Liu Dachun: The Integration of Scientific and Technological Achievements with Dialectical Thought—Retrospect and Prospect of the Centenary Publication of Engels's "Dialectics of Nature"
It has been 100 years since the official publication of Engels's Dialectic of Nature [1] in 1925. Although it remains an unfinished manuscript, it demonstrates Engels’s insight into the laws governing the development of nature and the natural sciences, embodying his grand ambition to synthesize scientific and technological achievements with dialectical thought. The dissemination and study of Dialectic of Nature have continually stimulated new vitality, making it an important theoretical source for the view of nature, the view of science and technology, and scientific methodology.
The Tortuous Path to Publication of Dialectic of Nature
Dialectic of Nature consists of manuscripts written by Engels between 1873 and 1883, in which he systematically reviewed the scientific achievements of the time and interpreted them using the method of dialectical materialism. In a letter to Marx dated May 30, 1873, Engels first proposed the conception and general framework of "dialectical thought in the natural sciences," planning a work that would comprehensively elucidate the inherent dialectics of the natural world. Over the following decade, Engels critiqued the then-popular vulgar materialism and Social Darwinism, while simultaneously absorbing achievements such as cell theory, the law of conservation and transformation of energy, and biological evolution, attempting to establish a basis for materialist dialectics in natural history.
However, the manuscript was set aside twice as Engels attended to more pressing tasks. From May 1876 to July 1878, the Social Democratic Party of Germany requested that Engels immediately counter Eugen Dühring's systematic attack on Marxism; he thus had to interrupt the writing of Dialectic of Nature to concentrate on Anti-Dühring. After Marx’s death in March 1883, Engels devoted his full energy to organizing and publishing the second, third, and fourth volumes of Capital, never returning to the writing of Dialectic of Nature. Subsequently, Engels preserved the manuscripts in four separate bundles and named them accordingly.
After Engels’s death, apart from private letters, all his correspondence, manuscripts, communications between Marx and Engels, and his entire library were kept by the Social Democratic Party of Germany. The Second International held a skeptical attitude toward the dialectics of nature; they published only two of the articles between 1896 and 1898, while the rest remained locked in drawers. It was not until 1925, when the full text was first published in the second volume of the Moscow edition of the Marx-Engels Archives—a bilingual Russian and German edition organized by David Ryazanov, director of the Marx-Engels Institute of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)—that this important text became known to the world.
Engels left no definitive instructions on how to arrange the publication of these unfinished manuscripts. However, he had personally organized them into four bundles titled: "Dialectics and Natural Science," "Natural Research and Dialectics," "Dialectic of Nature," and "Mathematics and Natural Science: Various Notes." The manuscript consists of 181 parts, including 10 essays, 169 notes and fragments, and two draft plans. Although not all were completed as polished articles, the draft plans provided future generations with a complete logical structure for the chapters: Historical Introduction → General Outline of Dialectics → Classification of Sciences → Specific Natural Sciences → Human Labor and Technology → Mathematics and Methodology. These provided a reference for the arrangement of the published manuscript.
Since Engels himself did not finalize a book title, early versions varied slightly. The 1925 Russian edition was titled Диалектика природы (The Dialectic of Nature); the 1927 German standalone volume was renamed Dialektik und Natur (Dialectics and Nature); only in the 1932 German edition and thereafter did it stabilize as Dialektik der Natur, commonly translated into Chinese as Ziran Bianzhengfa (自然辩证法).
As an intellectual text, Engels’s Dialectic of Nature has long been the subject of both controversy and praise in international academic circles. On one hand, it is regarded as an exemplary model for the synthesis of natural science and dialectical materialism, hailed by many historians of science, Marxist theorists, and scientists as a forward-looking philosophical text. On the other hand, its unfinished state, the manner of its organization, and questions regarding "whether a dialectic of nature is valid" have sparked reflection within the philosophical and scientific communities.
The Dissemination and Development of Dialectic of Nature in China
After Dialectic of Nature was introduced to China, its influence was no longer confined to the theoretical level. It became an indispensable part of Marxist philosophy; on this basis, it exerted a profound impact on the formation and evolution of Chinese scientific thought, the formulation and optimization of science and technology policy, and the construction of the educational system, particularly the higher education curriculum. In China, Dialectic of Nature underwent a continuous process of progression from translation and introduction to absorption and the innovation of localized theory, forming a deep interaction with China’s scientific practice, philosophical research, and institutional construction.
1. 1932–1949: The Early Period of Dissemination. The first Chinese translation of Dialectic of Nature was Du Weizhi's version in 1932. As the first complete translation to appear, it was reprinted many times during the 1930s and 40s and holds undeniable significance in the historical process of Marxism’s dissemination to China.
During the Yan'an period [2], the study and discussion of the dialectics of nature were closely integrated with the Marxist philosophical training of cadres. Comrade Mao Zedong emphasized the importance of "integrating theory with practice" in his report Rectify the Party's Style of Work [3], which had a great influence at the time. From 1940 onward, the "Dialectics of Nature Discussion Group" and the "Natural Science Research Association" were established in the Liberated Areas [4] to study dialectical materialism, and the Abridged Edition of the Dialectic of Nature, compiled by Xu Teli and Yu Guangyuan, was designated as a required text for cadres.
2. 1949–1978: The Developmental Process. In the early period of the People's Republic of China, theoretical exploration of the dialectics of nature maintained a direct connection with the concurrent Marxist theoretical education; the two complemented each other, jointly promoting the popularization of philosophical thought and the construction of a theoretical system.
The Zheng Yili translation (1950) and the joint translation by Cao Baohua, Yu Guangyuan, and Xie Ning (1955) were published in succession. In 1956, based on the strategic overall situation of national construction, the Party Central Committee issued the call to "march toward science." In the same year, the National Conference on the Disciplinary Planning of the Dialectics of Nature was held. The meeting drafted and adopted the Draft Twelve-Year (1956–1967) Research Plan for the Dialectics of Nature (Philosophical Problems in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences). At this conference, "Dialectics of Nature" was established as an academic discipline, emphasizing that it would play an important theoretical guiding role in the development of science and technology. The Institute of Philosophy of the Chinese Academy of Sciences also officially established the Dialectics of Nature Research Group that year, which was the first institution specifically engaged in academic research on the dialectics of nature after the founding of New China.
3. From Reform and Opening-up to the Present: The Development and Institutionalization of the Dialectics of Nature. Since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up [5], Chinese research in the dialectics of nature has inherited historical traditions while integrating contemporary developments, gradually forming its own unique academic characteristics and disciplinary positioning.
In the 1980s, by virtue of its interdisciplinary nature and close ties to science, technology, and philosophy, the dialectics of nature played a significant role in Chinese academic and intellectual circles, becoming a vanguard force in promoting "ideological liberation" and theoretical innovation. In 1981, the China Society for Dialectics of Nature was officially established, creating an important platform for national academic discussion. Around this time, a series of professional academic journals closely related to the development of the discipline appeared, including the Journal of Dialectics of Nature (1979), Studies in Dialectics of Nature (1985), and Science, Technology and Dialectics (1984) (later renamed Studies in Philosophy of Science and Technology). These journals provided stable academic carriers for research and exchange. In 1987, the State Education Commission officially listed "Dialectics of Nature" as a Marxist theory course for Master's students in all science, engineering, agriculture, and medical specialties in higher education institutions, while also stipulating that a course on "The Modern Scientific and Technological Revolution and Marxism" must be offered to doctoral students in these fields. That same year, to better promote the professional development of the discipline, the Ministry of Education adjusted the sub-discipline "Dialectics of Nature" under the graduate philosophy major to "Philosophy of Science and Technology (Dialectics of Nature)." With the continuous perfection of disciplinary institutions, the dialectics of nature made striking progress in teaching systems, scientific research, and talent cultivation.
In the 1990s, the Philosophy of Science and Technology (Dialectics of Nature) achieved institutionalization within the national higher education system, being established as a second-tier discipline under the first-tier discipline of Philosophy. This process not only consolidated its status in the academic system but also provided institutional guarantees for the localized study of the dialectics of nature.
In the first decade of the 21st century, research in the philosophy of science and technology stayed closer to the needs of the era, exhibiting a trend toward diversification. The relationships between nature and humans, science and society, and science and the humanities became central topics in theoretical circles.
In the second decade of the 21st century, research focused on strengthening scientific and ecological awareness throughout society, deeply analyzing the integration of the scientific and humanistic spirits. It actively cultivated the concepts and mechanisms for original innovation, striving to promote China’s transformation from a large scientific and technological nation to a scientific and technological power.
At present, the Chinese cause of the dialectics of nature and the discipline of philosophy of science and technology have entered a new stage of development. They are actively and proactively welcoming a new round of scientific and technological revolution, striving to respond to the opportunities and challenges brought by breakthrough progress in new quality productive forces, artificial intelligence, new energy, new materials, and life technologies.
The Centenary Commemoration and Outlook for Dialectic of Nature
Entering the 21st century, this work published a hundred years ago once again impacts the conceptual horizon. Amid the call of the times, commemorating the centenary of its publication is not only a tribute to a classic but also a means to continue expanding its intellectual boundaries and academic potential.
1. "Activating" the 21st-Century Vitality of Dialectic of Nature
As an unfinished work, Dialectic of Nature reflects Engels’s ambition to outline the overall logic of the natural sciences while leaving broad space for innovation. It is not merely a document of intellectual history, but a theoretical treasure trove capable of dialogue with contemporary scientific and technological transformations. It maintains its vitality in several ways: as a "resource bank" for ecological critique; as a "non-linear philosophical prototype" for systems science and AI ethics; and as an institutional cornerstone for the interdisciplinary field of "Science, Technology, and Society" (STS). I highlight the most prominent examples below:
First, it has advanced the development of the "metabolic rift" theory. American scholar John Bellamy Foster considers Engels to be one of the founding thinkers of modern ecology. He further points out that it was precisely this profound critical materialist perspective that led Engels to emphasize the absurdity of the then-mainstream concept of "conquering nature"—as if nature were an alien territory to be conquered at will, or as if humans did not exist within the material metabolic process of the Earth. Such attempts to conquer the Earth, once they breach various critical thresholds (or tipping points), will ultimately only invite what he metaphorically termed nature's "revenge."
Second, it laid the logical foundation for the fields of anthropology and the philosophy of technology. American scholar Stephen Jay Gould regarded "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" as a 19th-century precursor to the theory of "gene-culture coevolution." As a scholar critical of "extreme genetic determinism," Gould confirmed that Engels's theory shares a deep underlying logic with gene-culture coevolution. Furthermore, some scholars believe that Engels’s coevolutionary model of "hand-tool-brain" provides a historical prototype for research into "embodied cognition" in artificial intelligence.
Third, it has facilitated new trends in the "Digital Dialectics of Nature." In the face of algorithmic governance and big data surveillance, some young scholars in Europe and America have organized "Digital Dialectics of Nature" workshops. They propose applying Engels’s "transformation of quality into quantity" to explain the "emergence" and the "black box" ethical dilemmas of deep learning, attempting to establish "dialectical categories of algorithmic interpretability." They have also rewritten the "negation of the negation" as "algorithmic iteration—human supervision—re-iteration" to discuss the ethics of interpretability in deep learning, making this 19th-century manuscript a crucial reference in current debates on AI governance.
Fourth, as a foundation for systems science...
A “nonlinear philosophical prototype.” In Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature, Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers provide insight into the correlation between dialectics and the science of complexity; the “quantity-quality” model provides a philosophical prototype for the theory of dissipative structures. The dialectical thinking inherent in the Dialectics of Nature recognizes the unity of contingency and necessity, which to a certain extent provided a developmental template for nonlinear philosophy. According to data statistics from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), among the most highly cited papers in the field of the philosophy of science and technology over the past decade, approximately 70% of the research results focus on three major directions: ecological philosophy, innovation governance, and complex systems. These issues happen to coincide highly with the core concerns of the Dialectics of Nature.
Fifth, it serves as the institutional cornerstone for the interdisciplinary field of “Science, Technology, and Society” (STS). With the continuous improvement of the disciplinary system and the increasing number of researchers, the philosophy of science and technology has gradually evolved into an “incubation platform” for numerous emerging disciplines. This process has not only enriched the disciplinary connotation but also promoted the vigorous development of cross-disciplinary research, particularly as STS demonstrates broad prospects in theoretical construction and practical application. The dialectics of nature has evolved from its initial focus on the philosophy of nature and views of nature, gradually expanding into fields such as the philosophy of science—encompassing scientific epistemology and methodology—the philosophy of technology, and the history of scientific and technological thought. Furthermore, it has extended into research on science, technology, and society closely related to practice, including science and technology policy, management, and ethics. At the same time, it has assimilated research results from emerging and interdisciplinary subjects such as the science of science, “latent science” [6], futurology, and systems science, forming a multi-layered, broad-ranging, and integrated cross-disciplinary academic system that deepens theoretical exploration and strengthens its practical guiding function. Currently, we are in a “period of theoretical expansion” for the development of the philosophy of science and technology. Guided by a relaxed and flexible “big pocket” [7] development strategy, a comprehensive school of the philosophy of science and technology—spanning the fringes and intersections of the natural sciences and the philosophical and social sciences—is steadily rising. The interdisciplinary subject of STS has not only absorbed and integrated scholars from different research directions but also continues to advance in theoretical inquiry and methodological innovation, persistently enhancing the interdisciplinarity and inclusiveness of the field.
- The contemporary value of the Dialectics of Nature is also frequently reflected in several important theoretical and practical activities.
First, in theoretical innovation and the refinement of the Marxist view of nature. The Dialectics of Nature broke through the abstract framework of Hegelian idealism; its philosophical innovation is regarded as “the first systematic exposition of the dialectical materialist view of nature.” We must grasp its reference role in elevating the new view of nature in the contemporary era, providing theoretical guidance for green development and the construction of ecological civilization, and becoming an important philosophical basis for policies promoting high-quality development.
Second, as the philosophical support for the Scientific Outlook on Development [8] and technological innovation. The dialectical analysis of various branches of natural science in the Dialectics of Nature provides a methodological reference for contemporary scientific and technological innovation. Researchers in emerging fields such as modern systems science and quantum mechanics can use the holistic thinking of the dialectics of nature to enhance their interdisciplinary integration capabilities and promote scientific and technological innovation.
Third, in education and personnel training. The study and practice of the Dialectics of Nature help to cultivate composite talents capable of transforming philosophical thinking into scientific research practice. It will continue to serve as an important textbook for the combination of philosophy and natural science at the postgraduate level, helping students to establish a Marxist worldview and a scientific outlook on development.
Fourth, in practical critique and social transformation. Engels positioned dialectics as a tool for “practical critique,” emphasizing that the transformation of nature through human practical activity must follow natural laws. In contemporary science and technology ethics, the governance of artificial intelligence, and the formulation of resource utilization policies, this viewpoint will powerfully remind policymakers to maintain awe and respect for nature alongside technological progress.
This manuscript, born in 19th-century Europe, spanning three centuries and still in a state of becoming, is, as intended, restlessly fulfilling its “unfinished” mission.