement of society, artists and men of letters prove in their works that in the developing society man’s deeds should not be rigidly submitted to an age-old tradition or an abstract ideal, but must be in harmonious correspondence with the demands of the real life.
This idea runs through the works of Cervantes whose hero Don Quixote possessed by pii desiderii suffers bitter failure and destroys his life and the life of those related to him.
Shakespeare’s great losers – Harry Hotspur, Hamlet, Macbeth, Coriolanus, King Leer, Antonius, and others also illustrate the truth that even an outstanding individuality is doomed to defeat if his qualities and outlook are not in line with the objective circumstances.
Goethe’s Faust throws challenge to commonly accepted moral norms and religious principles but in spite of all is justified and saved (together with his beloved Margaret). While the self-definition of Mephistopheles as a “part of the Power that would always wish Evil, and always works the Good” breaks stereotypical view on the nature of Good and Evil.
Leo Tolstoy a great apologist of man’s seeking and striving for his true predestination, specified in his War and Pease this dialectics of good and evil. The fortunes of his main heroes are perpetual alternations of triumphs and disasters, when easy victory or wishful thinking leads to tremendous catastrophe which in their turn opens wider prospects and helps to change things for better...
History and literature give us numerous evidences of relative nature of commonly accepted principles and stereotypes and absolute significance of all deeds and creatures that serve for immortality of the mankind.
Comprehension of dialectical method is much more difficult than comprehension of formal logic as mastering the dialectical mode of thinking can not be reduced to learning a set of rules and patterns. Mastering dialectics may be compared with learning swimming or riding bicycle. There are certain rules that facilitate acquiring the skill, but even the best trainer or manual can not explain by means of words how to keep balance and what it is. A person should feel this specific state.
Dialectical method in its very essence is the ability to keep the equilibrium of mind in very fluid and shaky reality; to think in terms of dialectics is to be able to merge the stream of consciousness with the stream of Being, to plunge into the whirlpool of events and grasp their deepest sense, to step into the labyrinth of alternatives and catch the only guiding thread that shows the way to Eternity.

Although the principle of unity and struggle of opposites is not applicable to particular (open) systems, this statement should not be viewed completely wrong. It is the case when the laws of the whole are not applicable to its parts. Our Universe being a closed system exists and develops due to the unity and struggle of the opposites, namely substance and energy. These two main components of the Being have quite opposite properties – substance has inherent tendency to concentration and stability while energy (the source of movement) tends to unlimited freedom and dissipation. The laws of Order pertaining to substance limit this freedom by uniting material elements with each other and retaining energy inside material structures. But finally the stream of energy breaks any order and continues dissipating in all directions. This “restless” nature of energy is the cause of entropy eroding things and systems and making them dead (unable to perform any function). To resist entropy a system should constantly add new components to its structure (i.e. attract additional sources of energy). Hence, evolution (gradual transition from lower to higher level of organisation) is a vital process as the higher is the level of organisation the less energy it wastes. The ability to extract, accumulate, preserve and transform energy is the main criterion for estimating the degree of progress. The higher is the level of organization of matter the less energy it wastes. The process related to formation of subatomic particles was accompanied by an enormous discharge of energy. The laws of gravitations (which became valid after recombination) accumulated atoms and molecules (together with energy they contain) into stellar objects; reproduction and evolution of living organisms requires much less energy losses then formation of new chemical elements (evolution of non-organic matter), as living organisms (in contrast to non-organic entities) are able to search for new sources of energy; the more developed is a socioeconomic structure, the less energy it wastes for production of goods and services, etc.
Emergence of Homo sapience and civilization is a necessary stage of general evolution of the Universe, as human beings are the only creatures that are able not only to search for and transform energy but to turn it into constructive channel for self-preservation and self-reproduction purposes, so only the constructive activity of Homo sapiens may prevent such dissipation of energy that leads to the death of the Universe. If energy completely eliminates the power of Order and scatters material objects along infinite space and disperses into infinitely small portions, the World will vanish. But if Order gets complete triumph over the Spirit of Inconsistency and locks it up into an exclusive circle, matter will fall into eternal lethargy that also means non-existence, as to exist is to create, to produce new forms, to undergo perpetual metamorphoses. Only perpetual struggle with variable success between these two opposites makes our Universe fruitful, i.e. alive.
 
The laws of dialectics: unity of opposites (that save energy for establishing ties and bonds between things and systems), transition from quantitative changes to qualitative (which eliminates the least viable elements) and negation of negation (that preserves the most functional elements and forms basis for new changes), are the principles of the most efficient way of self-organization of matter.

II. DIALECTICS

The quintessence of classic philosophy is dialectics. This cognitive method (considering things in their changes, interrelations and interconnections) is almost as ancient as philosophy itself. The father of dialectics was Greek philosopher Heraclitus, which was the first thinker who noticed the existence of opposites, the hidden connections between all things and relative nature of perception. Dialectical method was actively used and developed by such prominent ancient thinkers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
German classic philosophy raised dialectics to the new level. E. Kant created a special transcendental (dialectical) logic that operated with antinomies and viewed an idea/phenomenon as something that has its own history of development. The works of G. Hegel became the acme of dialectical thought. This great philosopher elaborated the most fundamental and comprehensive system of dialectical laws and categories rested on three basic principles – unity and struggle of opposites, transition from quantitative changes into qualitative and negation of negation viewed as the general laws of development. K. Marx in his turn provided materialistic interpretation of Hegel’s dialectical concept and enriched it with a number of fresh ideas.
But in the modern society dialectics exists as a “dead” knowledge. Post-classic philosophy views it as an anachronism, while devoted Hegelians and Marxists have turned dialectical method into a set of dogmatic principles broking tight connections between the method and living practice.
Sure, the theoretical principles, formulated more than 150 years ago can not remain immutable, but so valuable intellectual heritage must not simply fall into oblivion. All the more, dialectical frame of mind (when things are viewed in their changes, interrelations and interconnections) was demonstrated not only by philosophers, but by the writers of realistic school (who depicted their personages as developing characters acting within a concrete social environment), by Ch. Darwin (who recognized that biological species are not eternal and immutable, but had evolved from extinct ancestors and underwent perpetual changes as a result of interrelations with natural surroundings), as well as by A. Einstein, who refused the idea of absolute space and time and proved their dependency on the relative motion of observers, by Niels Bohr, who enunciated the principle of complementarity and others.
It is curious, but the most of scientists and men of letters who actually used dialectical approach in their creative activity showed very little interest in Hegel’s and Marxist philosophy being the summit of dialectical thought. Presumably, such neglecting attitude was caused by the fact that the central statement of the abovementioned dialectical concepts was hardly applicable to special systems. This statement (formulated by Hegel and supported by Marx, as it perfectly suited his own idea of class struggle) reads that all things contain contradictory sides or aspects (thesis and antithesis) whose tension or conflict is the driving force of change and eventually transforms and dissolves them. But the latest scientific data show that the development of physical, biological or socio-economic systems does not follow this logic. Stars and galaxies (whose cores are the wombs for new chemical elements) are the products of accidental processes (fluctuations) in massive gas clouds; the inception of evolution of species is mutations (sudden changes in genetically controlled features); the source of social progress is not class struggle (that exists both in developing and in stagnating/degrading societies), but unpredictable scientific and technical inventions (providing society with new means of production) as well as accidental deviations from regular course of events (the result of wars, crises, disasters) that urge individuals to search for new forms of economical and social organisation.
Nowadays an unengaged researcher who deals with developing (self-organizing) systems of any type will prove that all evolutionary changes are initiated by accidental events.
The nature of the occasional has always been a subject of sharp discussions. In general, there are two main approaches towards the problem: deterministic and indeterministic. Deterministic concept formulated by Laplace (and shared by A. Einstein and some other physicists and philosophers) states that an intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
The other (indeterministic) opinion (pertaining to quantum mechanics and the most of post-classic philosophic concepts) is based on the conviction that along with periodical and strictly predetermined events there are those regulated by probability laws, so the occasional is something that may occur or may not occur. The latter view has at least one vulnerable point: the main reason for qualifying an event as not strictly predetermined is the impossibility to forecast it. This argument is not quite indisputable: numbers of events being formerly unpredictable later become actually (or theoretically) predictable (such as changes of weather or Brown movement).
However today the problem can not be finally resolved by pure abstract speculations – both opinions have weighty reasons and only new empirical facts can put an end to this age-old dispute. What can be said for sure is that the main difference between occasional and regular events is the nature of their causes. In distinct from regular (predictable) events which have permanent causes (material objects with constant parameters), the causes of occasional events are variable – they usually “dissolve” in the environment (or change their parameters) just after they have caused the effect, so it is impossible to retrace (and hence predict) them.
In general there are three types of movement:
- completely predictable movement caused only by constant factors (for example, the rotation of planets);
- completely unpredictable chaotic movement caused only by variable factors (movement of atoms and molecules of gas,);
- partially predictable movement determined both by constant and by variable factors and described in the terms of probability theory pertaining to the most of open/self-organising systems.
That which is called probability is correlation between constant/overt and variable/covert causes. Constant causes (factors) serve as a frame which outlines the field of action of variable factors; the narrower and the more rigid is the frame the more probable/predictable is the event, and vice versa.
The most usual source of occasional events is broken regularity – i.e.: a thing/system that has abruptly lost its integrity/disappeared. The explosion of a supernova may serve as a vivid model demonstrating the process of transformation of the regular into the occasional and vice versa. The explosion of a concrete star can not be qualified as a regular event as it occurs only once, but at the same it is a necessary (inevitable) event as a star which perpetually looses mass and energy can not maintain equilibrium for an unlimited period of time. The explosion trigs a chain of chaotic (occasional) interactions between atoms and subatomic particles that leads to emergence of new chemical elements constituting material for new stellar objects. The planetary system that appears as a result of an enormous number of irregular interactions consequently turns into a regularly moving structure. So, regularity may be defined as a settled fortuity, the fortuity that acquired systematic character by integrating/evolving into a system.
Presumably, all occasional events in the Universe are the remote consequences of the Big Bang that plunged matter into chaos and led to relatively unequal distribution of matter in space which curved trajectories of things in different ways, desynchronized events and processes and hence made physical bodies sporadically deviate from their regular courses, clash with each other and produce new forms.
If a newly appeared form is viable and if it is able to find vacant space (niche), it becomes a part of the system and a factor that determines its further development. If the amount of space and energy necessary for coexistence of both old and new elements exceeds the available reserves, the system undergoes rapid and radical transformations. In terms of dialectics quantitative changes turn into qualitative.
The unpopularity of dialectics among modern scientists led to independent rediscovering of this dialectical law in 20 century – various concepts of self-organization (such as the theory of catastrophes or synergetic) described this dialectical process in their own way, using for example the term “bifurcation” instead of “qualitative leap”.)
It should be marked that the later concepts of development (self-organization) demonstrate better understanding of the role of occasion as an important source of evolutionary changes and are based on experimental data (in contrast with classic dialectical concepts based mainly on abstract speculations). However, modern theories of self-organization have their own drawbacks.
1) These latest theories of self-organization were developed mainly by the specialists dealing with relatively simple systems and processes, such as chemical reactions or behaviour of micro objects – the patterns that are typical for the abovementioned structures are not always applicable to more complex biological and social systems.
2) While classic dialectical theories underestimate the role of accidental events (viewing it as something secondary and unimportant), modern theories overestimate the creative role of chaos and the influence of weak fluctuations on a system’s behaviour at the moment of bifurcation (qualitative leap). According to modern concepts of self-organization there are several alternatives a developing system may choose and its final choice may depend on small fluctuations that appear near the point of bifurcation; at this moment a system becomes extremely flexible and may be easily “turned” in this or that direction even by weak forces.
There is no doubt that when the balance is broken a system becomes very sensitive to external influences and even weak fluctuations may initiate big changes, but if observe the behaviour of open systems of various types more carefully, it will be evident: a system “submits” only to that weak forces which vector corresponds with the vector of a dominating tendency.
Those who study self-organizing systems usually mix two different terms: tendencies and variants. As usual that which we usually view as equally possible alternatives are tendencies with approximately equal sets of characteristics being accessible for observation and measuring. But along with measurable parameters they contain numbers of hidden properties which reveal themselves only in at the very moment of qualitative leap, when interactions between system’s blocks and elements become extremely intensive, so it is very difficult to estimate their real capacities beforehand. And the more complex is a system and the higher is the dynamic of its inner processes the less information is accessible. This fact creates an illusion that accidental (small) factors may determine the line of changes while actually they only reveal or activate the hidden potentialities of a certain tendency. As usual the choice a system makes at the moment of qualitative leap (bifurcation) is prepared and strictly predetermined by the previous period of quantitative (latent) changes that gradually alter the balance of forces within the system.
Small fluctuation and deviations may play important role only when a system is of micro size (like a chain of atoms or molecules) or if the competing tendencies are approximately equal, so a small portion of mass and energy added to this or that tendency may tilt the balance to its advantage. But the more massive and complex is a system the more weighty and numerous factors are necessary to determine the line of its further development. (World War I was triggered by the shot of Gavrilo Princip, but only naive persons may believe that at the moment when Europe was at the breach of the war somebody’s constructive personal initiative could persuade political leaders to resolve the conflict by peaceful means. That deadly clash was prepared by rapid economic expansion of leading European nations and may be averted only by a miracle, which would create additional markets, sources of energy and raw materials without which further economic development of belligerent states was impossible.)
The evolution of such colossal object as a star (its subsequent development on the main sequence) also can hardly be dependent on accidental deviations, but strictly predetermined by its mass.
All practical experience prompts that the cause(s) and the effect(s) should be always equivalent. The only difference pertaining to self-organizing (developing) systems is that the line of its further development is prepared and determined by a chain of minor causes which have been gradually accumulated during a certain period of time and remain inactive until the last factor (trigger) put them in motion acting as a last straw, adding the last portion of energy that breaks the shaky balance. This peculiarity creates the illusion that big changes may be caused by small factors

III. MATTER AND SPIRIT
 
From time immemorial the life of Homo sapiens has been determined by the two main realities: by the external world of things (matter) and the internal world of his own consciousness (spirit), so the intellectual part of humanity could not help raising at least two questions:

1. Which is primal – matter or spirit;
2. Whether the real world is the same with the one that man perceives?

For thousands of years philosophers has been speculating over these questions coming to different conclusions. Those who consider matter as the basic (primal) substance of the world call themselves materialists and argue with idealists assuming the primacy of spirit. The dispute has been continuing for ages, as it belongs to the kind of disputes where each party is right in its own way reflecting different aspects of the same complex phenomenon.

Materialistic approach is based on the following reasons: 1) everything we deal with consists of material elements; 2) a person’s consciousness is conditioned by the environment he lives in; 3) the more we cognize the world the less space remains for non-material causes.
However, there was at least one idealistic stronghold that remained resistible to materialistic criticism. All materialistic concepts failed to give comprehensive and non-contradictory explanation of how material processes are regulated, what was the mechanism that provides constancy of the laws of nature and reproduction of material things and events.
All practical experience demonstrated that complex things and processes can not occur and recur spontaneously. Bricks and blocks can not form a building without any preliminary project (idea); the life of society (even of a primitive society) is regulated by laws, being the ideal principles formulated by rational beings, etc. So, it was hard to believe that the Universe containing the enormous number of various elements, structures and substructures could maintain the order without any rational (regulating) element, or that the creatures of nature (that may be even more complex than some of artefacts) could emerge and be reproduced spontaneously.  
It should be mentioned that Karl Marx, an adept of materialism, tried to give his own (materialistic) interpretation of the very essence of laws. He defined the law as the essential, stable and regular connections between things and phenomena. Also this definition contains a grain of truth it can not be considered as completely satisfactory, as one should not be a great thinker to notice that ties and bonds between concrete things and systems change millions of times but the laws remain constant. For example, if two stellar objects accidentally collide with each other in the cosmic space all laws of physics will be valid although their relations are neither regular nor essential...
 
The problem of correlation between the material and the ideal (spiritual) acquired a new aspect after the mechanism of functioning of human brain had become to be more or less clear. Whatever they say, it is human reason and man’s rational activity which has always served as the basic pattern for both philosophers-idealists and religious prophets who developed the concept of the supreme reason/God.   
This mechanism was so complex and so deeply hidden that even such staunch materialist as Marx was sure that human consciousness has ideal (non-material) nature and vigorously denied the assumption that our brain may produce thought like our liver produces bile.
But scientific discoveries of 20 c. made the age-old dispute between materialists and idealists if not senseless then at least estranged from the real life. They put in question both the idealistic belief that the entities regulating material processes (ideas) are of non-material origin as well as the materialistic conviction that ideas (knowledge) may exist only as products/attributes of human reason.
Although all aspects of thought processes have not been yet completely revealed, now it is clear that it has electrochemical (material) nature; for example, our memory (the depository of knowledge [ideas]) exists in the form of protein molecules packed in dendrites (branching processes of nerve cells which conduct impulses toward the cell body).
The reproduction of species is provided by DNA double helix encoding the main structural proportions of living organisms.
The most universal laws of physical world are stipulated by the specific structure of vacuum – the basic substance of our Universe containing virtual particles – the “ideal” analogues of the real ones.
These facts leads us to the conclusion that what we usually call “reason”, “idea”, “law”, or “knowledge” is none other but a programme – a material entity reflecting (encoding) a thing’s/system’s main structural proportions and the order of its assembly.
Modern science returns us to Plato’s old theory of forms (ideas), although it requires an up-to-date interpretation and specification.
In general, Being consists of two partially isolated and partially intersected realms: the realm of ideas (programmes) and the realm of physical things (bodies). Ideas are constant while things are mutable and temporary. Everything general and regular is the result of repeating interactions between things (elements) and the respective ideas; everything accidental/single is the result of spontaneous interactions between things. The life of ideas (programmes) submits to the principles of formal logic (the logic of reproduction). The interrelations between things are regulated by the laws of dialectics (the logic of creation).
 
The way the Ideas correlate with physical things was also a subject for long-lasting discussion commenced by two titans of philosophy – Plato and Aristotle. Plato held that the realm of Ideas exists beyond the realm of physical things. These Ideas (Forms) are timeless immovable and are arranged in a hierarchical order. Aristotle argued that Ideas are the attributes of things and are located inside of them. That dispute like the most of philosophic disputes of the past rested mainly on purely speculative assumptions, and as it usually occurred in such cases both parts reflected different aspects of the same truth.
Actually the way the Ideas (programmes) relate with things may be different. At some cases they may be an outward reality while in others an inward one.
The world of ideas described by Plato has remote likeness with vacuum, the realm of serenity where “empty forms” (particles with negative energy) are arranged in a strict order prescribing the order (laws) of physical processes.  The laws regulating the life of biological species prove Aristotle’s version: the DNA that provides the reproduction of living organisms is embedded into their structure. The project (idea) of an artefact (such as a building or a machine) may be stored either into it or outside of it depending on concrete circumstances.
 
Although the objective facts make us to admit that there is nothing non-material in this world, the division of phenomena into ideal (spiritual, bodiless) and material (substantial) being deeply enrooted into philosophy and culture is not quite senseless. As usual the word material is associated with something palpable and ponderable, while the ideas (programmes) regulating the movement of physical bodies, reproduction biological organisms and human behaviour are not apparent to the naked sense organs, so there is no wonder that many philosophers considered them as non-material. Sure, the ideas regulating various material processes have the same (material) origin with physical things, but it should be taken into consideration that unlike things ideas are very subtle structures containing minimal mass, volume and energy. Ideas are the quintessence of things, they are things represented in ultimately concentrated and distilled form. While things consist of elements determining their properties, Ideas consist of symbols – the abstract (light-weight) substitutes of elements being more convenient for storage and communication. Due to such compact and refined structure Ideas are less vulnerable to erosive influence of time (entropy), so their lifetime if not infinite then much longer than the lifetime of things.
In general Plato was right holding that the world of physical things is illusory and only ideas are real; if presume that the ultimate measure of reality is Eternity, then the longer is something’s existence (the more it approaches to Eternity) the more it is real.
   
The main predestination of physical things is to produce work (to change the state of other things/systems). The main predestination of Ideas is to reproduce classes of things and regulate their movement. In other words Ideas limit the power of accident. Randomness is an indispensable element of existence serving as the source of development. But accident is blind: it may both produce new functional structures and destroy necessary ones. Ideas renew necessary elements and proportions and thus provide relative stability of material world and consistency of its main processes.
 
The existence of ideas is possible due to matter’s inherent ability for self-reflection or in other words due to its ability to produce substances that may serve as matrixes retaining information on things and processes. In the World where nothing can resist the destructive work of entropy the only way to prolong (renew) the existence is to live a trace. We may say for sure that something/somebody existed only if it/he has left a trace and the deeper and the more numerous are the traces the more evident is the fact of existence and the more probable is reproduction. Traces pave the way to Eternity...
 
The patriarchs of idealism, Plato and Aristotle, asserted that every thing has its idea (either as an outside or inside reality). But if view ideas as programmes, it should be assumed that not every object is supplied with the respective idea. There are numbers of completely accidental/non-reproducible objects/systems that failed to find the matrix at which they may “record” the essential information concerning their structure and the order of assembly. For example, many stellar objects (asteroids, planets, meteorites) may be classified as accidental (single, unique).
There are things that have lost their ideas and become unique. To this category belong many artefacts of the past (Stonehenge, Egyptian Pyramids, damask steel, waterproof leather [opoika], etc.) which projects have been lost.
Along with accidental there are “dead” ideas. Such class of ideas include programmes that have lost vital connections with material elements due to extinction of mediators which realized these connections, for example: Nazca lines, the Phaistos Disk, non-deciphered ancient scrolls, etc. They may also be the programmes that encode non-vital proportions (such as genes with lethal mutations or perpetuum mobile projects).
Ideas and things (physical) objects have absolutely equal importance: thing/process will not be reproduced if there is no idea (programme) that contains necessary information on its structure and the order of assembly; at the same time an idea will not work if there is no suitable material for assembly or necessary mediators that connect abstract symbols with concrete elements...
 
The fact that both ideas and physical objects have material nature does not cancel the problem of primacy: which appears first – the idea (programme) or the object?
This question belongs to the type of dialectical questions that do not have simple and single-meaning answers (like for example the question about what is primal – a bird or an egg). The solution of the problem nowadays should not be formulated by means of purely speculative philosophic methods (as it was in the past). Trying to give the answer to this “eternal” question we should proceed from scientific concepts (developed by specialists working in the field of cosmology, biology, physiology), which in their turn are not yet undisputable.  
The most probably a new form of organization of matter appears simultaneously with the suitable matrix, on which the essential information concerning the newly appeared form may “recorded”. So, initially Idea may appear as a reflection of a certain physical object, but later it may turn into an autonomous being that can engender new things.
It should be taken into consideration that the division of the existing phenomena into objects and ideas is relative. ======
Many biologists share the hypothesis that new complex protein structures that formed the body of the first living organisms appeared simultaneously with nuclear acids that served as matrixes. But a new species appears as the result of mutations (changes of genetic programme).
An idea (project) of a new artefact (such as a wheel, an airplane, a helicopter, etc.) usually appears as a result of imitation of natural processes (or in other words a reflection of some natural phenomena in the human brain that is an excellent matrix), but new generations of technical devices are the results of improvement of the previous ideal projects. As all material structures, ideas may develop (be replenished with new elements that encode new properties of the respective physical objects).
                      
In general the evolution of Being may be compared with a staged pyramid. Now there are several levels of organization of matter:

• Physical (inorganic/unanimated nature) that is the most old and relatively simple and forms the first stage of the imaginary pyramid;
• Biological (animated nature);
• Social (economic and cultural);

The evolution of matter can rise to the next (higher) stage only if the previous level has already finished its development (get perfect Idea (or in other words constant laws, reproducing its basic proportions).