Abstract
This chapter consists of a critical analysis of Soviet theory of the history of philosophy, departing from two questions. The first concerns the contribution of the positions under discussion to an understanding of philosophy’s historical nature. The second is the question why a theory of the history of philosophy was such an important part of Soviet philosophical culture, and why one position in particular was favored by the situation Soviet philosophical culture existed in.
...involvement with Hegel is the best cure for the hereditary weaknesses of Soviet philosophy.
Thomas J. Blakeley, 19751
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Blakeley 1975a, p.161.
Cf. Žučkov 1983, to which Kamenskij added: ‘Since that date a good deal of new publications on this theme have appeared’ (Kamenskij 1992, p.16).
V.V. Sokolov, as reported in Arzakanjan 1969, p.H5f; quoted after Rybarczyk 1975, p.23, n.27, translation from the German mine; cf. also interview with Sokolov, March 1986.
Malinin 1976, p.93f, referring to Aleksandrov 19462, p. 13, Ždanov 1947, p.257, and Iovčuk 1960, p.5 (a formulation almost literally identical with the one in Iovčuk et al. 1960, p.6); the first discussion among Soviet philosophers about theoretical questions of the history of philosophy is back by Kamenskij to texts by A. Varj’aš and V.F. Asmus in 1924 (cf. Kamenskij 1992, p. 19, and p. 104, n.40).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.3, where the emergence of an interest in theoretical and methodological questions of the history of philosophy is explicitly related to the work on IF6.
Ballestrem 1963a, p. 107.
Berežnoj 1960, p.198.
They were used to this end by, among others, Bogdanov (cf. Bogdanov 1969, 1970a, 1970b, and his ‘Problemy istorii filosofii’, in: Evgrafov et al. 1968–1985, Istorija filosofii v SSSR, IV, pp.555–570).
Iovčuk et al. 1970, especially the first part, called ‘Leninizm i metodologičeskie problemy istorii filosofii’; cf. Bogomolov 1967, Delokarov et al. 1972, p. 172, Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.3; on the various topics, cf.M.T. Iovčuk, G.V. Plekhanov i ego trudy po istorii filosofii (M.: 1960); Z.P. Protasenko, Lenin kak istorik filosofii (L.: 1969), and Bogdanov 1969; Arzakanjan 1962; Myslivčenko 1970, Evgrafov 1970, Ščipanov 1970; Bogdanov 1970b, Novikov 1970; Ojzerman 1970, and Mamardašvili, 1959, 1960, and 1965; Asmus 1961.
Ojzerman (1969) 19822, (1971) 19842, and 1979, Malinin 1976, Bogdanov 1970a, Brutjan 1979, Potëmkin 1973 and 1980.
Interviews with Ojzerman and Sokolov, 1984 and 1986; the best source is Konstantinov et al. 19826; cf. also Iovčuk et al. 1986, for a display of his unflagging ‘orthodoxy’.
Bogomolov et al. 1983; the main publications by Ojzerman alone are: Ojzerman 1979, 19822, and 19842; on Bogomolov and his significance for IFN, cf. especially Antonov et al. 1986.
The best source in this respect is Kamenskij 1992: despite its being published in post-Soviet times, it continues the position developed by Kamenskij in his earlier publications (cf. Kamenskij 1992, p.21).
Reference is to Solov’ëv 1981, Gorskij 1981, Čanyšev 1982, Želnov 1981, Potëmkin 1973, 1980.
Cf. Abramov et al. 1986, p.32, referring to the liber amicorum for Losev: A.F. Losevu k 90-letiju so dnja roždenija [To A.F. Losev on Occasion of his 90th Birthday] (Tbilisi: 1983)).
Cf. Abramov et al. 1986, p.31: “Here [in connection with the attempt to construct a systematic science of the history of philosophy, EvdZ] we must in the first place mention the book by A.S. Bogomolov and T.I. Ojzerman... and the generalizing article by T.I. Ojzerman ‘Istorija filosofii’ in the FĖS [Il’ičëv et al. 1983]”; cf. also Kissel’ 1988, p. 171: “The global analysis of the historical process of philosophy is represented in a series of works by T.I. Ojzerman, in particular in a book, written together with A.S. Bogomolov,...”
Antonov et al. 1986, p.285.
Ojzerman 1969, p.4, and idem 19822, p.9.
Malinin 1976, p.95.
Ojzerman 19822, p.9.
Cf. Čanyšev 1982, p.6, Malinin 1976, p.4, and Ojzerman 19822, p. 13.
Mikhajlov 1970, p. 160, who adds: “A scientific theory of philosophy is a history of philosophy, elaborated, however, by means of a logical, not an historical method [italics mine, EvdZ].”
Ojzerman 19822, p.118.
Ojzerman 19822, p.l3.
Cf. Ojzerman 19822, pp.121–133.
Ojzerman 19822, p.114 and p.l34f.
Ojzerman 19822, p.137.
Ojzerman 19822, p.139f.
Ojzerman 19822, p.142.
Ojzerman 19822, p.143.
Ojzerman 19822, p.l47.
Ojzerman 19822, p. 148.
Cf. Abramov et al. 1986, p.30ff, referring to: Čanyšev 1982, p.l82f, Kamenskij 1984, Želnov 1981, p.90, 110, M.G. Makarov, Razvitie ponjatij i predmeta filosofii v istorii eë učenij [The Development of the Concepts and the Subject matter of Philosophy in the History of its Doctrines] (L.: 1982), and Losev 1984.
Cf. Abramov et al. 1985, p.31.
Želnov 1981, p.52; one of the positions discussed by Želnov is the official position: “The force of the ‘synthetic’ position of the ‘subject matter of philosophy’ and of philosophy itself is that... in it everything is ‘taken into account [učteno]’ and it is in its own way invulnerable to criticism. (...) Its weakness is the absence of firm initial positions, so essential for a heuristic orientation [évrističeskaja ustremlënnost’]. A compromise takes the edge off the search for new ways of creative perfection of Marxist-Leninist philosophy” (op.cit., p.59). He further distinguishes between three serious alternative positions: an ontological (represented by S.Š. Avaliani, V.V. Orlov, V.V. Il’in; cf. op.cit., p.53f), a logico-epistemological [logiko-gnoseologičeskaja] (represented by Ė.V. Il’enkov and B.M. Kedrov; cf. op.cit., p.55f), and a ‘sociological’ and ‘activity-’ [‘filosofsko-sociologičeskaja’ i ‘dejatel’nostnaja’ koncepcii] position (represented by V.P. Tugarinov, M.Ja. Koval’zon, and others; cf. op.cit., p.56f), and then sides with Ojzerman.
Želnov 1981, p.71f; cf. Ojzerman 19822, pp. 186–205, where he concludes that “in the philosophy of Marxism all fundamental philosophical themes are considered to be equally essential and organically connected with each other” (p.205).
Cf. Ojzerman 19822, pp. 186–202.
Ojzerman 19822, p.202: “...pre-Marxian materialism... in elaborating the theme of the primary, substantial reality,...attributed only secondary importance to the derivative ‘second nature’, created by mankind -objective human reality, which determines the spiritual life of society and subjective reality. The bankruptcy of idealism, hypostatizing subjective reality, is shown clearly by the fact that the subjective, the spiritual is cut off from its material ground, is transformed into a self-sufficient reality, i.e. is mystified.”
Cf. Abramov et al. 1986, p.31.
Interview with Sokolov, April 1986; Ju.K. Mel’vil’ explicitly agreed with this conception, probably retraceable to Asmus.
Ojzerman 19822, p.136, and Želnov 1981, p.11.
Iovčuk et al. 1960, p.6.
Belkina et al. 1967, p.185; during an interview with Ojzerman in 1986, he confirmed the need to see the ‘basic question’ in historical perspective; cf. also L.F. Il’ičev et al. 1983, T.I. Ojzerman, entry ‘Istorija filosofii’, p.232: “ ‘Philosophy, Hegel maintained, is a developing system, and so is the history of philosophy (...)’. (...). The philosopher did not apply this principle to his own system, (...). This anti-historicist view was caused by his idealism [italics mine, EvdZ].”
Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach... [MEW XXI], p.274f.
Ojzerman 19842, p.16f (in the English translation p.l9f).
Ojzerman 19842, p. 18 (in the English translation p.21), and p.21 (p.23); cf. Lenin, PSS XVIII, p. 276.
Ojzerman 19842, p. 10 (in the English translation p. 12); cf. also Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.232 (in the English translation p.291).
Ojzerman 19842, p.11f (in the English translation p.l2f).
Engels, MEW XXI, p.275.
Ojzerman 19842, p.9f (in the English translation p.11).
Ojzerman 19842, p.9f (in the English translation p.11); in a footnote, Ojzerman agrees with the East German historians of philosophy Buhr and Irrlitz that “the basic problem of classical bourgeois philosophy -from F. Bacon and R. Descartes to G.W.F. Hegel and L. Feuerbach- is the problem of mastering the laws of nature and rationally restructuring social life. (...) This ‘basic problem’ of classical bourgeois philosophy does not lessen the significance of the basic philosophical question” (p. 10, n.*; reference is to M.Buhr, G. Irrlitz, Der Anspruch der Vernunft I (Berlin [DDR]: 1968), p.19).
Ojzerman 19842, p.19 (in the English translation p.22); cf. ibid., p. 17 (p.20).
Ojzerman 19842, p.30 (in the English translation p.33); cf. Ojzerman 19842, p.20 (in the English translation p.22), where he calls it “a problem of IFN.”
Ojzerman 19842, p.30 (in the English translation p.19), quoting A.V. Potëmkin, V.I. Lenin o specifike filosofskogo znanija (Rostov-na-Donu: 1970), p. 12, and p.30 (in the English translation p.33).
Ojzerman 19842, p.33f (in the English translation pp.35ff).
Ojzerman 19842, p.40 (in the English translation p.43), and p.34 (in the English translation p.37).
Ojzerman 19842, p.31f (in the English translation p.34f).
Ojzerman 19842, p.34 (in the English translation p.37).
Ojzerman 19842, p.89 (in the English translation p.93).
Ojzerman 19842, p.90 (in the English translation p.94); cf. Avtonomova 1988, p.68f.
“The history of Marxist philosophy witnessed that in some historical periods questions of the struggle against epistemological dogmatism came to the fore, in others the critique of epistemological skepticism. But in spite of the differences in conditions and tasks, the klassiki marksizma waged a constant battle against both these metaphysical conceptions” (Ojzerman 19842, p. 127 (in the English translation p. 129) cf. ibid., p.20 (p.22f)).
Cf. Ojzerman 19842, p. 125 (in the English translation p. 129)), and Kline 1955, p.95f on the Soviet use of ‘metaphysical’ as synonymous with ‘non-dialectial’; cf. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, A 856 / B 884 [Werke IV, p. 711f]
Čanyšev 1982, p.l78f.
Čanyšev 1982, p.179.
Čanyšev 1982, p.8.
Čanyšev 1982, p.49; cf. also p.55.
Čanyšev 1982, p.41f.
Cf. Čanysev 1982, p.24f, and Hegel, Werke XVIII, pp.147–169; Hegel held that in Indian philosophy, like in Medieval Western philosophy, “in more recent times truly philosophical works have become known (Hegel, Werke XVIII, p. 149.”
Cf. Hegel, Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften (1930), § 574 [Werke X], p.393.
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.86 (in the English translation p.l05f).
Hegel, Werke XIX, p.548.
Cf. Čanysev 1982, p.177.
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.85f (in the English translation p.l05f); with respect to Mexico, Bogomolov refers to a book by a certain M. Leon-Portilla, obviously a Mexican, entitled Filosofija nagua (M.: 1961).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, pp.86–94 (in the English translation pp. 106–116).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.193 (in the English translation p.243), and p.90 (p. 110).
“Hegel’s idea of a free state-structure and the flourishing of political freedom as a condition for the full existence of philosophy is connected with his understanding of philosophy as an anti-dogmatic, free, and unselfish spiritual activity, striving for an integral understanding of the world, of philosophy as the objective science of truth. To look boldly into the face of truth, to believe in the power of the mind — that is the first condition of philosophy», the great German philosopher said...’ (Čanyšev 1982, p.25, also p.22f; reference is to Gegel’, Sočinenija IX, p.5, in the German original: Hegel, Werke XVIII, p. 13: “Der Mut der Wahrheit, der Glaube an die Macht des Geistes ist die erste Bedingung der Philosophie’); cf. Čanyšev 1982, p.22, referring to Gegel’, Sočinenija IX, p. 137; in the German original: Hegel, Werke XVIII, p. 175.
Ojzerman 19842, p.4 (in the English translation p.5f).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.271f (in the English translation p.335f); cf. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, B 880–884 / A 852–856 [IKant, Werke IV, p.709–712], and Hegel, Werke X, p.379 [Enz., § 572], XX, p.455, XVIII, p.47, and XX, p.477.
Ojzerman 19842, p.289 (in the English translation p.298).
Cf. Blauberg et al. 19824, entry ‘Nauka’, p.200: “Scientific knowledge in the full sense of the term begins only when behind the totality of facts a regularity [zakonomernost] is perceived....”
Ojzerman 1979, p.44.
Agudov et al. 1984, p.178.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.200 (in the English translation p.253f); when, e.g., Garncev writes that “the historical process of philosophy is one of the fields to which the law of negation of negation is applicable,” he means little more than the alternation of continuity and change, rejection of a previous position and subsequent resumption of the initial position (Garncev 1987, p. 188).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.201 (in the English translation, not reliable in these paragraphs, p.254f); cf. also p.200 (p. 253).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, pp.216–228 (in the English translation pp.272–286).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, pp.228f (in the English translation p.286f).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, pp.229ff (in the English translation pp.287ff).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.231 and p.236 (in the English translation p.290, and p.296).
Bogomolov et al. p.237 (in the English translation p.296).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.229 (in the English translation p.286f).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.241 (in the English translation p.301).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.237–240 (in the English translation p.296–300).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.241 (in the English translation p.300f); cf. Hegel, Werke XVIII, p. 12 and p.22.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.246f (in the English translation p.307).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.244 en 245 (in the English translation p.305 and 306).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.243f (in the English translation p.304).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.245 (in the English translation p.306).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.247 (in the English translation p.308): “... undoubtedly a more revolutionary thinker than the materialists Lamettrie, Holbach, Helvétius.”
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.245 (in the English translation p.306).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. p.251f (in the English translation p.313f).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.257 (in the English translation p.320), and Ojzerman et al. 1983, p.13.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.257f (in the English translation p.320).
Cf. Ojzerman 19863, p.3 (in the German translation p.8), and Ščipanov et al. 1982, p. 157.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.260 (in the English translation p.322).
Cf. Želnov 1981, p.7.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.226 (in the English translation p.283).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.236f (in the English translation p.296).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, pp.216–223 (in the English translation pp.272–280); Presocratic philosophy, according to Ojzerman and Bogomolov, shows “that the differentiation of doctrines was characterized by an essential objective content, i.e. expressed not simply the philosopher’s subjective claims to his special view, but the development of a definite conception, the advancing of various aspects to the foreground, and self-criticism within a given school (ibid., cited after the English translation)” French materialism represented, according to Ojzerman and Bogomolov, “a single current, a union of like-minded persons, within which, however, there was an essential (and fruitful) differentiation of views,” due to “two qualitatively different trends... the Cartesian and the sensualist.”
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.226f (in the English translation p.284f).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.227 (in the English translation p.284).
Cf., e.g., Ojzerman 19842, pp.265ff (in the English translation pp.274ff), Bogomolov et al. 1983, pp.85ff (in the English translation pp.l05ff), and Arzakanjan 1969; in interviews in 1986, V.V. Sokolov gave as his opinion that class-struggle and class-position are clearly present in political and social theories, but only distantly connected to theories in the fields of ontology or epistemology, and Ju.K. Mel’vil, who distinguished a scientific and an ideological aspect, felt that it was very difficult, in concrete historiographical research, to determine what was scientific and what was ideological.
Cf. Malinin 1976, p.87, as well as Ojzerman 19842, p.268 (in the English translation p.277), and Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.l93f (in the English translation p.243); cf. Hegel, Werke X, p.348f [Enz. § 548, Anmerkung], and Hegel 1959, p.l34f [Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie 1823–1827/28]: “So muß man auch in der Geschichte der Philosophie parteiisch sein, etwas voraussetzen, einen Zweck haben; und dieser ist der reine, freie Gedanke.”
Malinin 1976, p.88.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.l93f (in the English translation p.243f).
Malinin 1976, p.90.
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, T.I. Ojzerman, entry ‘Istorija filosofii’, p.232; cf. Ojzerman 19842, p.10f (in the English translation p.11f), Ojzerman 19822, pp.212ff, and Bogomolov et al. 1983, pp.216ff (in the English translation pp.272); in interviews, Soviet historians of philosophy were much less cautious; for example, T.I. Ojzerman told me that, in his opinion, the statements by Engels and Lenin on the history of philosophy, on the struggle between materialism and idealism, and on the antithesis of dialectics and metaphysics, had to be regarded as historically bound; Ju.K. Mel’vil’ and V.V. Sokolov relativized especially the opposition of dialectics and metaphysics, wrongly made into a central issue by, according to Mel’vil’, Bogomolov; Mel’vil’ did think that every philosophical position can be qualified as either materialist or idealist, but he equally felt that this wasn’t saying very much; M.A. Kissel’, finally, one of Ojzerman’s collaborators, characterized both the opposition of the two main trends and that of the two methods as abstractions from the actual processes; Ojzerman, Sokolov, and Mel’vil’ all rejected a classification according to the basic question, and Sokolov spoke, in this connection, of “simplification” and “schematism”, regarding materialism and idealism as “tendencies” (interviews April 1984, May 1986).
Cf. Malinin 1976, p.4.
Ojzerman 19842, p.35 (in the English translation p.38); cf. also Želnov 1981, p.11, who refers to the same passage on p.4 in the first edition of Glavnye napravlenija...
Lenin, PSS XVIII, p.322.
Cf.Pozner 1937, p.26, andOjzerman 19842, pp.252ff (in the English translation pp.262ff).
Ojzerman 19842, p.36 (in the English translation p.38); reference is to K. Marx, ‘Letter to M. Kowalewski (1879)’ [MEW XXXIV], p.506.
Cf., e.g., Goran 1984, p.10, Džokhadze 1977, pp.4ff, Arzakanjan 1962, Bogomolov et al. 1983, pp.l47ff (in the English translation pp.l84ff), and Kamenskij 1992, p.7.
Malinin 1976, p.9, p.4, and pp. 16–61, esp. pp.61ff.
Cf. Malinin 1976, pp.63–90.
Džokhadze 1977, p.7.
Džokhadze 1977, p.9.
Malinin, for instance, is far less positive with respect to Hegel (cf. Malinin 1976, p.37, 39).
Agudov et al. 1984, p.178, referring to Bogomolov et al. 1983, p. 184 (in the English translation p.230), and p.230 (in the English translation p.289).
Arzakanjan 1962, p.95f.
Arzakanjan 1962, p. 100, see also p.96; cf. also Malinin 1976, p. 19, and Kamenskij 1992, p. 102, n.14; according to these sources, al-Shahrastani’s works are available in a German edition: Abu’l’-Fath Mohammad asch Schahrastany, Religionsparteien und Philosophenschulen, vols. I–II (Berlin / Halle: 1850–1851), translated by Th. Haarbrücker. Kamenskij informs us that the most interesting part of this book was reprinted in H. Ley, Geschichte der Aufklärung und des Atheismus (Berlin [DDR]: 1963), that a Russian translation of the first part -on religions and sects- appeared 1984 (edited by S.M. Prozorov), and that a study of his work as an historian of philosophy appeared in Tadžikstan, apparently in Russian: K. Bekov, Mukhamed Šakhrastani (Dušanbe: 1987).
Arzakanjan 1962, p.l00f; cf. Malinin 1976, p.19.
Arzakanjan 1962, p.101, and Bogomolov et al. 1983, p. 161 (quoted from the English translation, p.203).
Kamenskij 1992, p.10f.
Cf. Malinin 1976, p.89.
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, T.I. Ojzerman, entry ‘Istorija filosofii’, p.233.
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, T.I. Ojzerman, entry ‘Istorija filosofii’, p.233.
Cf. Ojzerman 1982b, p. 114, and Ojzerman 1979, pp.45ff; I translate ‘pljuralizm’ here as ‘plurality’, not as ‘pluralism’: pluralism means the position that there is or ought to be plurality, whereas plurality means an actually existing multitude.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.207f (in the English translation p.262).
Cf. Bogomolov et al. 1970, p.347.
Cf. Ojzerman 1982b, p. 121.
See Ojzerman 19822, pp.114–137.
Aleksandrov 19462, p.8.
Iovčuk et al. 1960, p. 11, and Iovčuk et al. 19713, p. 11 (with minor differences).
Pavlov 1966, p.l35f.
Džokhadze 1977, p.284f.
Džokhadze 1977, p.287.
Ojzerman 1982, p.60f, and Il’ičëv et al. 1983, T.I. Ojzerman, entry ‘Istorija filosofii’, p.232.
Cf. Hegel in the ‘Preface’ to his Phänomenologie des Geistes: “Daran mitzuarbeiten, dass die Philosophie der Form der Wissenschaft näher komme, — dem Ziele, ihren Namen der Liebe zum Wissen ablegen zu können und wirkliches Wissen zu sein ist es, was ich mir vorgesetzt.” (Hegel, Werte III, p.l4f); cf. Ojzerman 1982, p.60.
Ojzerman et al. 1983, p.5.
Cf. Matveev 1987, p.5; references to Gramsci’s discussion of Renaissance philosophy can be found in Ojzerman’s introduction to Solov’ëv 1984 (Ojzerman 1984a, p.5.), and Filosoßja ėpokhi... as examples of the recognition in Soviet literature of Gramsci’s notion (Matveev 1987, p.6f; for a much earlier discussion of Gramsci’s ideas about the history of philosophy see Z.N. Meleščenko, ‘Voprosy istorii filosofii v trudakh Antonio Gramši’, FN 1961, N°l, pp.157–164); references are to the 3rd volume of a three-volume edition of Selected Works by Gramsci in Russian (M.: 1959), p.35–38. 85, to A. Gramsci, Il materialismo storico e la filosofia di Benedetto Croce (Roma: 1979), p.167, 188–189, 287, 298–299, and to A. Gramsci, Quaderni del carcere (Torino: 1975), pp.423–424.
Ojzerman 1988, p.54.
E.g.: ‘Vvedenie...’, VF 1989, N°2, p.219, and N°9, p.55; Frolov et al. 1989, I, p.68; Ojzerman 1989, p.632; Kočergin 1990, p.7.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.255.
Ojzerman et al. 1983, p.5.
K. Marx, ‘Der leitende Artikel in Nr. 179 der Kölnischen Zeitung’, Rheinische Zeitung 1842, N° 191 [10/07/1842] [MEWl], p.97 (pp. 86–104): “jede wahre Philosophie (ist) die geistige Quintessenz ihrer Zeit,...”; Ojzerman did add the adjective ‘genuine’ [istinnaja, wahre] in Formirovanie ßlosofii marksizma (cf. Ojzerman 19863, p.99 (in the German translation p. 140)).
Cf. Ojzerman 19863, chapter II.2, pp.99–112, passim (in the German translation pp. 138–158); it was in 1843, Lenin wrote, that Marx was “only just becoming Marx [tol’ko čto stanovitsja Marksom]” (Lenin, PSS XVIII, p.357; cf. Ojzerman 1986 3, p.9 (in the German translation p. 17)).
Frolov et al. 1989, I, p.68.
Ojzerman 1988, p.49.
Ojzerman 1988, p.53f.
Cf. Losev 1991, p.111f.
Soviet authors preferred to call Hegel’s absolute idealism ‘dialectical idealism’, omitting its absolute character.
ll’ičev et al. 1983, T.I. Ojzerman, entry ‘Istorija filosofii’, p.232.
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, T.I. Ojzerman, entry ‘Istorija filosofii’, p.232.
Cf. Ojzerman 1980, p.112f.
A.V. Panin in ‘Obsuždenie...’ 1990, p.171.
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, T.I. Ojzerman, entry ‘Istorija filosofii’, p.233.
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, A.G. Spirkin, entry ‘Istina’, p.226, Ė.G. Judin, entry ‘Razvitie’, p.561, A.G. Spirkin, entry ‘Filosofija’, p.726, and A.P. Ogurcov, entry ‘Substancija’, p.660, entry ‘Znanie’, p. 192, and V.N. Sadovskij, entry ‘Sistema’, p.610.
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, A.G. Spirkin, entry ‘Dialektičeskij materializm’, p. 159.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.260 (in the English translation p.322).
Scanlan 1985, p.21.
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.235 (in the English translation p.294).
Bogomolov et al. 1983, p.228 (in the English translation p.286).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van der Zweerde, E. (1997). Soviet Theory of the History of Philosophy. In: Soviet Historiography of Philosophy. Sovietica, vol 57. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8943-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8943-7_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4939-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8943-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive