DOCSLIB.ORG

In Soviet Philosophy 42 Andrey Maidansky

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Soviet Philosophy 42 Andrey Maidansky Historical Materialism Book Series Editorial Board Sébastien Budgen (Paris) Steve Edwards (London) Juan Grigera (London) Marcel van der Linden (Amsterdam) Peter Thomas (London) volume 108 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/hm The Practical Essence of Man The ‘Activity Approach’ in Late Soviet Philosophy Edited by Andrey Maidansky Vesa Oittinen leiden | boston Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The practical essence of man : the 'activity approach' in late Soviet philosophy / edited by Andrey Maidansky, Vesa Oittinen. pages cm. – (Historical materialism book series, ISSN 1570-1522 ; VOLUME 108) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-27313-9 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-27314-6 (e-book) 1. Philosophy, Russian–20th century. 2. Act (Philosophy) I. Maidansky, Andrey, editor. B4231.P68 2015 197–dc23 2015029550 This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1570-1522 isbn 978-90-04-27313-9 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-27314-6 (e-book) Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents Introduction 1 Andrey Maidansky and Vesa Oittinen 1 Activity and the Search for True Materialism 17 David Bakhurst 2 ‘Praxis’ as the Criterion of Truth? The Aporias of Soviet Marxism and the Activity Approach 29 Vesa Oittinen 3 Reality as Activity: The Concept of Praxis in Soviet Philosophy 42 Andrey Maidansky 4 The Category of Activity in Soviet Philosophy 58 Inna Titarenko 5 The Activity Approach and Metaphysics 75 Edward M. Swiderski 6 Abstract and Concrete Understanding of Activity: ‘Activity’ and ‘Labour’ in Soviet Philosophy 96 Sergey Mareyev 7 The Kiev Philosophical School in the Light of the Marxist Theory of Activity 103 Elena Mareyeva 8 The Evolution of Batishchev’s Views on the Nature of Objective Activity, and the Limits of the Activity Approach 120 Alexander Khamidov 9 The Activity Approach in Soviet Philosophy and Contemporary Cognitive Studies 137 Vladislav Lektorsky vi contents 10 The Concept of the Scheme in the Activity-Theories of Ilyenkov and Piaget 154 Pentti Määttänen 11 The Ideal and the Dream-World: Evald Ilyenkov and Walter Benjamin on the Significance of Material Objects 167 Alex Levant Bibliography 189 Index 202 Introduction Andrey Maidansky and Vesa Oittinen The ‘activity theory’ in Soviet psychology, represented by Lev S. Vygotsky and Aleksei Leontiev, is now known around the world. However, its sibling, the philosophical activity theory, which arose among Soviet philosophers in the 1960s, remains virtually unknown outside Russia. Among the many reasons for this could be the feeling that Soviet philosophical culture has nothing to offer to the present. This bias is shared by many contemporary Russian thinkers, who regard the 70 years of Soviet rule as nothing more than a black hole in the intellectual history of Russia. However, closer examination reveals that there is more to this picture. Such names as Bakhtin, Lotman, Mamardashvili and Ilyenkov have already established themselves, even in Western consciousness, and offer glimpses of a different kind of reality behind the allegedly mono- lithic façade of Marxist-Leninist ideology. The ‘activity approach’ presented in this volume was a further innovative undercurrent of the ‘late Soviet’ period that is worthy of reception and critical assessment even today. Its represen- tatives posed important methodological questions concerning one of the main paradigms of Marxism and also of modern philosophy in general. In this book, several Russian and Western scholars analyse the activity ap- proach and its connections to similar approaches in other traditions, especially in Marxist philosophy and pragmatism. These contributions show that the scope of the activity approach is wider than that of Marxist philosophy, as it repeatedly contested the received ideas of Soviet Marxism-Leninism. This sys- tem of ideas represented a lacklustre interpretation of Marx’s thought, which was – to cite Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez’s now-classic exposition of the ‘praxis- viewpoint’ in Marxism – ‘reduced to the old materialism fertilised by dialectics on the one hand, or a materialist metaphysics which is little more than an inver- ted idealism, on the other’. According to Sánchez Vázquez, this reduction was ‘a result of the deliberate omission or rejection by some commentators of the centrality of the category of praxis’.1 While this statement is correct, it requires further comment. Of course, the official Soviet ideology could not silence the idea of ‘praxis’, since it held such a prominent place in the corpus of classical Marxist texts, not only in the writings of Marx and Engels themselves, but also in those of Plekhanov and Lenin. However, the ‘Diamat’ view on praxis was as 1 Sánchez Vázquez 1977, p. 3. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004273146_002 2 maidansky and oittinen lacklustre as its view on Marx’s heritage in general: the concept of praxis was interpreted in a manner that did not differ greatly from the way the Pragmatists treated it, which meant that praxis as a criterion of truth was de facto identified with ‘success’ in action. Actually, it is surprising to find how few perceptive ana- lyses there were in Soviet philosophy of the concept of praxis. The emergence of the activity approach among Soviet philosophers from the early 1960s onwards, initially in the rather narrow circles of some Moscow intellectuals, represented a decisive break with the vulgarised Diamat ideas. In a sense, this current was a Soviet analogy to the Western ‘Praxis’ Marxism as it was expounded at around the same time by such Yugoslav philosophers as Mihajlo Marković, Milan Kangrga and Svetozar Stojanović. But there are also some important differences. First of all, the Soviet ‘activity approach’ was a much more heterogeneous (one could even say amorphous) current. Another important characteristic of the Soviet activity approach-philosophy was that it developed quite independently from the Western theories of action. While both the philosophical theories of action in the Western world (such as Anscombe, Audi and von Wright) and the sociological theories (Max Weber, for example) were primarily interested in actions of individual agents from the viewpoint of teleological causality, the Soviet philosophers had a broader view of the subject-matter. They understood activity as the fundamental trait of man’s relations with the surrounding world; in this sense, the concept of activity could be seen as forming the methodological basis of all human and social sciences (not only that of psychology, where it had proved especially fruitful thanks to the works of Vygotsky, Rubinshtein and the Leontievs). Of course, this situation reflects the different philosophical backgrounds of Western and Soviet action-theories. The Western theories of action emerged mostly in the tradition of analytic philosophy, while the Soviet theories had their background in Marxism and its concept of praxis. However, the differ- ences between the Western and Soviet approaches can be traced back even further into the history of philosophy, back to Aristotle. In fact, it is possible to extract at least two different action-theories from Aristotle. One is ‘logical’, based on the problematics of practical syllogism (action as a result of premises), and the other is ‘anthropological’ (action as realisation of human essence). The Western theories of action often start with Aristotle’s idea of a practical syllogism, formulated in the seventh book of Nicomachean Ethics,2 and thus focus on logical reasoning around different kinds and modes of activity. The Soviet Marxist tradition of praxis and activity-theories, in turn, relies on the 2 Compare Ethica Nicomachea vii.iii.9 et seq. introduction 3 Aristotelian theory of prâxis and poíêsis, which not only concerns syllogistic judgement, but also refers to the actualisation of human essence itself.3 Although the Soviet philosophers tried to maintain a more or less convin- cing Marxist-Leninist façade in their publications, their divergent evolutionary paths soon brought them to face the abysses of fundamental philosophical questions in a manner that was quite different from that of the Yugoslav ‘prax- ists’, who had sketched a rather superficial and optimistic version of Marxism. Therefore, it is no surprise that some representatives of the Soviet ‘activity approach’,most notably Genrikh Batishchev, left the ground of Marxist thought as early as the 1970s. These experiences of the late Soviet philosophy made it clear that a web of unresolved questions lay around the Marxist concept
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ideal in Human Activity
    The Ideal in Human Activity Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov with a preface by Mike Cole Marxists Internet Archive P.O. Box 1541; Pacifica, CA 94044; USA. CC-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0) 2009 by Marxists Internet Archive. Cover design by Joan Levinson. Set by Andy Blunden in Garamond. Printed by Bookmasters Inc., Ohio. Distributed by Erythrós Press and Media. Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov (1924-1979) 1. Philosophy, 2. Activity Theory, 3. Dialectics, 4. Marxism. ISBN 978-0-9805428-7-5 References to Marx and Engels in footnotes have been changed to pro- vide the reference to MECW (Lawrence & Wishart, London, and Inter- national Publishers, New York, 1975-2005, 50 volumes), but the words given by the Progress Publishers translators in the text have been left as per their translation of Ilyenkov’s source. Table of Contents Dialectical Logic.................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 From the History of Dialectics 1. Descartes & Leibniz – The Subject Matter of Logic................ 5 2. Spinoza – Thought as an Attribute of Substance ...................14 3. Kant – Logic and Dialectics......................................................42 4. Fichte & Schelling – Dualism or Monism................................66 5. Hegel – Dialectics as Logic .......................................................94 6. Feuerbach – Idealism or Materialism?...................................122
    [Show full text]
  • Download Document
    World History in the World-System Analysis Perspective1 Ilya Kupryashkin (Far Eastern Federal University) Abstract This article concerns the main principles and heuristic potential of world-system analysis. It describes the relationship between the catego- ries of ‘formation’ and ‘world-system’ and the issue of defining the ‘revolution’ and ‘socialism.’ The author attempts to apply world-system analysis to world history. Introduction While contemporary socio-philosophical research has deviated from studying metatheories, still Marxism, despite having been regularly laid to rest, remains the only methodology and theory that is able to comprehend the essence of the processes happening in the world. Many of the leading representatives of the post-soviet Marxist school view re- actualisation of the Marxist heritage as the most important task for mod- ern methodology.2 The author of world-system analysis Immanuel Wallerstein openly calls himself a Marxist; and world-system analysis today is one of the most popular methods to study capital. In this paper we intend to show that world-system analysis can also elucidate the general course of world history, provided that some conceptual contra- dictions are solved. Traditional Marxism uses the formational scheme of world history. 1 The work prepared for publication with the financial support of RFBR in the framework of a research project number 16-36-00172 mol_a “Dialectic and syn- ergetic methods in the study of modern society's fundemental transformations” 2 Alexander Buzgalin and Andrey Kolganov, “Re-actualising Marxism in Rus- sia: The Dialectic of Transformations and Social Creativity,” International Critical Thought, 2011. 66 WORLD HISTORY IN THE WORLD-SYSTEM ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE 67 This opens up a question of complementarity of the categories of forma- tion and world-system.
    [Show full text]
  • Varieties of the Transcendental in Western Marxism*
    PROBLEMI INTERNATIONAL,Varieties of the vol. Transcendental ATEIZEM3, no. 3, 2019 in© WesternSociety for Marxism Theoretical Psychoanalysis Varieties of the Transcendental in Western Marxism* Slavoj Žižek In the last decades, the distrust of Western Marxism is growing among the few remaining radical Leftist theorists, from Perry Anderson and Wolfgang Fritz Haug to Domenico Losurdo whose main reproach is that Western Marxism lost contact with the Third World revolutionary movements. (Losurdo, who wrote a book rehabilitating Stalin, also considers Deng Xiaoping’s reforms an example of authentic Marxist politics.) From the Western Marxist standpoint, it is, of course, the Third World Communist radical- ism which lost contact with the authentic emancipatory content of Marxism. It is interesting to note that Western Marxism (rebaptized “Cultural Marxism”) is also the target of the ongoing counterattack of the alt-right against political correctness: the alt-right interprets the rise of Western Marxism as the result of a deliberate shift in Marxist (or Communist) strategy. After Communism lost the economic battle with liberal capitalism (waiting in vain for the revolution to arrive in the developed Western world), its leaders de- cided to move the terrain to cultural struggles (sexuality, feminism, racism, religion, etc.), systematically undermining the cultural foundations and values of our freedoms. In recent decades, this new approach proved unexpectedly efficient: today, our societies are caught in the self-destructive circle of guilt, unable to defend * The author acknowledges the project (“The Structure and Genealogy of In- difference,” J6-8263) was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency. 5 Slavoj Žižek their positive legacy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ilyenkov Triangle: Marxism in Search of Its Philosophical Roots1
    © EUSP, 2017 ISSN 2310-3817 Vol. 5 No. 2 (engl) p. 136–163 5 Andrey Maidansky Belgorod State University, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences The Ilyenkov Triangle: Marxism in Search of its Philosophical Roots1 Abstract Studying the phenomena of the ideal, Evald Ilyenkov checks every important step in his thinking with Hegel and Spinoza. Their philosophical teachings form the foundation for the triangle of “dialectical logic,” at the peak of which is Marx with his method of “ascending to the concrete.” This work will carry out a comparison of the conceptions of Ilyenkov and Western European Marxists along the “Hegel–Spinoza” line. Keywords Evald Ilyenkov, Marx, Spinoza, Hegel, Marxism, dialectics, dialectical logic, method of knowledge, ascending from the abstract to the concrete 1 The research is supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (RGNF), grant No. 17-03-00160a. 136 The Ilyenkov Triangle: Marxism in Search of its Philosophical Roots Marxism started from the revolt against the philosophy of Hegel that had nurtured it. In Brussels in 1845, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels de­ cided to finally settle accounts with their “former philosophical con­ science” (Marx 1987: 263). Henceforth, an actual “science of history” must occupy the place of “philosophical phrases” concerning reality. The time of philosophizing was past... “When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence” (Marx and Engels 1976: 35). “[W]hen we conceive things thus, as they really are and happened, every profound philosophical problem is resolved […] quite simply into an empirical fact” (Marx and Engels 1976: 58).
    [Show full text]
  • Spinoza in Soviet Thought an International Symposium at the Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki 18
    Draft – not for citation without permission 1 SPINOZA IN SOVIET THOUGHT AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM AT THE ALEKSANTERI INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI 18. – 19. MAY, 2012 What if Ilyenkov had known Marx’s Notes on Spinoza? Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College, University of London Introduction In the Name Index of the Collected Works of Marx, Engels and Lenin published in English, Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza (1632-1677) is always referred to as “outstanding Dutch materialist philosopher, rationalist, atheist”.1 The word “outstanding” denotes a special commendation – the highest honour bestowed is “great”. For Moses Hess, Spinoza was the prophet of the French Revolution.2 My own interest in Spinoza was sparked by reading, in the early 1980s one of the later works of E. V. Ilyenkov (1924-1979), Dialectical Logic (DL), especially Essay Two, “Thought as an Attribute of Extension”.3 Ilyenkov also made extensive reference to Spinoza4 in the first two sections of Chapter One of the revised version, for translation into German in 1979, of The Dialectics of the Abstract and Concrete in Marx’s Capital (DAC), first published in Russian in 1960.5 Ilyenkov was as far as I know not aware of the fact that in March to April 1841, at the age of 22, Karl Marx made extensive transcriptions from Spinoza.6 These notebooks were published by Dietz Verlag in the GDR in 1976, a year before Ilyenkov’s death, in two volumes. Volume 1 See for example V. I. Lenin (1963) Collected Works Vol.38 Philosophical Notebooks (London: Lawrence & Wishart), p.623 2 Stathis Kouvelakis (2003) Philosophy and Revolution: From Kant to Marx (London: Verso), p.126 3 E.
    [Show full text]
  • One Is Not Born a Personality
    One is Not Born a Personality Profiles of Soviet Educational Psychologists By Karl Levitin, Edited by Professor V.V. Davydov.: Translated from the Russian by Yevgeni Filippov. Published by Progress Publishers in 1982 Table of Contents Preface............................................................................................................................................ 1 From the Author .......................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I “Ages and Days” Lev Vygotsky. A Biographical Profile..................................... 7 Semyon Dobkin’s Reminiscences.............................................................................11 “The Mozart of Psychology” ....................................................................................21 Chapter II. “One Is Not Born a Personality” Alexei Leontiev. A Biographical Profile.53 “One is Not Born a Personality!” (An Interview with Alexei Leontiev)..................56 Chapter III. “Always a Meaningful Pattern” Alexander Luria. A Biographical Profile..67 II. The Detective.....................................................................................................69 From “A History of Psychology in Autobiography” ........................................81 Chapter IV. “A Thinking Reed” Alexander Meshcheryakov. A Biographical Profile....88 “A Thinking Reed” (A Report on the Work of Alexander Meshcheryakov) ...91 Digression one. ...........................................................................................................................98
    [Show full text]
  • Evald Ilyenkov and Soviet Philosophy by Andrey Maidansky and Vesa Oittinen (Jan 01, 2020)
    Evald Ilyenkov and Soviet Philosophy by Andrey Maidansky and Vesa Oittinen (Jan 01, 2020) Topics: History , Marxism , Philosophy Places: Europe , Russia , soviet-union Evald Ilyenkov's philosophy revisited by Vesa Oittinen. Andrey Maidansky is a professor of philosophy at the University of Belgorod, Russia. He has published, in Russian, many books and articles on Baruch Spinoza, Marxism, and history of Soviet philosophy. One of his main interests is the well-known and controversial Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov (1924–79), who left behind a vast archive of unpublished materials that will be published in a ten-volume collection edited by Maidansky. Vesa Oittinen is a professor at the Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki, Finland. He and Maidansky are longtime collaborators. They edited a book together on the activity approach in Soviet philosophy of the 1960s and ’70s, The Practical Essence of Man: The “Activity Approach” in Late Soviet Philosophy (Haymarket Books, 2017). Vesa Oittinen: The Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov died in 1979. Since then, his fame has steadily grown, slowly at first, but he has received increasing international attention in the last few years. How would you explain this phenomenon? After all, Soviet philosophy in general has the reputation of being rather dull. Andrey Maidansky: Indeed, Ilyenkov’s popularity has been growing, especially over the last ten to fifteen years, while the rest of Soviet Marxism (with the exception of Lev Vygotsky’s cultural- historical psychology) has practically turned into a museum piece. Almost every year we see new translations of Ilyenkov’s works, especially into English and Spanish. Recently, in Western Europe, the International Friends of Ilyenkov group was formed (their second symposium was held in Copenhagen the summer of 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Matter and the Thinking Body Activity Theory and the Turn
    © EUSP, 2017 ISSN 2310-3817 Vol. 5 No. 2 (engl) p. 248–264 Alex Levant Wilfrid Laurier University Smart Matter and the Thinking Body : Activity Theory and the Turn to Matter in Contemporary Philosophy Abstract This article seeks to excavate and mobilize Activity Theory (AT) for a conversation with recent trends in contemporary philosophy that attempt to overcome the relativism of the linguistic turn while accepting the latter’s core critique of Enlightenment conceptions of the human and nonhuman. Specifically, it focuses on Ilyenkov’s concept of the thinking body as a useful contrast to the ascription of agency to matter, and instead helps to illuminate the social practices that animate the material world. Keywords Activity Theory, material turn, Ilyenkov, posthuman, agency 248 Smart Matter and the Thinking Body Introduction: Activity Theory and the Material Turn The Soviet Union was a creature of the twentieth century; however, it continues to “live” in the now in the form of ruins whose significance re­ mains contested, threatening to form new constellations within present concerns or to disappear forever. Among these ruins, contemporary theo­ rists with a discerning eye have discovered significant “cultural treasures” (Benjamin 2003 [1940]), yet many remain buried deep in layers of opaque political and philosophical debates (Levant 2008, 2011). Among these gems lies a theoretical tradition—broadly known as Activity Theory1 (AT)—that resonates strongly with certain trends in contemporary phi­ losophy. AT originated as a radical current in Soviet psychology of the 1920s. Its core proposal is that human subjectivity is not reducible to the func­ tions of the physical brain or even the individual body more broadly, nor is it essentially a discursive phenomenon that can be explained using theories of the “linguistic turn.” In contrast, AT posits the human subject 2 (engl) No.
    [Show full text]
  • Evald Ilyenkov's
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace at Belgorod State University Historical Materialism (2018) 1–13 brill.com/hima Evald Ilyenkov’s ‘Creative Marxism’ A Review of E.V. Ilyenkov: Zhit’ Filosofiei [To Live by Philosophy] by Sergey Mareev Andrey Maidansky Belgorod State National Research University [email protected] Evgeni V. Pavlov Metropolitan State University of Denver [email protected] Abstract The latest book by Russian philosopher Sergey Mareev consists of two parts: recol- lections of his teacher Evald Ilyenkov, and reflections on some of the key themes of Ilyenkov’s philosophical heritage. The author traces several polemical lines related to the problem of the ideal (Ilyenkov versus Losev and Lifschitz), dialectics of the abstract and the concrete, the principle of historicism, as well as Ilyenkov’s interpreta- tion of Spinoza and Hegel. Keywords E.V. Ilyenkov – Soviet Marxism – dialectics – G. Lukács – M.A. Lifschitz – Spinoza – the ideal – the concrete – historicism Sergey Mareev, E.V. Ilyenkov: Zhit’ Filosofiei [To Live by Philosophy], Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt, Triksta, 2015 The works of Evald Ilyenkov (1924–79) have recently been published in large numbers in Russia, in the West,1 and even in Latin America where they have 1 An English translation of one of Ilyenkov’s later works was recently published by Brill; see Levant and Oittinen (eds.) 2014. The same publisher is preparing a volume of English transla- tions of Ilyenkov’s essays on Hegel; see Ilyenkov, forthcoming. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/1569206X-00001453 2 doi:10.1163/1569206x-00001453 | Maidansky and Pavlov been translated into Spanish and Portuguese.
    [Show full text]
  • Evald Ilyenkov and Hegel
    Evald Ilyenkov and Hegel Andy Blunden* Abstract: Among Evald Ilyenkov’s most important contributions to Hegel exegesis was his notion of ‘concrete historicism’. In this concept, Ilyenkov appropriated the work of Soviet Psychologists in the context of an immanent critique of the Western canon of Philosophy and a study of Marx’s Capital, to outline a new approach to the logical and historical analysis of social formations, which has yet to receive due attention. Evald Ilyenkov is distinguished as the only Soviet writer to be widely respected as a Hegel scholar by Hegel scholars in the West, and it is abundantly evident from his Theses (1954) that this distinction was won at considerable personal risk. Nonetheless, as a Soviet philosopher, Ilyenkov was able to appropriate the insights of Soviet Cultural Psychology and Activity Theory originating from Lev Vygotsky and brought these insights to a rigorous study of the history of philosophy. Breaking down the artificial barriers between the disciplines of Psychology, Social Theory and Philosophy, and between History and Logic, Ilyenkov made a profound contribution to Marxism. Whereas other Hegelian-Marxists seemed only capable of describing the Marx-Hegel relation, Ilyenkov gained new insights and approaches for the solution of scientific problems. It is the aim of this short article to demonstrate how Ilyenkov’s ideas can be used in the analysis of problems of human development. Ilyenkov’s essay on The Ideal, the series of essays on Dialectic al Logic and his staunch defence of Lenin in Metaphysics of Positivism, were ground-breaking, but we shall highlight here just two insights from his early book The dialectics of the Abstract and Concrete in Marx’s Capital (1960), specifically the concepts of ‘concrete historicism’ and ‘germ cell’.
    [Show full text]
  • Contingency and Necessity in Evald Ilyenkov's Communist Cosmology
    1. From Aristotle to Ilyenkov As Aristotle famously noted in Metaphysics, philosophy begins from the feeling of astonishment: “For through astonishment men have begun to philosophize both in our times and in the beginning” (Metaphysics, A, 2, 982 b 13–16). Everyone seems to know this famous 01/13 sentence, although without much detail. In the Greek original, Aristotle uses the word thaumazein, which can be translated as “astonishment” or “amazement,” meaning a kind of intellectual shock that forces us to think. In this sense, Aristotle notes, those who create myths are also on their way to philosophy, as myths are also created on the basis of wonders, Alexei Penzin in response to something astonishing.1 ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn his famous sentence, Aristotle uses the word arche, “origin,” so he means a fundamental Contingency dimension that works throughout the entire history of philosophy.2 Still, it is not clear what and Necessity the source of the continuity of this arche is. Indeed, Aristotle does not specify the object, in Evald phenomenon, or substratum that is able to provoke intellectual astonishment.3 The only suitable hypothesis I can offer here in this brief Ilyenkov’s digression is that philosophical texts, which are often inspired by intellectual astonishment, can Communist themselves be judged by the effect of astonishment they produce in their readers. The materiality of the philosophical text is itself Cosmology y g nothing other than the durability of the o l o astonishment it produces across generations. m s The persistence of an astonishment-effect is o C what makes a text classic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ilyenkov Triangle: Marxism in Search of Its Philosophical Rootsta
    © EUSP, 2017 ISSN 2310-3817 Vol. 5 No. 2 engl5 The Ilyenkov SearchMarxismTriangle: of itsin PhilosophicalRootstaeva Andrey Maidansky Belgorod State University, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences The Ilyenkov Triangle: Marxism in Search of its Philosophical Roots1 Abstract Studying the phenomena of the ideal, Evald Ilyenkov checks every important step in his thinking with Hegel and Spinoza. Their philosophical teachings form the foundation for the triangle of “dialectical logic,” at the peak of which is Marx with his method of “ascending to the concrete.” This work will carry out a comparison of the conceptions of Ilyenkov and Western European Marxists along the “Hegel–Spinoza” line. Keywords Evald Ilyenkov, Marx, Spinoza, Hegel, Marxism, dialectics, dialectical logic, method of knowledge, ascending from the abstract to the concrete 1 The research is supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (RGNF), grant No. 17-03-00160a. 136 The Ilyenkov Triangle: Marxism in Search of its Philosophical Roots Marxism started from the revolt against the philosophy of Hegel that had nurtured it. In Brussels in 1845, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels de- cided to finally settle accounts with their “former philosophical con- science” (Marx 1987: 263). Henceforth, an actual “science of history” must occupy the place of “philosophical phrases” concerning reality. The time of philosophizing was past... “When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence” (Marx and Engels 1976: 35). “[W]hen we conceive things thus, as they really are and happened, every profound philosophical problem is resolved […] quite simply into an empirical fact” (Marx and Engels 1976: 58).
    [Show full text]