Abstract
This paper explores the materialist and the object-based dimension of “the ideal” in Evald Ilyenkov’s thought and, consequently, his speculative technique of converging matter and idea. The philosophic figures that Ilyenkov relies on to legitimate such a convergence are Hegel, Spinoza, and Marx. The paper reveals the complexities in Ilyenkov’s task to reconcile his dialectics of the ideal with Spinoza’s studies of Substance, tracing the discrepancies in Ilyenkov’s attempt to conjoin Hegelian and Marxian dialectics and Spinoza’s nonidealist immanentism. The reference to the researchers of Spinozism, such as Macherey, Deleuze, Badiou, Della Rocca, Oittinen, and Maidansky, confirms the difficulties in discerning dialectics in Spinoza’s thought. Ilyenkov managed to reveal that Hegel’s idealism was grounded in an objective materialism conditioned by the other-determined self, and merely needed Marx’s thought to complete the socialization of Subject; whereas Spinoza never truly needed to theorize the concept of the ideal. The key finding of the paper is in tracing how—due to developing Marxist epistemology out of Marxist political economy—Ilyenkov manages to consider social being and labor through noumenal parameters, proving that any material activity can be seen as thought-oriented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Quotation translated by Giuliano Vivaldi.
The quotation translated by Giuliano Vivaldi.
Andrey Maidansky emphasizes the relatedness of Ilyenkov’s treatment of the ideal through the other self as the reference to Hegel’s Anderssein (Maidansky 2014, p. 131).
See the mention of the quid pro quo method in Ilyenkov’s work in Andrey Maidansky’s “Reality of the Ideal” (Maidansky 2014, p. 132).
In the Scholium to Proposition 10 of Part One, Spinoza writes: “although two attributes may be conceived to be really distinct (i.e., one may be conceived without the aid of the other), we still cannot infer from that that they constitute two beings, or two different substances.” Spinoza explains here something about the relationship among attributes—one may be conceived without the aid of the other—namely, that conceiving attributes independently is not evidence of the existence of independent substances (Spinoza 1954, 47).
“[R]atiocinative thinking is itself the self into which the content returns, in its positive cognition, on the other hand, the self is a Subject to which the content is related as Accident and Predicate. This Subject constitutes the basis to which the content is attached, and upon which the movement runs back and forth. Speculative [begreifendes] thinking behaves in a different way. Since the Notion is the objects's own self, which presents itself as the eaming-to-be of the object, it is not a passive Subject inertly supporting the Accidents; it is, on the contrary, the self-moving Notion which takes its determinations back into itself.” (Hegel 1977, pp. 36–37)
The term quid pro quo was used by Andrey Maidansky in relation to Ilyenkov’s treatment of Hegelian principle of Anderssein (Maidansky 2014, p. 132).
“There cannot be any causal relation between ideas as forms of thought and the external forms of things, and Spinoza says this so clearly that there is no room for any misinterpretations: ‘Body cannot determine mind to think. Neither can mind determine body to motion or rest or any state different from these’. This is not possible for the simple reason that the modes of thought have God as their cause insofar he is a thinking thing; ‘[t]hat, therefore, which determines the mind to thought is a mode of thought and not a mode of extension’” (Oittinen 2015, p. 117).
The footage can be seen in a recent documentary by Emanuel Almborg “Talking heads,” 2016.
Arto Artinian mentions this letter in a similar context in his paper “Radical Currents in Soviet Philosophy: Lev Vygotsky and Evald Ilyenkov” (Artinian 2017, pp. 95–121). Ilyenkov’s ideas about Marx’s philosophic epistemology and epistemic change of knowledge and cognition after revolution were developed as early as in 1954–1955 (Ilyenkov 1954, pp. 144–210).
References
Artinian, A. (2017). Radical currents in Soviet philosophy: Lev Vygotsky and Evald Ilyenkov. Socialism and Democracy, 31(2), 95–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2017.1327133
Badiou, A. (2011). What is a proof in Spinoza’s ethics. In D. Vardoulakis (Ed.), Spinoza now (pp. 39–51). University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhurst, D. (1991). Consciousness and revolution in Soviet philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Spinoza. Practical philosophy. Trans by R. Hurley. City Lights Books.
Della Rocca, M. (1996). Representation and the mind-body problem in Spinoza. Oxford University Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford University Press.
Ilyenkov, E. (1960). Dialektika abstraktnogo i konkretnogo v "Kapitale" Marxa. (Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx’s Capital). Institute of Philosophy of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. (The manuscript of the English translation by Andy Blunden was retrieved 8.05.2021at https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm).
Ilyenkov, E. (1960). O polozhenii s filosofiei (On the situation with philosophy). In V. Tolstykh (Ed.), Evald Vasilievich Ilyenkov (2008) (pp. 378–387). Rosspen.
Ilyenkov, E. (1962). Ideal’noe (The Ideal) In Filosofskaia Entsiklopedia (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Vol. 2 (pp. 219–27). Sovetskaia Entsiklopedia.
Ilyenkov, E. (1974). Dialekticheskaia Logika (Dialectical Logic). (pp. 25–55). Moscow: Politizdat. 1984. (The manuscript of the English translation by Andy Blunden was retrieved 8.05.2021 at https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay5.htm).
Ilyenkov, E. (1984). Iskusstvo i Communisticheskiï Ideal (Art and the Communist Ideal). Iskusstvo.
Ilyenkov, E. (1997). On the question of the identity of thought and being in pre-Marxist philosophy. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 36(1), 5–33.
Ilyenkov, E. (2015a). Dialectics of the ideal. In A. Levant & V. Oittinen (Eds.), Dialectics of the ideal. Evald Ilyenkov and creative Soviet Marxism (pp. 25–81). Brill.
Ilyenkov, E. (2015b). Leninskaia Dialektica i metafizika pozitivizma (Lenin’s Dialectics and the Metaphysics of Positivism). Mir Filosofii.
Ilyenkov, E. Korovikov, V. (2016). Tezisi k voprosu o vzaimosviazi filosofii i znaniï o prirode i obshestve v protsese ikh istoricheskogo razvitia. (Theses on the Interrelation of Philosophy and Knowledge on Nature and Society in the Process of Their Historic Development). In E. Illesh (Ed.), Strasti po tezisam. O predmete filosofii. 1954–55. (Thesis Passions. On the Subject of Philosophy. 1954–1955), (pp. 144–210). Kanon.
Ilyenkov, E., Naumenko, L. (1977). Tri veka bessmertia. (Three centuries of immortality). Communist, 5, 63–73.
Leontiev, A. (2009). Activity and consciousness. In Andy Blunden (Ed.), Marxists internet archive. Retrieved May 7, 2021. https://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/activity-consciousness.pdf.
Lifshitz, M. (2003). Dialog s Ilyenkovym. Problema Ideal’nogo (Dialogue with Ilyenkov. The problem of the ideal). Progress-Tradition.
Macherey, P. (2011). Hegel or Spinoza. University of Minnesota Press.
Maidansky, A. (2003). Russian Spinozists. Studies in East European Thought, 55(3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024066221394
Maidansky, A. (2014). Reality of the Ideal. In A. Levant & V. Oittinen (Eds.), Dialectics of the ideal. Evald Ilyenkov and creative Soviet Marxism (pp. 125–145). Brill.
Maidansky, A., & Oittinen, V. (Eds.). (2017). The practical essence of man. The activity approach in late Soviet philosophy, Historical materialism series. Brill.
Moder, G. (2017). Hegel and Spinoza. Northwestern University Press.
Oittinen, E. (2015). Evald Ilyenkov, the Soviet spinozist. In A. Levant & V. Oittinen (Eds.), The dialectics of the ideal. Evald ilyenkov and creative Soviet marxism (pp. 107–124). Brill.
Spinoza, B. (1954). Ethics. Trans by O. Piest. Haffner Publishing Company.
Surmava, A. (2018). Spinoza in the science of object-oriented activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 25(4), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2018.1533981
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chukhrov, K. On the materialist interpretation of the ideal by Evald Ilyenkov. Stud East Eur Thought 74, 57–74 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-021-09425-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-021-09425-2