Soviet Philosophy Research Articles

CONTEXTUALIZATION OF D. CHYZHEVSKY’S HISTORICAL-PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT: FROM PHILOSOPHY IN UKRAINE (1926) TO ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY IN UKRAINE (1931)

Chyzhevsky’s work Essays on the History of Philosophy in Ukraine has become a fundamental study of the history of Ukrainian philosophy since its publication in 1931. But even earlier, Chyzhevsky wrote the work Philosophy in Ukraine. An Attempt at Historiography (1926), its first part had a second edition (1929) and contained some additions and clarifications. Chyzhevsky’s reaction to the reviews of the first edition of his Philosophy in Ukraine included in the second edition of this work is interesting and worthy of attention. In it, he responds to the comments and objections made by the reviewers of the first edition of the work (by Y. Kolubovsky, V. Zaikyn, I. Mirchuk, S. Hessen). This reaction has a twofold nature. On the one hand, Chyzhevsky admits that some points in his work require correction, in particular, the assessment of the role of Protestantism in the development of Ukrainian philosophical thought, the need for a more detailed consideration of the worldview of such thinkers as Gogol, Kostomarov, Shevchenko. On the other hand, Chyzhevsky, clarifying his position, continues to defend his principles, according to which he includes certain authors in the “canon” of Ukrainian philosophy. At the same time, he still admits that some authors should be included in this “canon” (... Spir). Chyzhevsky also responds to the Marxist review of P. Hanin (P. Demchuk), but does not stop at her meaningful remarks. However, some of these remarks are not unfounded, as they relate to Chyzhevsky’s evaluative judgments expressed about Skovoroda and philosophy in Kharkiv after Schad. A more careful analysis and comparison of the two editions of Philosophy in Ukraine (1926, 1929) and Essays on the History of Philosophy in Ukraine in the cases of Skovoroda, Schad, and Jakob proves that Chyzhevsky changed his initial, sometimes harsh, evaluative judgments to neutral ones. There is no reason to definitely assert that such changes occurred under the direct influence of reviews. However, there are reasons to affirm that many innovations and reassessments in Essays correlate with the remarks formulated in the reviews. In contrast to Western European favorable reviews of Essays (S. Hessen, G. Frolovsky, V. Zaikyn, D. Doroshenko, N. Lossky), the reaction of Soviet philosophy turned out to be unscientific and ideologically engaged (Y. Bilyk, V. Yurynets).

Философия языка А.М. Деборина

The article is devoted to one of the little-known episodes of the scientific life of the famous Soviet philosopher Academician Abram Deborin. The author will analyze his works on linguistics. In the mid 1930s. Abram Deborin enthusiastically set about creating his own linguistic and philosophical concept of the origin of language and thinking on the basis of Nikolai Marr’s “New theory of language”. He developed and supplemented this doctrine, building a complete philosophy of language. Marr’s doctrine correlated with the Marxist-Leninist worldview of Abram Deborin, and also corresponded to his adherence to the doctrine of Hegel. The focus of the article is the book The New Doctrine of Language and Dialectical Materialism (1935), as well as his other works that deal with questions of linguistics. Developing the ideas of Marr, the Soviet philosopher strengthened his Marxist argument and resolved some of the contradictions of Marrism. He left aside the insignificant linguistic aspects of Marrism, which had nothing to do with philosophical problems. Abram Deborin became the first author of works on linguistics written from the standpoint of the “New theory of language”, and he was the only one to remain so. After the famous discussion on linguistics in 1950, when Joseph Stalin came out with the work Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, in which Marrism was crushed, Abram Deborin was forced to repent of his mistakes, demonstrating his rejection of the “New theory of language”. However, the scientist did not abandon the important idea of Nikolai Marr about the transition from synthetic thinking in primitive society to analytical thinking in class society. This idea was developed in his works at the junction of philosophy and linguistics, written after 1950. In this period particularly developed in his philosophy of language was the idea of the coincidence of opposite meanings in one word expressing some concept of the human protolanguage.

Деборинцы – философы науки (естественные науки)

The article attempts to give a panoramic overview of the works of philosophers of the school of Academician A.M. Deborin in the field of philosophical problems of special sciences. It is noted that the very model of the organization of philosophical knowledge according to the type: philosophical methodology – philosophical problems of special sciences – was formed in the Deborin school, then developed in Soviet philosophy and after the defeat of the Deborin school, and in general, with the corresponding changes, was inherited by the post-Soviet philosophy. At the same time, those philosophers who laid the foundations for the development of philosophical problems of particular sciences were forgotten, since almost all of them were repressed, and their works were withdrawn from free access in li­braries. The formation of the problematics of the philosophical problems of sciences during the “Thaw” period was based on the traditions of the Deborin school. But at the same time, the names of philosophers themselves were erased from history. This article will focus on those representatives of the Deborin school who dealt with the philosophical problems of mathematics (Yu.P. Shein), physics (B.M. Hessen, T.N. Gorshtein, E.F. Lepin, M.L. Shirvindt), chemistry (I.P. Rozen), biology (I.I. Agol, M.L. Levin, V.N. Slepkov) and medicine (S.G. Levit). The most general characteristic of their scientific works, the prob­lems they posed, the philosophical positions they occupied are given. The relevance of the in­dividual provisions put forward by them in the field of philosophy and methodology of spe­cific sciences is noted.

ЭВОЛЮЦИЯ КУЛЬТУРЫ В РОССИИ: ОТ ИСТОРИИ К СОВРЕМЕННОСТИ ЧЕРЕЗ ПРИЗМУ ВСЕОБЩЕГО ДУХА

The article presents an analysis of the development of Russian culture from ancient times to the present day, with a focus on philosophical and cultural concepts, so, based on Hegel's theory of the universal spirit, the author studies how the cultural development of Russia was inspired by the desire for full self-realization through cultural forms. The work examines issues of cultural evolution, for example, what the Soviet philosopher M.S. Kagan reveals that culture is a composite system that has many subsystems and elements, and the theories of sociocultural evolution and dual inheritance view culture as a mechanism of natural selection and social learning. Further, the article analyzes in detail the influence of Byzantine culture on the formation of the Russian cultural and spiritual landscape, highlighting the role of Christianity, icon painting and architectural styles; The period of Europeanization and the search for national identity in the 18th-19th centuries is discussed, including the reforms of Peter I and the influence of great Russian writers and composers on world culture. Changes in the cultural life of the USSR, especially under the influence of ideology and control in the post-war years, and the subsequent development of science and education are also analyzed; it is determined that in the post-Soviet period the main emphasis is on the process of globalization and the search for a new cultural identity, while the author talks about the role of youth in preserving national culture and overcoming cultural isolation.

Evald Ilyenkov and the imperialist unconscious in Soviet philosophy

Evald Ilyenkov and the imperialist unconscious in Soviet philosophy

По ту сторону утопии. Два взгляда на постиндустриальный труд

Statism and anarchism are a binary opposition that divides Marxists into two irreconcilable camps. This opposition was felt especially irresistible during the Iron Curtain. But already in the 1980s, both in Soviet philosophy and in European Marxism, the idea of dialogue and communication was actively gaining popularity, which called for compromise between opponents. And today, when the depoliticizing nature of late capitalism tendentiously smooth out “rough edges,” imposing radical centrism according to Anthony Gidden contradictions completely lose their fundamental importance. Within the framework of this hypothesis, the author constructs a theoretical dialogue between Italian post-Operatism (Antonio Negri, Paolo Virno, Franco Berardi, Maurizio Lazzarato, etc.) and domestic cultural philosophies (Vladimir Bibler, Vadim Mezhuyev, Nal Zlobin, Moses Kagan, Arnold Arnoldov, etc.), which are usually located at opposite poles of the political spectrum: postoperatives are known as anarchists, and cultural philosophers are more conservative and rather closer to the Social Democrats. Both schools, referring to Karl Marx’s early works, analyze a new reality where the role of the main producer is occupied by a cultural person (scientist/artist) or a postindustrial worker. Both schools experience a certain affect of disappointment in radical political changes, and therefore see the main way to improve society no longer in political struggle, but in culture and communication. But while Italian Marxists urge to seek horizontal solidarity in subcultures, cultural philosophers take a position of power, developing pedagogical programs to make from proletariat the so-called cognitariat. The post-operatives label the new society emerging with the term “Empire.” The author of the article draws parallels between the new Empire and the late USSR, in which cultural philosophers worked. The article compares critical and apologetic views on post- Fordist production, as well as examines two proposed Enlightenment projects. The article attempts to demonstrate the theoretical similarities of the two directions and lays a certain foundation for their convergence with the aim of creating a dialectical theory that would combine both elements of pedagogy and a program of horizontal solidarity.

Философия и жизнь Эвальда Ильенкова

The article reveals the ideas of the Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov in the context of the characteristics of Soviet philosophy. The reason for the rejection of Ilyenkov’s ideas by official Soviet Marxism was his non-orthodox understanding of Marxist philosophy as materialist dialectics, the main task of which he considered to be the discovery of the laws of knowledge. Ilyenkov was accused of “epistemology,” “idealism,” and “positivism,” although it was him who consistently criticized the idealistic and positivist tendencies in Soviet philosophy. Evald Ilyenkov, being a convinced communist, nevertheless clearly saw the tragic dead end of Soviet history. This caused both his close attention to the problem of communism as a genuine and historically objective ideal of human development, and his personal tragedy of bitter, mortal disappointment. The dialectical-materialistic concept of thinking is analyzed on the basis of the Ilyenkov’s work Dialectics of Abstract and Concrete in Scientific and Theoretical Thinking. This work is a complex, theoretical reworking of Marxist dialectics, a personal and at the same time truly scientific understanding of it. This philosophy allowed Ilyenkov to formulate the most important provisions about the nature of personality. Ilyenkov was convinced that the key to understanding personality development was not in physiology, but in the content and characteristics of sensory-concrete activity. The article also outlines Ilyenkov’s understanding of the category of “ideal” as the essence of an object or phenomenon.

Philosophy of Social Intercourse and Artificial Intelligence

The paper aims to analyze three discussions pertaining to the artificial intelligence project that took place on both sides of the “Iron Curtain” since the 1960s: 1) E.V. Ilyenkov – D.I. Dubrovsky (USSR), 2) H. Dreyfus – computer scientists (USA), 3) H. Dreyfus – H. Collins (USA – UK). The authors observe the originality of the arguments of Soviet philosophers in comparison with the discussions in the US and UK. The basis for a comparative analysis of these discussions is the typology of social intercourse paradigms, which assumes the existence of three fundamentally different views of humans as social beings: the information-instrumental, the existential-phenomenological, and the social-institutional paradigms. These views correlate with the ideas about humans within different theoretical structures examining artificial intelligence. The information-instrumental paradigm poses the problem of social intercourse regarding communication, material, and informational exchange (D.I. Dubrovsky, computer scientists). The social-institutional paradigm considers social intercourse as personification, actualization, and implementation of the structural characteristics of social relations (E.V. Ilyenkov). The existential-phenomenological paradigm characterizes social intercourse as the realization of the internal potency of a self-conscious individual (H. Dreyfus). The paper exposes that the theoretical and methodological foundations of the discussions under consideration are similar to the paradigmatic foundations of the analysis of social intercourse in social philosophy and social sciences. There are “two and a half floors” in the research of problems associated with the entry of artificial intelligence technologies into the everyday life of society: 1) philosophy, computer and cognitive sciences; 2) social sciences; 3) interdisciplinary research. A particular paradigmatic structure and a unique research problem characterize each of them. In conclusion, “new old questions” are highlighted that structure the field of contemporary social analytics for studying artificial intelligence and artificial sociality.

Özbekistan'da Bilimsel Ateizm Gelişiminin Retrospektif Analizi (XX. Yüzyılın 30'larında)

The article provides a retrospective analysis of the ways, mechanisms, and methods of development of atheism in Uzbekistan in the 30s of the twentieth century. It is explained how in the complex process of the formation of the communist worldview it influenced the consciousness of people and what an important role the atheistic education of the peoples of the former states of the USSR played. The struggle against religion is a necessary circumstance for building a socialist society. Modern Soviet atheist literature included studies aimed at a deeper understanding of the issue of scientific atheism and a precise definition of its place in the system of social and natural sciences, especially in the system of philosophical knowledge. Currently, the study of the connection between the theory and practice of atheism and the development of general problems of communist education is intensifying. Soviet philosophers who study the problems of the theory of scientific atheism face a difficult consequently: to find out how the content of scientific atheism, the forms and methods of its dissemination reflected those profound transformations in all spheres of people’s lives that took place in a developed socialist society. One of the results of the development of our country along the socialist path, which predetermined enormous socio-economic and cultural transformations, is the formation and steady growth of mass atheism. The disappearance of antagonistic classes in Soviet Union has led to the fact that the edge of the class struggle is turned outward. An enormous role in the spread of scientific atheism is played by the ideological activity of the Communist Party. Finally, the nature of the development of mass atheism, the content, forms, and methods of its propaganda has been and is being exerted and continues to be exerted by the political position of religious organizations. Questions of the formation of the Marxist-Leninist worldview are constantly at the center of the Party’s ideological and educational work, an important part of which is atheistic education. During the development of atheism, it? was associated with the activities of the Union of Militant Atheists, which arose from the cells of the society of friends of the newspaper "Bezbozhnik". The Union of Militant Atheists made a great contribution to the development of the theory and practice of anti-religious propaganda. Problem statement: The article focuses on the main question: what was the goal of the Communist Party for the development of atheistic ideology? With the help of what methods and mechanisms did they want to degrade the ideological worldview of the peoples of Central Asia? What role did the intelligentsia of Uzbekistan play in the spread of atheistic ideologies? Goal: study and analysis of the socio-political consequences of the spread of atheist ideology in Uzbekistan. Investigating the psychological impact of atheist ideology on the consciousness of the people of Uzbekistan. The aim of the study is to determine the concept of Atheism itself and to establish its relationship and mutual influence with the concepts of secular and religious culture, science, philosophy, religious tolerance, free thought, humanism, skepticism, and materialism, which have not been studied sufficiently to date. Method and outputs: Analysis with the help of what methods and mechanisms the leadership of the Communist Party propagated the ataxic worldview and ideology. To clarify this, methods of analysis, synthesis, generalization, induction, and deduction were used.

Hegel in the Mirrors of Soviet Philosophy

The attitude to Hegel in Soviet philosophy was contradictory and depended to a considerable extent on ideological conjuncture. Waves of love and hate for Hegel alternated periodically. At different times emphasis was placed on the “revolutionary” method, dialectics, or on the “reactionary” system, the justification of the old world. On one page Lenin admired Hegel’s logical discoveries, on the next page he scolded him with harsh words for idealism, mysticism and “goddikin”. The article draws a parallel between the stylistics of Lenin’s philosophical works and the avant-garde artists and poets who gave a “slap in the face” to public taste. Philosophy becomes in Lenin’s hands the servant of politics; later on, the “principle of partisanship” became the credo of Marxist dogma and the criterion of the truth of philosophical doctrines. The Hegelian wing of Soviet Marxism was formed in the 1920s. The party leader of the “Dialecticians”, Abram Deborin, initiated the publication of Hegel’s Collected Works, which was published with a number of large and small interruptions over the course of 30 years (and the last, 15th volume never saw the light of day). After the defeat of the Deborinites in 1931, Hegel’s popularity gradually declined. However, some original studies coloured by love for Hegel appeared. Vygotsky used Hegelian concepts of “mediation” and “cunning of reason” to create a cultural-historical psychology; he believed that Hegel “walked lamely to the truth”. Mikhail Lifshits regarded Hegel as a “great conservative of mankind”, and Georg Lukács, who came to the Soviet Union, wrote his famous Young Hegel here and defended this book as his doctoral thesis (1942). Lifshits and Lukács concentrate on Hegel’s “historical dialectic” and on his comprehension of the revolutionary events of his epoch. By the end of the Great Patriotic War, Hegel’s philosophy had been declared an “aristocratic reaction to the French Revolution” (Stalin), and hatred of Hegel became reflexive. The party of persecutors of “Hegelianshchina” was led by Zinovy Beletsky, Professor at Moscow State University. It was only after Stalin’s death that serious research into Hegel’s philosophy could be resumed. E. V. Ilyenkov interpreted dialectics as “the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete” and traced how this — materialistically reinterpreted — method works in Marx’s Das Kapital. It was Neo-Hegelians who brought to the fore the category of the concrete, understood as “diversity fused into unity” (Ivan Ilyin); in this respect, Lenin was in full solidarity with them. In parallel with European Marxists, Ilyenkov criticised the interpretation of dialectics as a universal picture of the world, a new metaphysics cultivated by “diamat” and “istmat”. He did not, however, share the anti-Hegelian sentiments of the schools of G. della Volpe and L. Althusser. For Ilyenkov, Hegel is the greatest revolutionary in logic since Aristotle. At the end of the article are the facts showing that interest in “Soviet Hegel” is still alive today.

Soviet Marxist Humanism: from the Class Struggle to the Renaissance of Human

The article considers the main ideas of Soviet Marxist humanism. It is shown that, despite ideological control over culture and science, an original version of Marxist humanism has been developing in Soviet philosophy since the mid 1930-s. Unlike other countries, where the publication of Marxs Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts played a key role in the emergence of Marxist humanism, this publication did not have the same impact in the USSR. Soviet Marxist humanism results from the debates about proletarian culture and humanism in 1920–30-s and also evolves as an anti-fascist movement. Studying the subject, we analyze three key narratives: proletarian humanism, socialist humanism and communist humanism. Proletarian humanism (M. Gorky, M. Petrosyan), in our opinion, historically corresponded to the period of irreconcilable ideological struggle with abstract humanism and fascism. Socialist humanism (N. Bukharin, P. Fedoseev, F. Konstantinov) was investigating necessary material and spiritual conditions to bring up a comprehensively developed personality. Communist humanism (I. Frolov) reflected the process of scientific and technological revolution and historically corresponded to de-escalation of international relationships and political course towards democratization and transparency.

A Philosopher who has not Learned Wisdom

The article is devoted to the state of scientific research of the life, activity and legacy of V.E. Seseman, a Russian, Lithuanian, Soviet philosopher, one of the participants of the Eurasian movement. His fate turned out to be closely connected with one of the main ideologists of Eurasianism, L.P. Karsavin, a Medieval scholar and philosopher. The weak holistic elaboration of Sesemans legacy and life is due to a combination of reasons, primarily the lack of Russian translations of his main works written in German and Lithuanian. Another important reason is the low interest of researchers in archival sources containing important information about the biographies of Seseman and Karsavin. Previously unknown historical documents are actively used in the article. They recreate the dramatic tension of the 1920s–1950s, reveal important circumstances in the tragic fractures of the destinies of two Russian philosophers. Contrary to the established opinion, the author considers that the main real reason for the criminal prosecution of Seseman is not participation in Eurasianism, but a principled philosophical position, including expressed in open objections to the imposition of the supremacy of the principle of partisanship in the teaching of logic and against the reformatting of this science into an ideological discipline. theoretical development. Another reason for the arrests was the extreme carelessness of these university professors in informal relationships with others, many of whom were secret agents. The author of the article points out a striking gap between the high theoretical qualifications of two armchair scientists and their naive short-sightedness in practical behavior. The unreasonable credulity shown in real life by two thinkers translates the topic into the register of ethics and leads to questions about the personal responsibility of each of these theorists for the tragedy of not only their lives, but also the lives of loved ones.

What is the Philosophy We Need?

The study provides an overview of the discussion “What is the philosophy we need?”, that took place in the frames of “Modern Ontology - XI: Ontology and Religion” International Scientific and Practical Conference. The discussion spread around three main areas of philosophy teaching: philosophy as the history of philosophy, philosophy as the basis for the worldview, and philosophy as a system-categorical knowledge about the world as a whole. Supporters of the first position demonstrated the content diversity of philosophy, often emphasizing the teacher’s right to choose historical and philosophical material, this position caused criticism from other conference participants, whose main argument was the erosion of the philosophy content. Regarding the second position in the frames of discussion, its participants either denied the involvement of philosophy in the worldview formation, or believed that philosophy is the basis for the worldview, and the task of philosophy, in particular, is to form the worldview of students. As arguments, supporters of this approach cited the need for the philosophy in the transformation of modern spiritual life in Russia. This approach was in harmony with the position of the discussion participants, who advocated a system-categorical approach in philosophy teaching. This approach supposed the combination of abstract section (Ontology) with a specific section, where it would be necessary to consider the three following sections of philosophy: 1 - philosophy of nature, 2 - philosophy of socio-anthropological reality, 3 - philosophy of religion. At the same time, the supporters of this approach suggested using the substantive part of Soviet philosophy as a basis, which needs to be transformed taking into account the achievements of modern knowledge.

Genesis of Soviet Philosophy: the Case of V.F. Asmus

Genesis of Soviet Philosophy: the Case of V.F. Asmus

Філософська спільнота і емансипація мислення: досвід Алуштинських шкіл

The article examines the methodological problems of the historical-philosophical research of the “Soviet philosophy.” The process of the emancipation of thinking is examined through the analysis of the tradition of the Alushta Schools of Young Philosophers in 1987–1993. These schools played a historically significant role in overcoming the prejudices and stereotypes of the Soviet consciousness by the Ukrainian philosophical community. The mentioned analysis led to a few conclusions regarding the methodology of historical-philosophical research of the intellectual legacy – primarily texts – of the Soviet era. (1) Soviet philosophy was certainly an anti-philosophy, a social machine of anti-thinking. (2) The basis of analyzing both texts and events of this philosophy should consider the phenomenon of doublethink – two simultaneous and parallel spaces of discourses’ (meanings’) existence. Doublethink reflects the situation when ideological officialdom, loyalty to which was necessary, and the opposing desire for true thinking coexisted. (3) This collision led to the development of and was characterized by a number of features: the “Aesopian language,” peculiar regimes of private trust, intellectual reservations, etc. The article corroborates that the change in the dynamics of the intellectual situation (language of philosophy, mode of communication, communities of intellectuals, ethos and ideals of scientific research, etc.) is the main subject of historical-philosophical research.

Анализ экзистенциалов как антропологических категорий в позднесоветской философии

The article deals with the analysis of existentials as anthropological categories in late Soviet philosophy. A number of key categories and authors who developed them are highlighted. It is shown that during the1970s and 1980s, Soviet philosophers autonomously studied the problem of understanding a person, which is called existential. Being isolated from Western schools of thought, Soviet philosophers followed an independent and original path in the analysis of existentials. Therefore, these texts have not lost their significance as examples of that independent philosophy, which is based on real spiritual and intellectual experience. The concepts of spiritual feelings by V.I. Shinkaruk, practices as a special form of communication by V.G. Tabachkovsky, the philosophy of “second birth” by M.K. Mamardashvili and the existential of spiritual death as interpreted by G.S. Batishchev represent original achievements of Soviet philosophy that have no direct equivalents in Western philosophy of the 20th century. They were based on a deep and specific spiritual experience of living in a secular culture. The considered range of anthropological categories (existentials), which were developed in late Soviet philosophy, allows us to conclude that the latter generally gravitated, on the one hand, towards existential problems as such and, on the other, towards a spontaneous revival of elements of Christian consciousness on the basis of a new spiritual and intellectual experience of the crisis of secular consciousness. Therefore, it can be said that it was during this period that the foundation and model for the subsequent development of the original Russian philosophy were established, which in the 21st century assumed more diverse and developed forms.

Методологические ориентиры историографии русской философии (40–90-е годы XX века)

This article provides an excursus into the field of tendencies and substantive features of the development of historiography of Russian philosophy in 40–90s of XX century. Provisions on multidimensionality and com-plexity of its methodological guidelines are denoted. As the main methodological trend in the development of the historiography of Russian philosophy, the orientation towards Marxist methodology, which focused on the analysis of the history of the spread of philosophical ideas in the USSR, is highlighted. It is emphasized that political changes in the 1950s, which entailed a change in the methodological orientation of the Soviet philoso-phers, were reflected in their focus on the interpretation of the specifics of national thought in the multinational USSR. In subsequent years, in the historiographical space of Russian philosophy, there was a systematization of methodological variations in the interpretation of formal and substantive features of Russian philosophy. In the run-up to the “crucial” 1990s, and primarily in the context of European philosophical thought, there emerged a tendency to single out periods of the “foreign renaissance” and “Soviet Marxism” in the history of Russian philosophy. As a methodological variation of the historiography of Russian philosophy at the threshold of the XXI century the tendency to popularize philosophical science, which actualized the enlightenment emphasis in the development of domestic philosophical thought.

In Search for Soviet Philosophy of Consciousness. A Review on: Soviet Philosophy of Mind: Etudes on History of Ideas. Ed. by A.D. Maydanskiy. Moscow: Kanon+ROOI “Reabilitatsiya”, 2023. 336 p.

In Search for Soviet Philosophy of Consciousness. A Review on: Soviet Philosophy of Mind: Etudes on History of Ideas. Ed. by A.D. Maydanskiy. Moscow: Kanon+ROOI “Reabilitatsiya”, 2023. 336 p.

«Философский пароход»: о парадигме С.С. Хоружего

The article analyzes the speech of S.S. Khoruzhy, published in 1990 in the “Literaturnaya Gazeta” under the title “Philosophical Steamer. How it was”. The metaphor he found has become popular and is actively used by modern critics of Soviet history. in 1922, S.S. Khoruzhy presented the expulsion of a group of Moscow and St. Petersburg intellectuals, among whom there were 13 philosophers, sociologists and jurists, as a spiritual catastrophe of Russia and even as the “end of Russian philosophy”. On the contrary, in the proposed article, this event is assessed as only a political action aimed at excluding from the public life of Soviet Russia all those who remained in the same unscientific ideological positions, defended the bourgeois values of university autonomy and freedom of speech, stating this in public speeches not understanding the new socio-political reality. The article emphasizes that the value confrontation in the public consciousness of Soviet Russia could turn into a political confrontation, which could threaten the country and the authorities with a new round of civil war. A parallel is drawn between the state of public consciousness of Soviet Russia in the 20s and the USSR in the 80s – early 90s of the twentieth century, when “glasnost” and “perestroika” became the beginning of the death of the USSR. The article challenges the thesis of S.S. Khoruzhy about the “end of philosophy” in Russia. It is argued that the establishment of the monopoly position of Marxist materialism and the exclusion of any non-Marxist philosophy from cultural life was simply the beginning of a new stage of Russian philosophy, forced to develop in its prescribed theoretical form. Meanwhile, thinkers of the Russian diaspora noted the presence of positive heuristic possibilities in Soviet philosophy, but in the absence of a philosophical dialogue they could not fully develop. The transformation of philosophy in Soviet history reminds the author of the time of Peter the Great, when one of the directions of European philosophy was given state patronage and Russian philosophical thinking left behind “love of wisdom” as a passed stage.

Выступления в дискуссии

This section presents a summary of Yu.V. Blue-eyed, N.I. Kuznetsova and G.L. Tulchinsky at the All-Russian online seminar "Russian Thought and Politics", held on January 20-21, 2023 and dedicated to the topic "The Phenomenon of the Sixties in Soviet Philosophy: the Intellectual and Political Potential of a Generation".