Theodor Oizerman’s article “On The Meaning of the Question‘What is Philosophy?’” was first published in the journal “Voprosy filosofii”, 1968, vol. 11. Since that the issue has become a bibliographical rarity and still does not exist in a digital form. Other versions of the article were rewritten in the form of book chapters and transformed in the context of the current situation. This proposed publication bases on one of the older versions, which, is, on the one hand, close to the (...) original author’s intention, and on the other hand, lacks a certain dependence on the ideological context. The text, however, includes some critically important arguments appearing only in later editions. In general, the article is of central significance in terms of its place in the Metaphilosophy concept proposed by Oizerman, which later the following books have manifested: “The Problem Of The History Of Philosophy”(1969, 1983), “The Foundations For The Theory Of The Historico-Philosophical Process” (1983, in co-authorship with A.S. Bogomolov), “Philosophy As A History Of Philosophy” (1999), “Ambivalence Of Philosophy” (2011); “Metaphilosophy: Theory Of The Historico-Philosophical Process” (2009). A number of references due to the difficulty of reading the archived article text have been omitted or taken from new editions. The text has been prepared and edited by Ilya T. Kasavin. (shrink)

This article offers an analysis of dialectical materialism. The author, being a supporter of this theory, offers a self-critical assessment of its foundations. He argues that the predecessors of Marxism constructed their systems with the confidence that they were building the true and only true philosophy. This utopian idea shared by Marx, Engels, and their successors was refuted by subsequent developments in philosophy. Indeed, philosophy by its very nature is pluralistic and interminable. Self-critical Marxism must recognize the legitimacy not only (...) of dialectical materialism, but also of other philosophies no matter how much they may differ in their content. This is supported by analysis of the main categories and problems of dialectical materialism—the laws of dialectics, matter, evolution, consciousness, and truth. (shrink)

Truth is the adequate reflection of objective reality by an individual in the process of cognition, a reflection which reproduces the object being cognized as it exists outside of and independent of cognition; it is the objective content of human perceptions, concepts, sensations, judgments, deductions, theories, as verified by societal experience. Truth is the infinite associated sequence and continuity of the results of acquiring knowledge, the increasingly all-sided and profound reflection of interacting, changing, contradictory objects. This historical concept of truth (...) is the foundation of the dialectical materialist distinction between relative and absolute truth. Also associated with this is the Marxist understanding of cognition as the dialectical movement from relative to absolute truth. The problem of truth is one of the principal problems of dialectical logic. Truth must not be identified with logical truth in the sense of an epistemo-logical description of an adequate relation between the objective content of knowledge and objective reality, or as the concept of the formal conditions for the expression of truth. (shrink)

The author considers the claim about the existence of a unified subject matter of philosophy in the light of the existence of a diversity of philosophies. It is shown that a unified subject matter of philosophical inquiry for all historical periods is unfounded, and that Marxist attempts to give a universal definition of the subject matter of philosophy is inadequate. The author defends the position of a qualitative change in the subject matter of philosophy in the course of its development. (...) The article provides an overview of major philosophical themes through the prism of the subject-object relationship. The themes under discussion include: nature, the human agent, personality, individuality, subjectivity, and the topic of a cognitive and active relationship between the human and the world. The article shows that the unity of the subject matter of philosophy can be defined only in the most general terms, since the above main themes are only partially and idiosyncratically reflected in different philosophies. (shrink)

The fact that production, and above all the production of material goods, is an indispensable, one may even say absolute, condition for the existence of society and human life was, of course, known long before Marx. There is no need to list the thinkers who stated this idea, to which people's ordinary consciousness, incidentally, inevitably arrives independently of science on the basis of their everyday experience. Historical materialism has nothing in common with such a commonplace assertion, which is essentially a (...) generally known fact, although insufficiently appreciated by our predecessors. (shrink)

The question of the relation of Marxism to utopianism is first of all the question of its relation to Utopian socialism and communism. However, the concepts of Utopia and utopianism are much broader than the substance of the particular socialist and communist teachings that preceded Marxism or existed alongside it. For precisely this reason the concept of Utopia must first of all be examined separately from Marxism. Only such an approach can reveal the real content and, in a sense, the (...) enduring significance of the Utopian element in people's consciousness, thinking, and worldview. (shrink)

The scientific-philosophical world-view of Marxism is a negation of philosophy in the old, traditional meaning of that word. That is, Marxism represents a negation of any attempt to create a completed system of philosophical knowledge that would exhaust the object of its research and be independent of all the subsequent development of cognition and of the life of society. This negation is concrete, dialectical, and materialist, and constitutes a significant factor in the philosophical revolution wrought by Marx and Engels in (...) creating the philosophical system called dialectical and historical materialism, differing fundamentally from all prior philosophical systems. (shrink)

In their work The German Ideology, the founders of Marxism assert that the prerequisite of post-capitalist (defined by them as communist) society is the universal development of human abilities and all social relations. But then on the same page, contrary to this statement, it is alleged that the abolition of private property is not only highly topical but it is also an imperative history-making task. In Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels explain that economic crises recurrently shaking capitalist (...) society expose an apparent contradiction between the productive forces and the capitalist relations of production – therefore, these relations must be eliminated for the preservation of society. Nonetheless, the same treatise affirms that the bourgeoisie cannot exist without revolutionizing not only the productive forces but also the relations of production. But in this case it stands to reason to recognize that there is no conflict between productive forces and production relations, and, therefore, there is no crisis of the capitalist system, either. Paradoxes in the communist theory of Marxism stem not merely from erroneous conceptions but reveal the fact that Marxism as an ideology comes into conflict with its scientific social theory. Hence, these paradoxes disclose the relative independence of the social theory of Marxism from its ideological postulates. (shrink)

The history of philosophical thought has often been compared to a comedy of errors, and is one of the most important dimensions of the intellectual history of mankind. Quests for a correct view of the world and tragic mistakes, the polarization of philosophy into mutually exclusive trends, which is sometimes thought of as a permanent scandal in philosophy — these are not merely the searchings and sufferings of individual thinkers. This is the intellectual odyssey of mankind, and those to whom (...) it appears a farce apparently interpret the tragic only as the idols of the theater. But the fact is that antinomies, crises, retracing of steps, the discarding of real truths in favor of erroneous concepts long since refuted but stubbornly taken as true — are these things characteristic of philosophy alone? Philosophy is the intellectual image of mankind, and the contradictions of its development are of no small importance to the intellectual biography of humanity. (shrink)

The concept of truth is a fundamental category in the theory of knowledge and philosophy in general. Other philosophical categories presuppose the concept of truth as their content or as the goal of investigatory inquiry. Philosophy begins historically with rejection of any form of opinion in the name of truth and with the counterposing of what truly exists to the variety of appearance. Thus was born theoretical thought, for which in antiquity philosophy was a synonym.

The subjectivist-agnostic interpretation of the category of truth, which we examined in Part One, on "critical rationalism," has deep epistemological roots. Hence, Lenin's analysis of the epistemological intentions of "physical" idealism, which emerged at the end of the last century, is fully applicable to a description of the epistemological falsification of Karl Popper and his followers.

The antithesis of nature and freedom is the central idea of Kant's philosophy. It is the direct expression of its postulated division of all existing things into the world of phenomena, which in their sum-total constitute nature, and its original foundation—the world of things in themselves, which lie beyond the categorial determinations of nature. Necessity and causal relations, like space and time, apply only to the world of phenomena; the world of things in themselves is free of these determinations and, (...) therefore, constitutes the realm of freedom—freedom from the intractable laws of nature. Thus, Kant, on the one hand, proves the unconditional subsumption of phenomena under the laws of nature, under the strictest determinism, and, on the other, insists just as decisively that freedom is the first, pretemporal link in the cause-and-effect chain of events. True, the existence of this original freedom is unprovable; it is unknowable, supersensible, and transcendent. But if we agree that there are not only phenomena but also things in themselves, then the conclusion about freedom is fully justified. If, on the other hand, we reject the existence of things in themselves, then we deny at the same time any possibility of freedom, for there are no exceptions in natural determinism. (shrink)

The author examines the philosophical doctrines of Kant and Hegel, and puts forward a thesis concerning the inner ambivalence of these doctrines. The thesis is supported with concrete examples demonstrating the internal contradictions in the philosophical systems of Kant and Hegel. The more a philosophical doctrine is meaningful and innovative, the more it is contradictory, ambivalent, and aporiastic, in spite of the efforts of its founder and followers to reconcile all of its major claims. This ambivalence, however, turns out to (...) be a positive quality, because it allows philosophers to transcend their philosophical system, and if not directly, then indirectly raises the questions: Should philosophers continue building systems? And do not all self-contained systems fetter philosophical discourse? (shrink)

I am perfectly aware that to both the writing and the reading public, a theoretical discussion today of the basic problems of Marxism seems superfluous or at best inappropriate. However, I cannot share this dominant sentiment.

The author recollects the significant landmarks in the institute's development, which coincides with and reflects the history of the country over the past eighty years.

In The Manifesto of the Communist Party the founders of Marxism demarcated in a principled way the qualitatively different forms of Utopian socialism. They critically analyzed "feudal socialism," petty-bourgeois socialist Utopias, bourgeois pseudo-socialism and, finally, the critical-Utopian socialism of St. Simon, Fourier, and Owen, which was one of the theoretical sources of the scientific ideology of the working class. This analysis shows that as early as the first half of the nineteeth century ideologies that were foreign to the working class (...) frequently appeared under the banner of socialism. In some cases this socialism had an imaginary, purely phraseological character. In others, it represented a petty bourgeois interpretation of the proletarian liberation movement. But critical-utopian socialism was the reflection of "the first instinctive yearnings of the proletariat for a universal reconstruction of society." This class characterization of the various modifications of socialist doctrine during the epoch of the West European bourgeois democratic revolutions has great methodological significance for understanding the whole subsequent evolution of the ideology of capitalism. (shrink)