105066, г. Москва, Старая Басманная ул., 21/4
Порус Владимир Натанович
Пащенко Тарас Валерьевич
Дроздова Дарья Николаевна
Менеджер по работе с преподавателями
Захарова Наталия Владимировна
+7 (495) 772-95-90 *22685
Зарецкий Ю. П., Безрогов В. Г., Кошелева О. Е.
СПб.: Алетейя, 2019.
Filippov A. F., Farkhatdinov N.
Russian Sociological Review. 2019. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 9-15.
In bk.: What is to Be Done? Art Practice, Theory and Criticism in Russia during the Long Nineteenth Century. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin, 2019.
SSRN Working Paper Series. SSRN Working Paper Series. Social Science Research Network, 2019
Рабочий язык семинара: английский.
We propose to reassess the importance of idealism as a theoretical resource in Soviet intellectual culture. As a system of belief, dialectical materialism in Soviet times became a disciplinarily fixed and transmissible form of worldview. It was opposed to idealism as a theory that existed in isolation from practice and/or camouflaged harmful practice. But even convinced dialecticians, such as historian and philosopher of mathematics Sofia Yanovskaya or philosopher Ewald Ilyenkov, were looking for a way to preserve idealism, even as a mistaken and limited form of thought. Already discussing various concepts of Platonism in the 60s, Yanovskaya describes their authors as being mistaken but important for the formation of science. She finds a language for description that allows her to discuss idealism within the framework of dialectical materialism. In this way, we can speak of a second sense of ‘belief’: philosophers’ own belief in the necessity of (critical) reception of idealism. It is this kind of ambiguous criticism that dazzles in the texts of Soviet philosophers and even textbooks - under the guise of criticizing idealism, many of them conveyed the idealistic teachings themselves. This type of reception put a recognizable stamp on the production of humanitarian and social knowledge in late Soviet culture.
Tatiana Levina (NRU HSE) Sofia Yanovskaya between Ideology and Idealism
Sofia Yanovskaya (1896-1966), who was a Professor at Lomonosov Moscow State University, made a significant contribution to the philosophy of mathematics in the USSR at the time of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Educated as a “Red Professor” in 1935, she began with criticizing bourgeois types of thought, namely all forms of idealism, inculcating the ideology of the dialectic of Marxism-Leninism in the field of mathematics. But suddenly Yanovskaya reversed her strategy: the later period of her life was dedicated to the defense of mathematical logic and philosophy of mathematics from the bashing by those in favor of dialectical materialism.
Mikhail Nemtsev (Independent) Cybernetics at the service of Communism
Already in late 1950ties, some Soviet Academicians in the current state of Soviet Socialism began to believe that a necessary amendment of the Soviet System would be achieved by wide application of the newest achievements of natural science. They would seek for a better (i.d. more ‘scientific’) theory of social development which would lead to a better understanding of social conditions and methods of their desirable transformations. This scientific approach to Socialism was developed by a number of scientists who would eventually join ranks of so-called ‘Dissident movement’. To explore their initial attempts to save their Communist ideals I shall consider two influential works written in late 1960ties: “Inertia of fear by Vladimir Turchin and “Thoughts on progress...” by Andrei Sakharov. My main question is how exactly would they deploy natural sciences to save Socialism from deterioration?
Sean Winkler (NRU HSE) Ideology Critique in Boris Hessen’s Newton Papers (1927 and 1931)
Boris Hessen’s “The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia” (1931) is considered a pioneering work in the historiography of natural science, advancing what appears to be a ‘materialist’ approach to this field of study. Previously, Hessen published another paper on Newton entitled “Preface to Articles by A. Einstein and J.J. Thomson” (1927), which bears a stronger resemblance to works of a more ‘idealist’ persuasion in the historiography of natural science. For decades, scholars have puzzled over why Hessen chose to adopt, what appear to be, completely opposite methodologies. In this talk, I argue that in the 1927 and 1931 texts, Hessen, far from advancing distinct methodologies, articulates two different aspects of the ‘ideology critique’ that was characteristic of his unique brand of dialectics. Throughout his corpus of works, Hessen consistently argues that materialism and idealism form a unity of opposites; that is, he believes that materialism and idealism are inseparable and that both forming essential moments in the historical development of natural science.
When: Wednesday, June, 19 of 2019 at 17:00
Where: Staraya Basmannaya Street, 21/4 A-417