The second law of dialectics is the law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones.

Quality- a certainty identical to being, a stable system of certain characteristics and connections of an object.

Quantity- countable parameters of an object or phenomenon (number, size, volume, weight, size, etc.).

Measure- unity of quantity and quality.

With certain quantitative changes, quality necessarily changes.

However, quality cannot change indefinitely. There comes a moment when a change in quality leads to a change in measure (that is, the coordinate system in which the quality previously changed under the influence of quantitative changes) - to a radical transformation of the essence of the subject. Such moments are called “nodes”, and the transition itself to another state is understood in philosophy as "leap".

We can give some examples of the operation of the law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones.

If you heat water successively by one degree Celsius, that is, change quantitative parameters - temperature, then the water will change its quality - it will become hot (due to the disruption of the usual structural bonds, the atoms will begin to move several times faster). When the temperature reaches 100 degrees, a radical change in the quality of water will occur - it will turn into steam (that is, the previous “coordinate system” of the heating process will collapse - water and the previous system of connections). A temperature of 100 degrees in this case will be a node, and the transition of water into steam (the transition of one quality measure to another) will be a jump. The same can be said about cooling water and turning it into ice at a temperature of zero degrees Celsius.

If a body is given greater and greater speed - 100, 200, 1000, 2000, 7000, 7190 meters per second - it will accelerate its movement (change quality within a stable measure). When the body is given a speed of 7191 m/s (the “nodal” speed), the body will overcome gravity and become an artificial satellite of the Earth (the very coordinate system of the quality change will change, a jump will occur).

In nature, it is not always possible to determine the nodal moment. The transition of quantity into a fundamentally new quality may happen:

Sharply, instantly;

Imperceptibly, evolutionarily.

Examples of the first case were discussed above.

As for the second option (an imperceptible, evolutionary fundamental change in quality - measure), a good illustration of this process was the ancient Greek aporia “Heap” and “Bald”: “When you add which grain, the totality of grains will turn into a heap?”; “If a hair falls out of your head, then from what moment, with the loss of which specific hair, can a person be considered bald?” That is, the edge of a specific change in quality may be elusive.

5. The law of negation of negation lies in the fact that the new always denies the old and takes its place, but gradually it itself turns from new into old and is negated by more and more new things.

Examples:

Change of socio-economic formations (with a formational approach to the historical process);

"relay of generations";

Change of tastes in culture, music;

Evolution of the family (children are partly parents, but at a new stage);

Daily death of old blood cells, emergence of new ones.

The denial of old forms by new ones is the reason and mechanism of progressive development. However the question of the direction of development - controversial in philosophy. The following stand out: main points of view:

Development is only a progressive process, a transition from lower to higher forms, that is, ascending development;

Development can be either upward or downward;

Development is chaotic and has no direction. Practice shows that of the three points of view, the most

The second one is close to true: development can be either upward or downward, although the general trend is still upward.

Examples:

The human body develops and grows stronger (ascending development), but then, developing further, it weakens and becomes decrepit (descending development);

The historical process follows an upward direction of development, but with recessions - the heyday of the Roman Empire was replaced by its fall, but then a new upward development of Europe followed (Renaissance, modern times, etc.).

Thus, development quicker coming not in a linear manner (in a straight line), but in a spiral Moreover, each turn of the spiral repeats the previous ones, but at a new, higher level. 6. Basic principles of dialectics are:

The principle of universal connection;

Systematic principle;

The principle of causality;

The principle of historicism.

Universal connection means the integrity of the surrounding world, its internal unity, interconnectedness, interdependence of all its components - objects, phenomena, processes.

Connections can be:

External and internal;

Direct and indirect;

Genetic and functional;

Spatial and temporal;

Random and natural.

The most common type of communication is external and internal. Example: internal connections of the human body as

biological system, external connections of a person as elements of a social system.

Systematicity means that numerous connections in the surrounding world exist not chaotically, but in an orderly manner. These connections form an integral system in which they are arranged in a hierarchical order. Thanks to this, the surrounding world has internal expediency.

Causality- the presence of such connections where one gives rise to another. Objects, phenomena, processes of the surrounding world are caused by something, that is, they have either an external or internal cause. The cause, in turn, gives rise to the effect, and the relationships in general are called cause-and-effect.

Historicism implies two aspects of the surrounding world:

Eternity, indestructibility of history, the world;

Its existence and development in time, which lasts forever.

Essence and phenomenon;

Cause and effect;

Individual, special, universal;

Possibility and reality;

Necessity and chance.

The law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones is one of the basic laws of dialectics, which explains how movement and development occur. It was first formulated, albeit in an idealistic form, by Hegel as the law of the development of abstract thinking, the world spirit. In materialist dialectics - the universal law of development of the objective world, which plays a large role in its knowledge. He states that the accumulation of imperceptible, gradual quantitative changes at a certain moment for each individual process necessarily leads to significant, fundamental, qualitative changes, to a leap-like transition from the old quality to the new (see Quality and quantity, Measure, Leap).

This law takes place in all processes of development of nature, society and thinking. It is important for understanding the dialectical concept of development and its difference from all sorts of metaphysical concepts that reduce movement and development to mere quantitative changes in the existing, without the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.

Any quantitative change acts as a change in the elements of the system. The degree of difference between old and new quality depends on the quantitative changes in the object in question. “... Qualitative changes - in a precisely defined way for each individual case - can occur either through a quantitative addition or quantitative decrease in matter or motion (the so-called energy)." The emergence of a new quality essentially means the appearance of an object with new laws and measures, which already contain a different quantitative certainty. At the same time, the depth of qualitative changes may be different; it can be limited to the level of a given form of movement, or it can go beyond its limits.

The process of a radical change in a given quality, a “break” of the old and the birth of a new one, is a leap. It is a transition from an old quality to a new one, from one measure to another. “What is the difference between a dialectical transition and a non-dialectical one? Jumping. Inconsistency. A break from gradualism." The transition of a phenomenon from one qualitative state to another is the unity of destruction and emergence, non-existence and being, negation and affirmation (see the Law of unity and struggle of opposites). The leap includes the moment of sublation of the previous phenomenon by the emerging one (see the Law of Negation of Negation); At the same time, qualitative and quantitative changes mutually determine each other: not only does the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones take place, but also the reverse process - a change in quantitative characteristics as a result of a change in the quality of objects and phenomena.

Quantitative and qualitative changes are relative. The same changes in relation to some properties (less general) are qualitative, in relation to others (more general) - quantitative. Any development process is both interrupted and continuous. In this case, discontinuity appears in the form of a qualitative leap, and continuity in the form of quantitative change (see Evolution and Revolution).

The law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones has important methodological significance, obliging us to study an object from both the qualitative and quantitative sides in their unity, so that quantitative characteristics do not overshadow the qualitative certainty of facts and patterns. This law warns against all forms of flat evolutionism, reformism, and varieties of catastrophism, and in social development, against subjectivist adventurism.

Another methodological requirement arising from the law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones is that scientific knowledge must take into account the irreducibility of the quality of an integral object to the quality of its constituent parts, subsystems, elements. True, this does not exclude the possibility and necessity of using logical and mathematical operations of reduction and deduction when the goal is to explain some properties of a new system. But mixing the concepts of methodological reduction with logical and mathematical methods of reduction and deduction leads to various misunderstandings and errors.

Quantity and quality. The law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones
This (see previous entries under the “diamat” tag) leads us to the principle of the Marxist dialectical method, which can be called “the law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones.” What does it mean?

Every change has a quantitative side, that is, a side that is characterized by a simple increase or decrease, which does not change the nature of what is changed. But quantitative change, increase or decrease, cannot continue indefinitely. At a certain point it always leads to a qualitative change; and at this critical point (or “nodal point,” as Hegel called it) a qualitative change occurs relatively suddenly, in a leap, so to speak.
For example, if you heat water, it will not become hotter indefinitely; at a certain critical temperature, it begins to turn into vapor, undergoing a qualitative transformation from liquid to gas. More and more weight can be attached to a rope used for lifting weights, but the rope cannot withstand an infinitely large load: at a certain moment the rope must break. A steam boiler can withstand more and more steam pressure - up to the point where it explodes. A plant variety can undergo many changes over a number of generations. Such changes, for example, can occur under conditions of lower temperature. This variety remains unchanged until a moment comes when suddenly a qualitative change occurs, a change in the heredity of the plant. In the same way, as a result of the accumulation of a number of quantitative changes, spring wheat turns into winter wheat, and vice versa.
This law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones is also valid for the development of society. Thus, before the system of industrial capitalism arose, there was a process of accumulation of wealth in monetary form in a few private hands (largely through colonial plunder) and the formation of a propertyless proletariat (through the enclosure and expulsion of peasants from the land). At a certain stage in this process, when enough money had been accumulated to constitute capital for industrial activity, when enough people had been proletarianized to provide the necessary labor, the conditions were ripe for the emergence of industrial capitalism. At this point, the accumulation of quantitative changes led to the emergence of a qualitative stage in the development of society.
In general, qualitative changes occur relatively suddenly, in the form of a leap. The new is born suddenly, although its possibility was already contained in the gradual evolutionary process of continuous quantitative change that occurred before.
Thus we find that a continuous, gradual quantitative change at a certain point leads to a discontinuous, sudden qualitative change. We have already noted in the previous chapter that most of those who considered the laws of development of nature and society saw this development only from its continuous side. This means that they considered development only from the side of the process of growth, quantitative change, and did not see its qualitative side, namely, that at a certain point in the gradual process of growth a new quality suddenly appears, a qualitative transformation occurs.

The sudden appearance of a new quality at a certain point in the gradual process of growth occurs during the transformation of society. Capitalist society will be transformed into a socialist society only when the dominance of one class is replaced by the dominance of another class, and this is a radical transformation, a leap to a new state of society, a revolution.
If, on the other hand, we turn our attention to the qualitative side of the matter, we will see that qualitative changes always arise as a result of the accumulation of quantitative changes and that qualitative differences are based on quantitative differences.
Since quantitative changes must at a certain point lead to a qualitative change, then if we want to achieve a qualitative change, we must study its quantitative basis and know what needs to be increased and what decreased in order to produce the required change.
...........
Thus we see that quantitative changes at a certain point turn into qualitative changes and that qualitative differences are based on quantitative differences. This is a universal feature of development.

Z the law of the transition of quantity into quality or the law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones: there is no such thing.
- 04/14/08 -

The “law of the transition of quantity” into quality and back is one of Engels’ laws, not Hegel’s.

The whole absurdity of this “law” and its explanations lies in the fact that Engels took as a basis not Hegel’s conclusions, but a separate example, which is typical when the amount of heat of a particular substance changes, but is not a law, at least in terms of quality and the very concept “ law,” especially in the sense of law according to Hegel.
Although... thanks to the emergence of Engels’ “law” of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative it is only unequivocally established that development or change cannot be justified on the basis of quantity(and its changes).

The main dilemma of this “law” is that in the traditional sense (Marx’s) the transition is considered quantitative changes, and in modern times - quantities.
The main paradox of the traditional interpretation of the “law” under discussion is manifested in directly understood “quantitative changes”, which, in addition, are considered outside of their certainty and without the quality of What changes.
The main paradox of the modern interpretation of the “law” under discussion lies in the term “quantity”, since it is usually taken without reference, which is equivalent to the riddle: “what comes first - the egg or the chicken?” In general, unrelated concepts, both the discussed “law” and the given riddle are nothing more than a set of words (but, for example, as soon as an egg is specifically indicated, it is immediately clear that it was laid by a specific chicken, but for a hypothetical premise, for example about “the very first egg not laid by a chicken,” it is necessary to indicate the reason for its appearance).
If we talk about the “transition” of quantitative changes into qualitative changes, then we should understand that we are not talking about existence and phenomena, but about change, and from different positions and regardless of something. And nothing more. Then the desired statements about change cannot be obtained; something is said about the change itself.
If we talk about the “transition of quantity into quality,” then we will have to explain and prove the change of dialectical categories, which in itself is problematic for materialism. If we take this fact outside of transformations of categories, then this will lead to the fact that the conversation will be conducted specifically already only about something itself, about his being, and not about his subsequent physical state. In other words, there is no point in talking about “the transition from quantity to quality.”

The statement of the transition of quantity or quantitative changes without (analysis of) quality in a first approximation looks funny, but in essence is erroneous.
However the main thing that undermines the “law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative”, so this is a mention of the fact (for example, TSB. T. 32. P. 464) that V.I. Lenin operated with the denial of the old quality and the affirmation of the new quality (by the way, otherwise transition from capitalism to socialism cannot be justified at all)…

It’s good that this Engels “law” is rarely attributed to Hegel; its authors are considered to be K. Marx and F. Engels. (Perhaps this is why only this “law” of all the “laws of dialectics” is traditionally considered objective?)

We also point out that the paradox is also that dialectical materialism no longer exists and historical materialism, as scientific or educational disciplines, i.e. those basic provisions on the basis of which it would still be possible to reconstruct the law under discussion; and modern philosophical sciences, for a materialistic understanding of the corresponding categories and processes, have to appeal to the philosophy of Hegel, which they previously defined as idealistic...

In Hegel’s philosophy and, in general, in dialectical philosophy there is no “law of the negation of negation”, "law transition from quantity to quality" and "law unity and struggle of opposites"; - these are all inventions of the founders and followers of dialectical materialism.

(The justification for the falsity of the “law” is given in Text Block No. 4. For the list, see Text Blocks).

A. In the traditional, verified Soviet definition dialectical materialism the “law” under discussion is referred to as the “law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones” and is defined as one of the universal objective laws of the development of nature, society and thinking.
It should be noted that the cautious traditional definition uses the term “quantitative changes” and not “quantity”, because quantity refers to being, not to nature, society and human thinking. In Soviet times, this was still distinguished. Now the “quantity” is considered...
But, firstly, the whole question immediately rests on what is said about transition, which is self-determination concepts (not rational concept!) itself, which physically relates to nature, society and human thinking... cannot (and if it is included in a conclusion, then it must be in oppositions of mediation).
Secondly, they also talk about a certain transition, and not just something, but quantitative... changes. Those. it says that process is change! (According to Hegel, A=A is empty abstraction, an expression that reflects absolutely nothing.)
Thirdly, if we talk about “the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative (changes)”, then it should be understood that we are not talking about something and phenomena, but about change, and from different positions and without regard to something. And nothing more. Then the desired statements about change cannot be obtained; something is said about the change itself.
If we talk about the “transition from quantity to quality,” then we will have to explain and prove the change in categories, which in itself is problematic.
If we take this fact outside of transformations of categories, then this will lead to the fact that the conversation will be conducted specifically already only about something itself, and not about it and its subsequent state. In other words, talking about a “transition in quantity” makes no sense at all.
And why is such a “law” needed, especially one that does not relate to nature, society and human thinking?

It is usually explained that this “law” shows how the process of development of objects and phenomena of the material world occurs. But why then was human thinking introduced into its sphere?

Further, it is said that the accumulation of gradual quantitative changes (i.e., the accumulation of “differences” that are qualitative) leads to fundamental, qualitative changes (i.e., in addition, an intermediate change in something is allowed without changing its quality), to an abrupt transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state (i.e., it turns out, again, that intermediate states do not have qualities). And it is absolutely clear that the understanding of this “law” is reduced to the fact that intermediate states are considered to be of no quality, or their quality is not taken into account, but then quantity should not be taken into account.
Sometimes ignoring quality or the operation of this “law” in general is justified precisely by the insignificance of quantitative changes, but in such cases the obligatory nature of the resulting fundamental changes and their possibility in general are not proven.
It is very noteworthy that previously a lot was said about Hegel’s mystification of the entire process of development, depicting it as the development of concepts, categories, thoughts (including quality and quantity). In other words, it is clearly understood that Hegel, using quantity and quality, spoke about the development of ideas and concepts (the unity of being and essence). So why should the “mechanic” of changing the concept blame, for example, nature? This gets around the fact that it is stipulated that for the first time the scientific understanding of quality, quantity and the “transition of quantitative changes into qualitative” was given ... by K. Mark (and F. Engels), moreover, in new definitions of quantity and quality corresponding to materialism (with them you can read in textbooks), already as those that are inherent in... objects and phenomena of the material world. Moreover, it is indicated that a certain quality always corresponds to quantitative relationships, but this is already categories, so we are essentially talking about something else, and materialistic definitions they don't play any role here.
At the same time, firstly, recognition of the existence of intangible attributes for objects of the material world, i.e. supersensibility, which materialism denies, leads to the collapse of the paradigmatic basis of materialism: it (implicitly) recognizes and uses what it denies in principle.
Secondly, in dialectical materialism, transition (as well as negation) is not defined, i.e. understood either mathematically or... idealistically, i.e. inapplicable to the philosophical categories of dialectical materialism. In other words, the term “transition” cannot be combined with materialistic “quantity” and “quality” within the framework of materialism.
Thirdly, in some cases of explanation, intermediate quantitative states still have their own quality, i.e. it is recognized that quality is changing, but this, in turn, leads to the fact that there cannot be fundamental, abrupt changes approved by law. It turns out there cannot be a law. You can, of course, take a sufficiently large time interval so that you can see , as well as using idealistic and materialistic concepts in one conclusion. But if you don’t choose the necessary conditions and facts, then fundamentally different qualities you won't see. In other words, everything depends on the goal setting of the authors of the “law” (on the ideological setting of dialectical materialism) - this is what the “law” of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative depends on! And this is precisely what corresponds to the fact that K. Marx considered the quantitative and qualitative aspects of social processes (but did not go into the ideality of their categories).

And the examples explaining the “law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones” clearly do not stand up to criticism.
For example, it was said that every crystalline solid has its own melting point. At the same time, a reference was given to Engels’ “Dialectics of Nature,” which talks about the addition or decrease... of movement. But one must not confuse the state of aggregation of the entire body with the structure of the atoms (quality) of the body: for example, when lead is melted, gold atoms are not formed. Or an example was given that two nitrogen atoms, when combined with an oxygen atom, give nitrous oxide (gas), and when combined with five oxygen atoms, nitric anhydride (solid); but the “law” stipulates a change in quantity: it would also be necessary to consider the cases of combining two nitrogen atoms with 2, 3 and 4 oxygen atoms... (But ethyl alcohol (C 2 H 5 OH) and methyl alcohol (CH 3 OH) - liquids.) And, quite thoughtlessly, it was said that the transition from capitalism to socialism is the path of fundamental qualitative transformations of capitalist society (but here, in the pursuit of ideological dividends, they forgot... about quantity).
Regarding the cooling or heating of water, the following should also be separately noted: “in the process of a simple experiment, directly observing the process, you can be convinced that when there is a “simple quantitative change in temperature” (during the process of heating water), abrupt changes in the state of aggregation do not occur , and, on the contrary, when noticeable changes in the aggregate state of water occur, the water temperature does not change" (http://www.baryakin.ru/S23/S2335r41-3.htm)...

B. In modern misconceptions, it is believed that the “law of the transition of quantity into quality” is the second of the main “laws of dialectics”, which indicates the conditionality of qualitative changes by quantitative ones, although in a number of cases, in addition, it is also said that quantitative changes are conditioned by qualitative ones. It is indicated that in any process and phenomenon the change is increasing, and when the quantity reaches a critical mass, then a transition to a new qualitative level occurs. Along with the transition from quantity to quality, a reverse transition occurs - quality to quantity (i.e., it turns out that a new quality is not formed).
Changes in the development process are usually explained by the fact that quality influences the disappearance of some and the formation of other quantitative characteristics, i.e. quality: 1) determines the nature and direction of quantitative changes, 2) has an impact on the rate of occurrence of quantitative changes and 3) determines the measure of a specific change. At the same time, quality cannot change indefinitely, and a moment comes when a change in quality leads to a change in measure, to a radical transformation of the essence of what is changing. It is indicated that such moments are called “nodes” (i.e. in this case the term of Hegel’s philosophy is used!), and the transition itself to another state is called a “leap”. The very transition of quantity into a fundamentally new quality can occur A) abruptly, suddenly, spasmodically or b) imperceptibly, evolutionarily. Etc. At the same time, much is taken from Hegel’s philosophy...

But, firstly, as already indicated, in the modern interpretation of the “law” under discussion, the term “quantity” is taken irrespectively (for being), i.e. discussed "law" A) in each specific case requires the determination of additional conditions, cannot be universal, i.e. cannot be law, and b) cannot relate to nature and society.

Secondly, the indication that “the change is increasing, and when the quantity reaches a critical mass, then after that there is a transition to a new qualitative level,” determines that the whole point is change, i.e. not in quantity, which can generally be a form, but what aspects and conditions of this process in a particular case of research are taken into account - this is its methodological question.
In other words, thanks to emergence The “law” under discussion clearly states that development or change cannot be justified on the basis of quantity (and its changes).

In addition, thirdly, even taking into account the safety net (the conditionality of quantitative changes by qualitative ones), it is no longer noticed that, in fact, we are talking about the transition of everything into everything, and even in all directions; and there can be no return to the old, although at the same time it is said that the change is increasing; and even the regression of socialism could be justified then, but for some reason this issue was not considered in the USSR...

IN . In addition to the above critical provisions regarding the “law” under discussion, we present the following.

Firstly, to substantiate it in dialectics businesslike it is attributed that she considers development and change as a transition from minor, hidden, gradual quantitative changes to radical, open - qualitative changes, and qualitative changes occur 1) suddenly, in the form of an abrupt transition from one state to another state and 2) not by chance, but naturally, due to the accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes.
In other words, hiding behind the authority of dialectics, and without even understanding its own essence, they assign to it the fictitious essence of the law under discussion.
And why is it not mentioned that the “law” under discussion was formulated by Marx and Engels? Why attribute to dialectics what it does not proclaim? It is also necessary to remember that Marx said that he turned Hegelian dialectics upside down [ Marx K., Engels F . Op. - 2nd ed. - T. 23. P. 21], i.e. Moreover, the provisions of dialectics cannot have any relation to the “law” of dialectical materialism.
At the same time, for the materialist theory of knowledge there arose paradox of communism, as the highest form of development of societies, because in the process of its own quantitative changes, it must be replaced, and not be the highest, final...

Secondly, according to dialectics, how theories of knowledge dialectical philosophy, transition quantity into quality can A) be characterized others, in particular, such new things that are not related to the old ones, that's where the leap matters, And b) will not come true.

Thirdly, for any change, the initial and final states any always differ (at least in time), and then it would be easier to say, as if according to Heraclitus, that everything flows, everything changes. And this is an immutable fact that it never occurred to anyone to call a law.

Fourthly, the discussed “law” is not satisfied in many cases, for example, for equilibrium processes, for cyclic processes, for asymptotic processes, i.e. is not only universal and universal, but also a law.

Fifthly, the “law” under discussion is so abstract (which, perhaps, defines it as supposedly general and universal) that in a specific case, without additional information, it is impossible to predict whether qualitative changes will occur at all.

Sixthly, it is often simply not taken into account, especially when considering social development, that factors that are not inherent in the scope of the “law” under discussion play a huge role in processes, and when they are introduced into consideration, it turns into a description of spontaneously acting factors, i.e. again ceases to be a law.

Seventh, idealized concept transition" can be combined with materialist (Marxian) "quality" and "quantity" only when using the methodological apparatus of dialectical philosophy, i.e. only taking into account that A) he is understood as having self-determination(something) itself and, therefore, gives a result, which, in turn, is associated with the imputation withdrawals, And b) they are understood as concrete. In particular, you should not miss
- qualitative definitions of something that should be recorded,
- specificity of the initial quantity,
- new internal and external provisions both in the process and as a result, i.e. transitions to the result are carried out not only from moments of the initial (state), but also include others that are also present in the result. It is necessary to take into account “all quantities”, and not the quantities of only a given object or phenomenon; one would have to talk about the “law of the transition of quantities into quality,” indicating “all” quantities and the conditions corresponding to them and the transition, which already leads to the impossibility of defining any given object or phenomenon as one, torn from the entire diversity of existence.

Eighth, since it is considered transition, then the operand of the sequence, which the discussed “law” expresses, is Hegelian concept, not rational concept, i.e. a sequence formulated for universality (also incorrectly) cannot be apply directly to an object or phenomenon in nature, i.e. Only objective things can be discussed logical, not material.

Ninth, it is not proven that the “law” under discussion can function under the conditions of other laws, regardless of or in conjunction with them.

Tenth, as it turns out, the “law” under discussion determines that the whole point is in change, and not in quantity, which can generally be a form, i.e. development and change cannot be justified on the basis of quantity (and its change).

Eleventh, there is confusion and substitution of the concepts of quantity and quality and specific quantity and quality.

Twelfth, in dialectical materialism, which pursued clearly ideological goals in any way, the principles of the mandatory effectiveness of changes in one direction and the irrevocable appearance of new how important excellent, not just next(this was necessary to approve the replacement of capitalism with communism), which led to the understanding of the inevitability of the emergence of a new quality, as well as the supposed impossibility of returning from the socialism of the USSR to capitalism...

Thirteenth, if the objectivity and universality of the “law” under discussion is recognized, then the question arises about the “independence” of its “existence,” as well as about the mechanism of its action. Without answers to these questions, and science does not provide them, there is a certain otherworldliness, mysticism of the “law” under discussion (more precisely, inconsistency), which is fully consistent with theological concepts, and not objective scientific ones. In other words, sciences find themselves captive to mystical views and cannot assert their materialistic, objective and cognitive character. Then what are they?

Fourteenth,...

(We will not give dialectical reflexive arguments for now, since dialectical philosophy is not studied in universities, and the required basic categories have not yet been disclosed on the website.)

G. So, it should be recognized that, as with the other two “laws” of philosophy, the “law” under discussion is fictitious, moreover, some processes do not obey it at all, and whether a qualitative change will occur or not depends on content(things, process, conclusions) and external conditions, and not from “quantity”.

But The scientific community will not abandon the “law of the transition of quantity into quality” for a long time, which will have disastrous results both for the development of scientific knowledge and for understanding many pressing problems.

Dialectics is the doctrine of the most general laws of development and forms of communication in nature and society, as well as a method of cognition based on this doctrine. The basic laws of dialectics express the patterns of development of the world, as well as knowledge. The laws of dialectics are considered universal, that is, their actions are manifested in all objects and processes. In other words, dialectics claims to have some kind of universality.

The law of unity and struggle of opposites

The law of unity and struggle of opposites says this: every object has opposite sides, properties, tendencies; they, mutually complementing and mutually negating each other, constitute a contradiction, which is the reason for the development of the object. A striking example of this is the political sphere of social life, where the ruling forces and various opposition act as opposites. One of the functions of the opposition is to point out the shortcomings of the current course. If there was a guarantee that no one would be able to criticize, much less displace, the ruling force, then it would have less incentive to try to lead at least some decent line. The main phases of development of the contradiction are as follows. 1. Harmony - opposites do not interfere with the unity of the system, revealing the diversity of its properties. 2. Disharmony - one of the opposites tries to strengthen at the expense of the other. 3. Conflict - the struggle between opposites reaches its limit, the existence of the whole - the system - is in question. 4. Resolution of the contradiction: several options are possible: 4.1. The destruction of one of the opposites with its subsequent restoration.

4.2. A split in the system or mutual destruction of opposites, both of which are the death of the whole.

4.3. Temporary return to harmony.

4.4. The removal of contradiction is an evolutionary leap in which the old contradiction loses its meaning, that is, this option is development through the struggle of opposites. An example in the political sphere. Stages 1-3 - those dissatisfied with the existing situation are trying to strengthen their positions; we move from a stable situation to an intensification of political struggle, a revolutionary situation or a situation close to it. Here are the options below. 4.1. The opposition was dispersed, activists were arrested, but later the opposition movement will again begin to gain momentum.

4.2. Civil war.

4.3. Some concessions to the opposition, as a result of which the situation temporarily stabilizes. 4.4. Progressive reforms.

The law of the transition of quantity to quality

The law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative states: a change in the quality of an object occurs when the change in its quantitative characteristics crosses a certain boundary. A striking example is a change in the aggregate states of substances, and the boundaries here are the melting and boiling points. This law of dialectics speaks of the quasi-stability of systems: there are intervals at which systems are stable, and points between these intervals at which systems are unstable. Dialectics believes that there is an interval within which a given quality is preserved, despite changes in quantitative characteristics. When crossing boundaries, a leap occurs - a transition from one qualitative state to another. A striking example is how angry some people get: at first they seem to tolerate it, and then, when the negativity accumulates, they rage, and can even break something. Well, or at least they will swear masterfully.