In Alfred Ayer's article, philosophy is sharply counterposed to science, is denied the status of a science. This is the leitmotif of his entire paper. Moreover, the defense of this conception is characteristic of many representatives of neopositivism who go along with Ayer. However, Ayer has certain distinctive ideas of his own, which require critical analysis. Fundamental among them is his acknowledgment of the extremely general character of the concepts and principles with which philosophy, as distinct from the special sciences, (...) operates. This universality which is the distinguishing characteristic of philosophy is then transformed into an argument against the recognition of philosophy as a science. In replying to Ayer we shall attempt to demonstrate that his acknowledgment by no means necessitates the elimination of philosophy from the list of the sciences, but merely emphasizes its distinctive, that is, its general character, in contrast to all other sciences, which are particular in nature. This is the theme of the present article. (shrink)

The problem we are discussing has many aspects.

Philosophers and natural scientists are both familiar with the fact that, nearly a century ago, Engels undertook to synthesize the findings of natural science in his day from the standpoint of materialist dialectics. But few know the price Engels paid, how many times the work approached completion but was, for various reasons, postponed again and again until his death. In his mind, what place was his Dialectics of Nature to have occupied in the overall system of Marxist theory? This is (...) the question to which I devote the present article. But before offering an answer, it is necessary to trace, albeit briefly, the history of this book — how it was conceived by Engels, how work on it progressed, how it was broken off, and how the incomplete manuscript came down to us. (shrink)

The question of a new journal and the philosophical debate of 1947 In 1922-43 Soviet philosophers had their own journal titled Pod znamenem marksizma [Under the Banner of Marxism]. It came into being in early 1922 and its third issue contained Lenin's programmatic article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism" [O znachenii voinstvuiushchego materializma]. This journal published many good combative articles in its twenty years. But during the War it fell ill and in mid-1943 ceased to exist. It was not (...) discontinued. No, it simply lacked the strength to appear. Thereafter, we Soviet philosophers did not have our own journal for several years. The lack was felt especially keenly after the end of the Great Patriotic War when philosophical studies developed quickly in our country. A wide discussion of philosophical questions, especially contentious, controversial questions—and there were quite a few of them—became necessary but there was no forum for discussing them. This was also true of the critical analysis of the philosophical literature that was coming out: a rare review appeared from time to time in the existing journals, but it was clearly inadequate and, most importantly, it did not give a comprehensive evaluation of the merits and shortcomings of the published philosophical work. It seemed to us then that an unhealthy situation such as the one involving G. F. Aleksandrov's book The History of Western European Philosophy [Istoriia zapadnoevropeiskoi filosofii], which was not evaluated on its merits and, despite its serious flaws, was praised by admirers of the author's talent, could only arise in the absence of a philosophical journal. Had there been a journal, it could have helped to prevent such stuffy situations from arising in certain sections of the philosophical front. Obviously, this opinion was quite naive: at the time many of us did not understand that if Aleksandrov had had "his" man on the journal, no criticism of his book would have been permitted. We realized this later. (shrink)

The question of the unity of scientific knowledge, including that of the unity of the natural sciences and the humanities , occupies an important place in the writings of Marx. As a consistent materialist, Marx demonstrated that the connection among the sciences was based on an objective connection among the phenomena of nature and society. This outlook provides the key to discovering the unity of the sciences in our own day. Let us see how Marx posed that question, and how (...) it stands today. (shrink)

There can be no doubt that the process of differentiation of the sciences today is going forward with rising intensity. This process is expressed in two ways: in the appearance of new sciences and disciplines outside those already existing, and as the further subdivision of existing sciences into narrower and more fragmented disciplinary branches.

1. As always, before beginning a discussion it is necessary to settle on the concepts with which one will operate. In the present instance we will be concerned not only with the concept of determinism, but with others associated with or correlative to it: law, causality, necessity, etc. Obviously, within the limits of a brief paper we can deal only with the most basic features.

It has long become established practice, on the part of the editors of Voprosy filosofii, to hold round table discussions on various pressing problems of philosophy and related disciplines.

Discoveries in natural science may be described concisely as a general procedure for finding the new in nature, in its phenomena, or in their essence.

We know that the Philosophical Notebooks do not constitute a finished work, but are working digests done by Lenin, not for publication but only for himself, and as a basis for further work on questions of dialectics. This circumstance must always be remembered when one turns to the Philosophical Notebooks. Here are recorded and collected Lenin's remarkable thoughts as they developed upon reading the works of Hegel and other philosophers as well as certain natural scientists, and Lenin's exceedingly valuable plans (...) and notions pertaining to further work on theoretical problems of the materialist dialectic. But, at the same time, the Philosophical Notebooks contain numerous passages copied by Lenin as he did the digests of the philosophical works he read. Moreover, it is sometimes difficult to say for what purpose and toward what end Lenin did this copying: was it in order subsequently to adduce these extracts and quotations in support of his own views and postulates; was it for purposes of criticism — to demonstrate that the propositions of Marxist dialectics were incompatible with them; or was it merely as the roughest kind of material for work he would subsequently do? Many of the copied extracts in the Philosophical Notebooks are accompanied by Lenin's critical remarks, negative and positive, in brief analyses and rather extensive commentaries. But some of them remained open questions for Lenin himself. In such an instance he noted for his own information that it would be necessary to return again to the proposition he had copied, because it was something that he did not fully understand: it seemed to him that at the given point Hegel wished to say this or that; but perhaps that is not the case. (shrink)

To help people study Marxist-Leninist philosophy, it is particularly necessary to be careful about the accuracy of philosophical terminology. Vague and ambiguous expressions must be firmly eliminated. Among them, in our view, is the saying, current among us, to the effect that "the world as a whole" is the subject matter of philosophy, Marxist philosophy included. The present article is devoted to criticism of that view.