Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Development of Soviet Theory of Knowledge and Its Main Representatives

  • Chapter
Soviet Theory of Knowledge

Part of the book series: Sovietica ((SOVA,volume 16))

  • 63 Accesses

Abstract

By definition the philosophical treatment of knowledge is an integral part of the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism and one would expect, therefore, that every Soviet philosopher would say at least something on the specific nature of cognition and that, further, there would develop a special group of philosophers — to be called epistemologists — who would devote themselves in a special way to the elaboration of questions dealing with knowledge. That this has not been the case with Soviet philosophy — where the explicit philosophical treatment of knowledge dates from about 1950 and the formation of a group of epistemologists from about 1957 — is due in the main to the peculiar history of this philosophical doctrine as a whole.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. On this division of the history of Soviet philosophy into three periods, see J. M. Bocheríski: Der sowjetrussische dialektische Materialismus (Diamat). Bern. 1960. pp. 38–39 (henceforeward: Bochenski: Diamat) and, by the same author, Einführung in die sowjetische Philosophie der Gegenwart. Bonn. 1959. Paragraph 6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cf. G. A. Wetter: Dialectical Materialism. A Historical and Systematic Survey of Philosophy in the Soviet Union. London. 1958. pp. 154–166. (henceforeward: Wetter: Diamat).

    Google Scholar 

  3. V. I. Cerkesov claims otherwise in the historical introduction to his Materialist Dialectic as Logic and Theory of Knowledge (pp. 12–53) but he can be suspected of trying to prove a point and using a `Marxist’ interpretation of the earlier events in Soviet philosophy. The more objective account in René Ahlberg’s Dialektische Philosophie’ and Gesellschaft in der Sowjetunion (Berlin, 1960) rather supports our contention. An examination of A. M. Deborin’s earlier articles, reprinted in Philosophy and Politics (Moscow, 1961), shows that his major preoccupation from an epistemological point of view was continuing Lenin’s refutation of Bogdanov, Juskevié.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf. Bochenski: Diamat. pp. 40–42. With progress in research on Soviet philosophy it is becoming more and more evident that this period is not as quiet as was once thought. Nevertheless, it is completely lacking the dynamic development which characterizes the first and third periods.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Teorÿa otraffenija. Moskva-Leningrad. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Oéerk filosofa dialektieeskogo materializma. Moskva-Leningrad. 1930. Dialektiéeskij i istoriéeskij materializm. C.1. Moskva. 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Die Erkenntnistheorie des dialektischen Materialismus. München-Salzburg-Köln. 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Opoznavaemosti mira. Moskva. 1946 (2nd ed. Moscow. 1950). For personal data on Xasxaéix, see ‘Pamjati filosofa-vojna’ (Memorial to a Philosopher-Soldier). VF 1962, 12, 177.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Genezis obrazovanija ponjatij’. In Nauénye trudy. Tbilisi. 1946. In Nauénye trudy. Tbilisi. 1946. ‘Problema obrazovanija ponjatij v svete istorii jazyka’. In Filosofskie Zapiski. I. Moskva. 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  10. In Soviet epistemology - as in some other domains of contemporary Soviet philosophy, like theory of categories - there are indications that this third period should be divided into at least two subsections. The dividing point would be 1956 or 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Marksistskij dialektléeskij metod. Moskva. 1947 (2nd ed. Moscow. 1951). Contributions to the discussion: A. Ja. Grekova VF 1948, 1, 301–305. G. F. Kir’janov VF 1947, 2, 374–375. L. A. Kogan VF 1948,1, 297–301. V. I. Sviderskij VF 1947, 2, 304–310. P. S. Trofimov VF 1948, 1, 293–296. P. T. Belov Bol’sevik 1948, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wetter: Diamat. p. 161f.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Oprirode fizfeeskogo znanija’. VF 1947, 2, 140–176. Contributions to the discussion: D. I. Bloxincev VF 1948, 1, 212–214. D. S. Danin VF 1948, 1, 217–222. I. K. Kursev and V. A. Mixajlov VF 1948, 1, 207–209. B. G. Kuznecov VF 1948, 1, 209–211. A. A. Maksimov VF 1948, 3, 105–124. S. A. Petrusevskij VF 1948, 1, 211–212. L. I. Storéak VF 1948, 1, 203–206. Ja. P. Terleckij VF 1948, 3, 228–231. S. I. Vavilov VF 1947, 2, 138–139. M. G. Veselov and M. V. Vo1’kenstejn VF 1948, 1, 215–216. See also a letter from some students in VF 1948, 1, 224 and the series of editorial comments in VF 1948, 1, 225–232; 1948, 2, 227; and 1948, 3, 231–235. For a survey of the whole problem, see Bochenski: Diamat,p. 74f. and Wetter: Diamat. p. 413f.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cf. Wetter: Diamat. 149–154f.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid. p. 478f.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nauénaja sessija, posvjaiéennaja problemam fiziologiceskogo uéenila akademika I. P. Pavlova. Stenograficeskij otcet. Moskva. 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ucenie I. P. Pavlova i filosofskie voprosy psixologii. (edited by S. A. Petrukvskij, N. N. Ladygina-Kots, F. N. Semjakin, and E. V. Soroxova) Moskva. 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Marksistsko-leninskaja teorija otraïenija i ucenie I. P. Pavlova o vyssej nervnoj dejatel’nosti. Moskva. 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Filosofskie voprosy ucenija o vyssej nervnoj dejatel’nosti. Moskva. 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cf. `Ucenie I. P. Pavlova i nekotorye voprosy perestrojki psixologii’ (The Doctrine of I. P. Pavlov and some Questions of the Reconstruction of Psychology). VF 1952, 3, 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bytie i soznanie. O meste psixiceskogo vo vseobscej vzaimosvjazi javleng material’nogo mira. Moskva. 1957. 0 myslenii i putjax ego issledovantia. Moskva. 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cf. Wetter: Diamat. p. 196f.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bochenski: Diamat. pp. 154–155. Wetter: Diamat. pp. 531–533f.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Voprosy dialektiéeskogo i istoriceskogo materializma v trude 1. V. Stalina “Marksizm i voprosy jazykoznanija”. Moskva. Vyp. 1, 1951. Vyp. 2, 1952. Among the adulatory articles commenting Stalin’s innovations, cf. M. D. Kammari VF 1950, 2, 9–30. A. S. Kova1’cuk VF 1950, 3, 371–379. V. K. Koziov VF 1953, 2, 150–157. D. Spasov VF 1951, 2, 182–184. B. I. Lozovskij VF 1951, 4, 232–238. G. A. Kursanov and S. I. Mixajlov VF 1953, 2, 225–229. M. A. Leonov VF 1952, 5, 115–131. N. S. Mansurov VF 1951, 5, 195–196. The editorial in VF 1951, 3, 3–13. A. P. Gagarin V MGU 1951, 9, 52. P. F. Judin VAN SSSR 1951, 7, 29. The editorial in Izv. AN SSSR 1950, 4, 322–359 and V MGU 1951, 7, 3. A. V. Topciev V AN SSSR 1950, 7, 8. The purely linguistic point of view was represented in books such as Protiv vul’garizacii i izvrascenija marksizma v jazykoznanii (Against Vulgarization and Distortion of Marxism in Linguistics). Moskva. 1951. (edited by V. V. Vinogradov and B. A. Serebrennikov).

    Google Scholar 

  25. K voprosu o stupenjax processa poznanija istiny’ (On the Steps in the Process of the Knowledge of Truth). VF 1954,5, 77–81, which directly attacked Rutkevic’s article cited in note 28.

    Google Scholar 

  26. In VF 1955, 1, 145–149.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Praktika - osnova poznanija i kriterij istiny. Moskva. 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  28. K voprosu o roli praktiki v processe poznanija’. VF 1954, 3, 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Since this was Podosetnik’s only recorded sortie on the question of practice, one is justified in supposing that the whole discussion was artificially provoked for some ulterior motive. This supposition is supported by the fact that Rutkeviè neither made and auto-critique nor was deposed.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dialekticeskjj materializm o processe poznanija. Moskva. 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Osnovy teorii poznanija. Moskva. 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Data based on Bibliographie der sowjetischen Philosophie. 1 to 4. Dordrecht-Holland. 1959–1963.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Engel’s i estestvoznanie. Moskva. 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  34. K probleme aksiomatizacii logike. Tbilisi. 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Logiceskie zakony myslenija. Lenizdat. 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Iz istorii teorii poznanija. Erevan. 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Myslenie i jazyk. Moskva. 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sovremennyj sub“ektivnyj idealizm. Moskva. 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  39. In `K voprosu o sootnosenii logiki i dialektiki’ (On the Relationship of Logic and Dialectic). VF 1950, 2, 198–209.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dialektika form myslenija. Moskva. 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  41. V. I. Lenin i nekotorye voprosy teorii poznanija. Gor’kij. 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Problemy dialekticeskoj logiki. Moskva. 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Dialektiéeskaja logika. Kratkj ocerk. Moskva. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Principy dialekticeskoj logiki. Moskva. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nekotorye voprosy teorii poznanija. Irkutsk. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Voprosy teorii poznanija. Perm’. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Voprosy teorii poznanija i logiki. Moskva. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Voprosy teorii ponjatja. Moskva. 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dialektika kak logika. Kiev. 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Dialektika i logika. Formy myilen ja. Moskva. 1962. and Dialektika i logika. Zakony rnyslenja. Moskva. 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Materialisticeskaja dialektika kak logika i teorja poznanja. Moskva. 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Marksistskaja logika kak dialektika i teorija poznanija. Erevan. 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Edinstvo dialektiki, logiki i teorii poznanija. Moskva. 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Voprosy teorii poznanija v proizvedenii V. I. Lenina “Materializm i empiriokriticizm”. Minsk. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Gnoseologie’eskoe soderzanie logMeskix form i metodov. Kiev. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mirovozzrenceskoe i metodologiceskie problemy nauénoj abstrakcii. Moskva. 1960. (translated from the Polish).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Process myslenja i zakonomernosti analiza, sinteza i obobscenja. Moskva. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Praktika - kriterj istiny v nauke. Moskva. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cf. T. J. Blakeley: Soviet Scholasticism. Dordrecht, Holland. 1961.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Marlcsistsk j dialekticesk j metod. Moskva. 1947. Razvitie V. I. Leninym marksistskoj teorii poznanija. Moskva. 1950. Voprosy dialektiki v “Kapitale” Marksa. Moskva. 1955. Principy dialektiéeskoj logiki. Moskva. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Poznavaemost’ mira i ego zakonomernostej. Moskva. 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Problema sovpadenja dialektiki, logiki i teorii poznanija. Alma-Ata. 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  63. ’K voprosu o sootnosenii logiki, dialektiki i teorii poznanija v ucenii I. Kanta’ (On the Relationship of Logic, Dialectic and Theory of Knowledge in the Doctrine of Kant). In Naucnye trudy. Alma-Ata 1960. ‘0 myslenii kak predmete logiki i psixologii’ (On Thought as the Object of Logic and Psychology). VF 1961, 7, 132–140. His dissertation, presented at the Institute of Philosophy in 1960, is entitled Razrabotka V. I. Leninym problem sovpadenja dialektiki, logiki i teorii poznanija v “Filosofskix tetradjax” (The Elaboration by Lenin of Problems of the Coincidence of Dialectic, Logic and Theory of Knowledge in the Philosophic Notebooks).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Cf. note 21.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Teor ja oscuscenij. Leningrad. 1961. Cf. particularly the introduction, pp. 3–12, and pp. 13–32.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Proisxoidenie soznania. Moskva. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Cf. the bibliography.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Istor ja logiki novogo vremeni. Moskva. 1960. Cf. his articles in the bibliography.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Voprosy abstrakcii i obrazovanie ponjatij. Moskva. 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Dialektika abstraktnogo i konkretnogo v “Kapitale” Marksa. Moskva. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Cf. the bibliography.

    Google Scholar 

  72. E.g., Zinov’ev’s ‘O razrabotke dialektiki kak logiki’ (On the Elaboration of the Dialectic as a Logic). VF 1957, 4, 188–190. and Janovskaja’s `Problemy analiza ponjatij nauki i novejsij neopozitivizm’ (Problems of the Analysis of the Concepts SOVIET THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE of Science and Modern Neopositivism). VF 1961, 6, 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Recent contributions by Rutkevic include `Dialekticeskij xarakter kriterija praktiki’ (The Dialectical Character of the Criterion of Practice). VF 1959, 9, 43–52. and ‘Praktika kak kriterij istinnosti znanij’ (Practice as Criterion of the Truth-Value of Knowledge) in the sbornik cited in note 58.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Prakticeskaja priroda celoveceskogo poznanya. Moskva. 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Cf. note 58.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Cf. T. J. Blakeley: Soviet Scholasticism. Dordrecht, Holland. 1961, and the list of Rozental“s books and articles in the bibliography.

    Google Scholar 

  77. The most recent being `O ponjatii naucnogo metoda’ (On the Concept of Scientific Method). V LGU 1962, 11, 72–82. and `Sootnosenie dialekticeskogo metoda s castnonaucnymi metodami’ (Relation of the Dialectical Method to the Methods of the Single Sciences). VF 1962, 6, 36–47.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Gipoteza i poznanie dejstvitel’nosti. Kiev. 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  79. For example, `Gipoteza kak forma razvitija nauki’ (The Hypothesis as a Form of the Development of Science). In Naucnye trudy. Tomsk. 1954, and `O xaraktere znanija, soderzascegosja v gipoteze’ (On the Chaiacter of Knowledge Contained in the Hypothesis). FN 1958, 2, 106–120.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Osnovnye voprosy teorii gipotezy. Moskva. 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  81. E.g., `O gipoteze v estestvoznanii’ (On the Hypothesis in Natural Science). VF 1962, 9, 154–164.

    Google Scholar 

  82. KlassifikacUa nauk. Moskva. 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Predmet i vzaimosvjaz’ estestvennyx nauk. Moskva. 1962. This is the first volume of a projected ten-volume series, `Dialectical Materialism and Contemporary Natural Science’, under the joint auspices of the Institute of Philosophy and the Scientific Soviet for Philosophic Problems of Natural Science. The project is to be completed in seven or eight years.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Cf. his long series of articles in the bibliography.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Whose dissertation at the University of the Urals was entitled, Marksizmleninizm o edinstve jazyka i inyr`lenija (Marxism-Leninism on the Unity of Language and Thought).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Cf. VF 1955, 5, 43–56; 1957, 6, 59–61; 1959, 11, 128–140; 1962, 9, 112–120.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Sistema i metod filosofi Gegelja. Tbilisi. 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Cf. note 33.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Cf. the bibliography.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Cf. W. F. Boeselager: `Recent Soviet Works on Neopositivism’. Studies in Soviet Thought III (1963) 230–242 and IV (1964) 81–84.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Metod analiza v sovremennoj burïuaznoj filosofii. Tbilisi. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Teorija poznanija ob 2ej semantiki. Erevan. 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  93. GnoseologUa sovremennogo pragmatizma. Moskva. 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Sovremennyj pozitivizm. Moskva. 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Cf. the bibliography.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Kant i kantianstvo. Moskva. 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Cf. the bibliography.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Boston College, Boston, Mass., USA

    Thomas J. Blakeley

Authors
  1. Thomas J. Blakeley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1964 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blakeley, T.J. (1964). The Development of Soviet Theory of Knowledge and Its Main Representatives. In: Soviet Theory of Knowledge. Sovietica, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3036-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3036-5_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8325-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3036-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation