N.A. Vasiliev in the Context of Philosophical and Methodological Disputes of the Early Twentieth Century

Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 387)


One of the key objectives of this article is, on the one hand, to present the general context of the philosophical and methodological disputes of the early twentieth century, both in the Western countries and in Russia, using examples of disputes in the framework of the ‘psychologism-antipsychologism’ antithesis. At the same time, the discussion between psychologism and antipsychologism is considered as a manifestation of the idea of unity – despite the differences and certain forms of individualisation – between the spiritual cultures of Russia and the West. This consideration is instrumental in showing that N.A. Vasiliev was included into the general context of the philosophical and methodological disputes of his era; and that in this context he takes a metaposition through rejecting the views of the advocates of both poles of the antithesis. The article describes his position as that of anti-antipsychologism. The double “anti-anti” negation is not equal to the statement of the initial position, in this case, psychologism. The relevance of this study lies in the fact that the beginning of the twenty-first century has seen a rise in the interest in the problems of psychologism in logic, philosophy, and culture in general.


Logic Psychology Philosophy Methodology Imaginary logic Psychologism Antipsychologism Anti-antipsychologism 


  1. Abbagnano, N. (1967). Psychologism. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 6). The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bazhanov, V. A. (2009). N.A. Vasiliev and his imaginary logic. The resurrection of a forgotten idea. Moscow: Kanon+.Google Scholar
  3. Brentano, F. (1973). Psychology from an empirical standpoint. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bryushinkin, V. N. (1998). Psychologism at the threshold of the 21st century. Logical Kant studies – 4. International workshop proceedings, Kaliningrad, pp. 84–99 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  5. Frege, G. (1987). Thought: A logical inquiry. Philosophy, logic, language (pp. 18–47). Moscow: Progress. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  6. Sorina G. V. (2013). The methodology of the logical and cultural fundamental: Psychologism, antipsychologism, subject. Space and Time e-journal 3.2 <> (In Russian)
  7. Husserl E. (1909). Logical investigations: Prolegomena to pure logic (Vol. 1). Saint Petersburg: Obrazovanie. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  8. Husserl, E. (1911). Philosophy as rigorous science. Logos, 1, 1–56. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  9. Mill, J. S.. (1865). A system of logic. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  10. Sorina, G. V. (1993). The logical and cultural fundamental. Prometei: Sketches of the theory and history of psychologism and antipsychologism in culture. Moscow. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  11. Sorina, G. V. (1997). Vasiliev’s imaginary logic in the context of psychologism and antipsychologism ideas. The development of logic in Russia: the results and prospects. International conference, Moscow, pp. 23–24. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  12. Sorina, G. V. (1998). Psychologism and antipsychologism: The emergence and upward and downward cycles in culture. Logical Kant studies – 4. International Workshop Proceedings. Kaliningrad, pp. 59–84. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  13. Vasiliev, N. A. (1989). Imaginary logic. Selected works. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  14. Windelband, W. (1993). Philosophy in German intellectual life of the 19th century. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
  15. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Moscow: IL. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  16. Yakovenko, B. V. (1998). On the modern condition of German philosophy. An anthology of phenomenological philosophy in Russia. Moscow, pp. 210– 14 (In Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations