This book traces the development of Dialectical Logic within the history of modern western philosophy, culminating in Marx s materialist dialectics. It brings out the essential contours of Logic through a detailed exposition of the ontological and epistem.

As it happened, I became acquainted with E.V. Il'enkov quite late, in the mid- or even the late 1960s. It was only a bit more than ten years before his death that I began to feel at home in his house, was able to visit without calling ahead, and was able to call him by his first name and the familiar "you"—that is, like many, many of not only his true friends but also like-minded thinkers, who became his close acquaintances, (...) most of whom justly considered themselves his pupils … The door would open wide, and Olia, Professor K.I. Salimova, Eval'd's wife and most devoted friend, not at all surprised by the unexpected guest and seemingly even quite happy at his arrival , would try first to draw him into the kitchen and feed him … which she more often than not succeeded in doing. I am not talking about myself: there were always many guests, and this is precisely how they arrived at the Il'enkovs' apartment. Recently, a critic in Literaturnaia gazeta recalled those whom he met in Eval'd's apartment in the 1960s: "This was a tight circle of like-minded thinkers," wrote the critic. "But some of them are no longer with us, while most are far away, beyond our borders." Obviously, he had not been in the house often or had forgotten things over the distance of years. There was no "circle," nor could there have been one—not with this host, not with his lifestyle and way of relating to people. I met a good hundred fine and various people in Eval'd's home: I.N. Korzhavin, V. Davydov, A. Meshcheriakov, S. Vinogradova, N. Dubinin, V. Zinchenko, A. Zinov'ev, Iu. Kamiakin, and … indeed, five pages would not be enough to list the quite famous and the not-quite-so-famous, simply ordinary people with no claim to fame. Nazym Khikmet, A.N. Leont'ev, and B.M. Kedrov were friends of the house … Ever new faces, figures, and words come to mind. I cannot forgive myself: once Eval'd Vasil'evich wanted to take me along to Iurii Liubimov's to read his play Neither God nor Tsar nor Hero … [Ni bog, ni tsar' i ni geroi], but I had some other business, something so important that I do not even remember now what it was, and it is probably not worth remembering. But most likely I was too timid to appear uninvited at the house of a person burning with creativity. The same thing happened with Galich … Eval'd liked especially his song about Zoshchenko. He did not sing it; he narrated it, but in such a way that tears always came to one's eyes. (shrink)

February 18, 1994, marks the seventieth anniversary of the birth of Eval'd Vasil'evich Il'enkov. In this article, I would like to undertake a dual task: on the one hand, to trace out the general logic of Il'enkov's theoretical works; and on the other, to sketch a portrait of his personality . I would like to show that Il'enkov the man and Il'enkov the thinker are inseparable.

The article by D. I. Dubrovskii, "Brain and Mind" [Mozg i psikhika], published in Voprosy filosofii, No. 8, produced in me not only the desire to debate but also the desire to refrain, in that debate, from employing the tone he used. For that reason it seems necessary to me to list the points on which neither I nor, as I understand it, F. T. Mikhailov desires to take issue with the author of "Brain and Mind," because on these matters (...) we are entirely in agreement with him. To proceed in this fashion is necessary not for the sake of academic courtesy, but precisely in order to denote more clearly the actual points of difference between our positions, and then to let the reader decide which path he prefers. (shrink)

This paper examines Hegel’s place in the philosophy of Eval’d Il’enkov. Hegel’s ideas had a huge impact on Il’enkov’s conception of the nature of philosophy and of the philosopher’s mission, and they formed the core of his distinctive account of thought and its place in nature. At the same time, Il’enkov was victimized for his “Hegelianism” throughout his career, from the time he was sacked from Moscow State University in 1955 to the ideological criticisms that preceded his death in 1979. (...) After considering Hegel’s influence on the history of Russian thought, the paper focuses on Hegelian themes in Il’enkov’s 1974 book, Dialektičeskaja logika and evaluates their philosophical significance. Finally, parallels are explored between Il’enkov’s situation at the end of his life and the plight of Nikolaj Bukharin, incarcerated in the Lubjanka prison in 1936 and at work on Philosophical arabesques. Both thinkers confronted the contradiction between their confidence in the rationality of history and the tragic absurdity of Soviet reality, and both responded by affirming their fidelity to Lenin and his vision of Marxism. In this way, they sought to make sense of their respective situations in the face of extreme adversity. That they so much as thought it worth trying owed much to Hegel’s influence. (shrink)

The philosophy of education is among the least celebrated sub-disciplines of Anglo-American philosophy. Its neglect is hard to reconcile, however, with the fact that human beings owe their distinctive psychological powers to cumulative cultural evolution, the process in which each generation inherits the collective cognitive achievements of previous generations through cultural, rather than biological, transmission. This paper examines the work of Eval’d Il’enkov, who, unlike his Anglo-American counterparts, maintains that education, broadly understood, is central to issues in epistemology and philosophy (...) of mind. I expound Il’enkov’s position and defend it from five objections: (1) that Il’enkov treats education as a vehicle of social engineering; (2) that he is unduly preoccupied with controlling human development; (3) that he implausibly portrays the mind as a tabula rasa; (4) that his position is utopian; and (5) that it is technocratic. Defending Il’enkov illuminates a variety of issues about the objectives and ideals of education, formal and informal. I conclude that Il’enkov’s ideas, if complemented by those of other thinkers, Russian and Western, can help rejuvenate philosophy of education and reinstate the field at the centre of philosophical inquiry. (shrink)

RésuméLa personnalité, ľactivité et ľoeuvre de Gonseth peuvent être interprétéd organiquement dans une instructive pédagogie de dialogue. Ľauteur évoque a) la structure dialogale intime de Gonseth, b) les dialogues peu fructueux qu'il a entretenus avec le Cercle de Vienne, puis lors des Entretiens de Zurich, c) les dialogues qu'il a imagines dans Les mathématiques et la réalité entre trois personnages: Parfait, Sceptique et Idoine, auxquels vient s'ajouter à la fin le Nouvel Idoine, d) les rencontres avec les néo‐scolastiques à Rome, (...) e) la ≫doctrine≪ explicite du dialogue exposée dans La loi du dialogue.Ľauteur s'interroge aussi sur les conditions ?un dialogue fécond et sur les obstacles qui peuvent s'y opposer, .SummaryGonseth the man, his life and his work can be interpreted organically in an instructive account of dialogue. The author treats the following topics: a) Gonseth's intimate dialogical structure, b) the fruitless dialogues he had with the Vienna Circle and then at the Entretiens de Zurich, c) his imaginary dialogues in Les mathématiques el la réalité between the characters Perfect, Sceptic and Appropriate, and finally New Appropriate, d) his contacts with neo‐scholastics at Rome, e) the explicit ‘doctrine’ of dialogue presented in La loi du dialogue. The article is also concerned with conditions for a fruitful dialogue and with obstacles that can stand in the way. (shrink)

Philosophy after Hiroshima offers a philosophical analysis of the issues surrounding war and peace, and their challenges to ethics. It reminds us that the threat posed to civilization by nuclear weapons persists, as does the need for continuing philosophical reflection on the nature of war, the problem of violence, and the need for a workable ethics in the nuclear age. The book recalls the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the beginning of the nuclear age, the Cold War, and (...) subsequently of the hegemonic unilateralism of the sole superpower. Reviewing early critical responses to the first atomic bombings by such figures as Camus, Sartre, Russell, Heidegger, Jaspers and others, the authors themselves respond to contemporary threats to peace, including the US "global war on terrorism," the recrudescence of militarism, and the continuation of imperial power politics by other means. In the nuclear age, the use of military force as a political instrument threatens the future of humanity. This poses formidable challenges to philosophy and calls for its transformation. In using memories of the atomic bombings to help us to grasp the moral implications of the current escalation of global violence, the authors hope to show the urgent relevance of nonviolence in the contemporary context. Drawing on a range of philosophical traditions Taoist and Western the contributors take up a welter of philosophical and political concerns of topical interest, including human rights, toleration, the politics of memory, intercultural dialogue, the ethics of co-responsibility, and the possibility of a cosmopolitan order of law and peace. Going beyond postmodernism and deconstruction, several of the authors develop a post-critical, constructive paradigm of thinking a philosophy of the possible and a new methodology for the realization of the creative potential of the humanities. Philosophy is viewed as a peace-promoting global dialogue. (shrink)

The question of the identity of thought and being occupies an important place in the history of philosophy. Engels, addressing this question, wrote: "Is our thought capable of knowing the real world, can we in our ideas and concepts of the real world form a true reflection of reality? In philosophical language this question is called the question of the identity of thought and being. The vast majority of philosophers answer this question affirmatively.".

"Texts selected for this collection are not the only texts dedicated to Hegel and dialectics but they are representative of Ilyenkov's main themes and interests."--Back cover.