Basic Form of Motion¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter establishes motion as the most fundamental category of materialist dialectics, encompassing all change and process in the universe—from the simplest displacement of a particle to the activity of thought itself. The investigation of motion must proceed historically, beginning with its simplest mechanical forms before advancing through physics and chemistry to organic life. Central to the argument is the claim that matter is unthinkable without motion; motion is as uncreatable and indestructible as matter itself. Descartes’ principle of the constancy of motion is thus superior to the modern formulations of Helmholtz and the conservation of energy, which contradict one another.
The basic form of all motion is the interplay of approximation and separation—attraction and repulsion. These are not metaphysical forces but simple forms of motion whose dialectical unity constitutes every natural process. Each attraction must be compensated by an equivalent repulsion, otherwise motion would cease. Dialectics demonstrates that polar opposites exist only within their unity, excluding any final cancellation or absolute separation. The Newtonian explanation of planetary motion, which posits a tangential force alongside central attraction, contradicts the basic law of central action; the Kant-Laplace theory resolves this by reducing the tangential force to a derivative form of the original repulsion of gaseous particles.
A sustained polemic against the concept of force runs through the chapter. Force is criticised as an anthropomorphic category derived from human bodily activity, a fictitious cause inserted where scientific knowledge is lacking. Helmholtz’s objectivising of laws as forces is shown to be a subjectivising manoeuvre that expresses ignorance, not knowledge. Force is one-sided, implying only action without reaction, whereas all natural processes are two-sided. The chapter exposes confusion in Helmholtz’s own calculations: he treats heat, a repulsive motion, as an addition to attractive forces, whereas it should be subtracted. The notion of force is deemed scientifically unusable beyond mechanics, where causes are taken as given. For terrestrial and solar-system processes, where attraction preponderates and active motion derives from the sun’s repulsive heat, conceiving energy as repulsion is correct. In chemistry, repulsion is the active side requiring motion input, while attraction is passive and releases motion.