Abstract
The aim of Soviet IFN was a complete Marxist-Leninist history of philosophy. This project was understood, firstly, as the reproduction of the historical process of philosophy, and, secondly, as a Marxist-Leninist science of that process, i.e. an explanation in terms of laws or regularities [Ch.4.iii].2 This points to a division of labor in IFN between presentation and interpretation, already noticed by Ballestrem in 1963, but it leaves unaffected the claim to a scientific understanding of an objective process.3 One of the consequences of this claim is the idea of a definitive account and explanation of that process, reflected by the project of a universal history of philosophy [Ch.3.ii–iv].
In order to really understand the connection of even Medieval discussions to the history of materialism would require a special investigation.
Vladimir I. Lenin, 19141
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
V.I. Lenin, ‘Eščë odno uničtoženie socializma [Yet Another Elimination of Socialism]’, in: Lenin, PSS XXV, p.37.
Cf. Kamenskij 1984, p. 114, and 124; cf. also Rybarczyk 1975, p.47.
Cf. Ballestrem 1963a, p. 117.
Cf. Ščipanov et al. 1982, p.143: A.M. Karimskij, G.Ja. Strel’cova, and A.M. Rutkevič.
For example: B.N. Bessonov, I.S. Narskij, Germenevtika: istorija i sovremennost’ [Hermeneutics: Past and Present] (M.: Mysl’, 1985), V.N. Kuznecov, Francuzskoe neogegel’janstvo [French Neo-Hegelianism] (M.: izd. MGU, 1982), Bessonov et al. 1981, M.A. Kissel’, Sud’ba staroj dilemmy; racionalizm i ėmpirizm v burzuaznoj filosofii XX veka [The Destiny of an Old Dilemma; Rationalism and Empiricism in 20th Century Bourgeois Philosophy] (M.: Mysl’, 1974), Kissel’ 1982, or K.N. Ljubutin, Problema sub”ekta i ob”ekta v nemeckoj klassičeskoj i masrksistsko-leninskoj filosofii [The Subject — Object Problem in Classical German and Marxist-Leninist Philosophy] (Moskava: Vyssaja skola, 1981).
Cf. ‘Informacionno-bibliografičeskij ukazatel’ literatury o Kante (1960–1974)’.
Cf. Ballestrem 1963a, p.115.
Based on the selective bibliographies in IFE ’86 — ’88.
Cf. Hegel, Werke XIX, p. 188; for Hegel, the ‘epochal’ synthesis of the first major phase in the historical development of philosophy was neo-Platonism (cf. Hegel, Werke XIX, p.126, and Hösle 1984, p.667 and p.675f), and Hösle argues that Hegel ‘ought to have’ treated Plato, not Aristotle, as the conclusion of the first cycle of philosophy (cf. Hösle 1984, p. 173).
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, A.G. Spirkin, entry ‘Filosofija’, p.727f.
Goran 1984, Lukanin 1984, Bočarov 1984.
Lukanin quotes Engels to the extent that Aristotle was, next to Hegel, the only philosopher who had seriously discussed dialectics (Lukanin 1984, p.3), and Goran quotes Marx as having qualified Aristotle as a genuine source to get acquainted with the philosophy of Democritus (Goran 1984, p. 10).
Aleksandrov et al. 1941–1943, I, p.371; cf. Aleksandrov 19462, pp.92ff and 100.
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, Ju.A. Šičalin, entry ‘Neoplatonizm’, p.427f; cf. ‘Nekrolog...’ 1988, Losev 1985, p.206, Scanlan 1984, p.221, Scanlan 1985, p.330, and Takho-Godi in FN 1988, N° 10, p.67.
Likewise, in a short introduction to the philosophy of antiquity, Losev dedicated 40% of his space to neo-Platonism (Losev 1989).
Losev 1963–1994, VII, kn. I, p.3.
Takho-Godi 1991, p.20.
Cf. Losev 1963–1994, VII, kn. II, ‘Prokl’, pp.23–336.
Džokhadze 1988, p.159; reference is to Lenin, PSS XXV, p.37.
Cf. Simonov 1982, p.188.
Abramov et al. 1986, p.36.
Simonov 1982, p. 188.
Simonov 1982, p. 188.
Simonov 1982, p.188.
Il’ičëv et al. 1983, B.M. Kedrov, entry ‘Materializm’, p.351.
Ibid.; cf. also Il’ičëv et al. 1983, A.G. Spirkin, entry ‘Filosofija’, p.728: “In the 11th-14th centuries, in the dispute between realism... and nominalism... the struggle between the idealist and the materialist tendency found its expression.”
Cf. Dobrochotov 1992, p. 172.
Cf. Il’ičëv et al. 1983: Averincev was editor-in-chief of the second edition of 1989 of this FĖS; cf. also Shlapentokh 1990, p. 198; later, Averincev became known as the author of a new translation of the Bible and as a politician (cf. De Volkskrant, 07/07/1988, and the interview with Averincev by A.V. Karaulov (Karaulov 1990, pp.118–135).
Cf. Abramov et al. 1986.
Abramov et al. 1986, p.36; cf. Ojzerman et al. 1983, p.2.
Op.cit., p.3.
Gorfunkel’ 1984, Kalinnikov 1984, Mitrokhin 1985, and Šinkaruk 1985.
Mitrochin 1985, p.161.
Gorfunkel’ 1984, p. 175.
V.V. Lazarev, ‘Ranneburzuaznaja épokha i genezis filosofii novogo vremeni [The Early Bourgeois Period and the Genesis of Modern Philosophy]’, in: Ojzerman et al. 1983, pp.112–158, and É.Ju. Solov’ëv, ‘Ot teologičeskogo k juridičeskomu mirovozzreniju [From the Theological to the Judicial World-View]’, in: op.cit., pp. 159–223; both elaborated their contributions in greater detail: V.V. Lazarev, Stanovlenie filosofskogo soznanija novogo vremeni [The Coming-About of Modern Philosophical Consciousness] (M.: Nauka, 1987), and Solov’ëv 1984; cf. also Kissel’ 1988, p.182: “Formally, the significance of Reformation was always recognized in our literature, and the corresponding quotations from the klassiki were adduced, but there it ended, perhaps because the analytical sorting out of the spiritual innovations of protestantism could easily be interpreted as a manifestation of ‘religious apologetic’. (...) The historical importance of Reformation remains totally incomprehensible [nikak nel’zja ponjat’], if one looks at protestantism only from the point of view of today’s tasks of anti-religious propaganda.”
Mitrokhin 1985, p. 161; cf. also Abramov et al. 1986 p.36f, and Kissel’ 1988, p.181.
“...any skepticism reveals an essential moment in the dialectics of knowledge. But skepticism one-sidedly stresses negation, relativity, errors in our knowledge, concealing or even denying its positive, true, absolute content, since it sees these oppositions as excluding each other, as totally incompatible” (Ojzerman et al. 1983, p.462; reference is to V.I. Lenin, Materializm i émpiriokriticizm[PSS XVIII], p.139); cf. also Ivanov 1991, p.31.
Ojzerman et al. 1983, p.462.
Ojzerman et al. 1983, p.465.
Ojzerman et al. 1983, p.474.
Cf. Lenin, PSS XVIII, p.5, p.28, p.379, and Engels, MEW XXI, p.276.
Šinkaruk 1985, p.115.
Cf. Mitrokhin 1985, p. 160, and Kalinnikov 1984, p.178.
Abramov et al. 1986, p.36.
For a more elaborate discussion cf. v.d. Zweerde 1989b, pp.30ff.
Cf. Abramov et al. 1986, p.40; five of the books on Kant are subsequent volumes of the Kantovskie sborniki, an annual series of article-collections published by the university of Kaliningrad (Königsberg).
Cf. Gulyga 19852, p. 123, 128, 129f, and 293 (references to the German translation of 1985).
On the reception of Hegelian thought in Russia, see, e.g., Čiževskij, ‘Hegel in Rußland’, in: idem (ed.), Hegel bei den Slaven (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 19612), Planty-Bonjour 1974.
Ždanov 1947, p.269; cf. Ballestrem 1963a, p.117, and Blakeley 1964, p.78; Ballestrem mentions: Bakradze 1958; T.I. Ojzerman, Filosofija Gegelja [The Philosophy of Hegel] (M.: 1956); M.F. Ovsjannikov, Filosofija Gegelja [The Philosophy of Hegel] (M.: 1959); M.F. Ovsjannikov, Pervye filosofskie raboty molodogo Gegelja; učënye zapiski moskovskoj oblastnoj pedagogičeskogo instituta, vol.42 [The First Philosophical Works of the Young Hegel] (M.: 1956); V.A. Šamovskij, V.I. Lenin ob osnovnykh principakh istoriko-filosofskoj koncepcii Gegelja [V.I. Lenin on the Fundamental Principles of Hegel’s Conception of the History of Philosophy] (M.: 1958); V.V. Sokolov, Filosofija Gegelja [The Philosophy of Hegel] (M.: 1959); cf. Kapferer 1990, p.l85f, on the establishment, by Ojzerman of a new official position with respect to Hegel in the Soviet bloc in general.
Cf. Ojzerman 1982b, p.6, and L.N. Suvorov (ed.), Filosofija Gegelja i sovremennost’ [The Philosophy of Hegel Today] (M.: Nauka, 1973), pp.397–414; in a survey of 1971, Bogdanov mentioned three general books on Hegel, and a large number of monographs and articles (cf. Bogdanov 1971, p. 126; reference is to the books by M.F. Ovsjannikov, V.V. Sokolov, and T.I. Ojzerman, all three called Filosofija Gegelja [The Philosophy of Hegel]; on Ovsjannikov and Sokolov cf. Kline 1964b).
Cf. Zubaty 1975, p.214, and Rakitov 1985, p.167.
Cf. Zubaty 1975, p.218.
Asmus 1984, p. 183; the article in question, ‘Učenie Gegelja o pravakh i predelakh formal’nogo myšlenija,’ first appeared VF 1970, N°8, and VMGU 1970, N°4 (this presumably is the text that Blakeley described as the “highlight of the volume” Filosofija Gegelja i sovremennost’ (Blakeley 1975a, p.161)).
Kamenka 1963, p.2, n.5.
Bogdanov 1971, p.128; cf. Kamenka 1965, p.101.
Cf., e.g., K. Marx, Das Kapital Bd. I, Nachwort zur 2. Auflage 1873 [MEW XXIII], p.27, K. Marx, F. Engels, Die heilige Familie [MEW II], p.63, K. Marx, Das Elend der Philosophie [MEW IV], p.l25ff, F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach [MEW XXI], p.268, p.279, and F. Engels, ‘Materialien zum Anti-Dühring’’ [MEW XX], p.574.
In his Byloe i dumy, Part IV, Chapter XXV; cf. Copleston 1986, p.83, who refers to the English translation of Byloe i dumy (A.I. Herzen, My Past and Thoughts, 4 vols. (London: 1968), II, p.403), and to the Soviet edition of Herzen’s works (A.I. Gercen, Sobranie sočinenij, 30 vols. (M.: 1954–66), IX, p.23), and Planty-Bonjour 1974, p. 176 and 261.
Rakitov 1985, p. 167.
Motrošilova 1986a, p. 184; cf. also v.d.Zweerde 1989a.
Ibid.
Motrošilova 1984, p.5.
Kissel’ 1982, p.7, referring to Lenin, PSS XXIX, p.202.
Kissel’ 1982, p.20; cf. ibid., p.8ff.
Kissel’ 1982, p.8; cf. ibid., p.134, referring to Hegel’s famous last publication on the English Reformbill of 1931: “The parliamentary reform only strengthens, in his opinion, political instability, because radical elements may turn to the people and stir it up. Therefore he did not regard this measure as expedient, but not because he, as is sometimes thought, became an ‘advocate of aristocracy’ — his relation to the latter was expressed completely unequivocally.”
Cf. Kissel’ 1982, p.l09f, and 122f, p.lllf, p.l31f.
Kissel’ 1982, p.133.
Kissel’ 1982, p. 142.
Kissel’ 1982, p.l44f.
Kissel’ 1982, p.l09f.
Khandruev 1990, p.75 and p.5; the quotation from Hegel is from Realphilosophie I (1803/4), p.239f, quoted from: G. Lukács, Der junge Hegel, II, p.517 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1973).
Khandruev 1990, p.5.
Khandruev 1990, p.116f.
Khandruev 1990, p.115, referring to Marx, MEW XXIII, p.27: “Meine dialektische Methode ist der Grundlage nach von der Hegeischen nicht nur verschieden, sondern ihr direktes Gegenteil. Für Hegel ist der Denkprozeß, den er sogar unter den Namen Idee in ein selbständiges Subjekt verwandelt, der Demiurg des Wirklichen, das nur seine äußere Erscheinung bildet. Bei mir ist umgekehrt das Ideelle nichts andres als das im Menschenkopf umgesetzte und übersetzte Materielle.”
Khandruev 1990, p.117.
Cf. Karimskij 1988, p.101 and p.114.
Karimskij 1988, p.9, Kissel’ 1982, p.144.
Cf., e.g, Blakeley 1964, p.77: “Marxistleninist philosophy... is the ultimate stage in the history of philosophy, embodying all that was positive in previous philosophical development.”
Bogomolov et al. 1970, p.347; cf. Jeu 1969, p. 17: “...aux jeux des penseurs soviétiques, la diversité des options philosophiques occidentales... exprime une dissolution de la pensée.”
Cf. Rosenthal 1988 and Deppermann 1992.
Cf. Deppermann 1992, p.211; cf. M. Gerschenson, W. Iwanov, Briefwechsel zwischen Zimmerwinkeln (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1990).
Cf. Rosenthal 1988, p.206f, and B.G Rosenthal (ed.) Nietzsche in Russia (Princeton UP, 1986), chapters 11–13.
Rosenthal 1988, p.207.
Cf. Dynnik et al 1957–1965, III, p.356, and Rosenthal 1988, p.l95f, referring to S.F. Oduev, the leading Soviet Nietzschespecialist.
Cf. Rosenthal 1988, p.206.
S.F. Oduev, Tropami Zaratustry (M.: Mysl’ (1971) 19762); German translation: S.F. Oduev, Auf den Spuren Zarathustras (Berlin (DDR): 1977); cf. Bogomolov et al. 1982, p.98, Deppermann 1992, p.211f, and Alekseev et al. 19952, p.429.
Rosenthal 1988, p. 197, quoting Oduev 1971, p.414f.
Cf. Deppermann 1992, p.211, n.2.
Cf. Rosenthal 1988, p.205f, where other Soviet studies, sympathetic to Dostoevskij and hostile to Nietzsche, are discussed too.
Rosenthal 1988, p.198; on this comparison of Dostoevskij and Nietzsche, cf. op.cit., pp. 198–206.
For a discussion, cf. Rosenthal 1988 pp.200–205, v.d. Zweerde 1990a, p.4f, and idem 1990b, pp.66–68.
Interview with Gennadij Batygin on 17/12/1994.
Scanlan 1985, p.278; cf. Petropavlovskij 1983, as well as Shlapentokh 1990, 189f.
‘Ot redakcii’, VF 1989, N°5, p.114.
Mikhajlov 1989, p.113.
Ibid., p.122.
Very often, the phrasing “i sociologii” was added, because, in the Soviet conception, sociology fell within the scope of istmat
Mel’vil’ 1989, p.4; cf. Ščipanov et al. 1982, p.138.
Belkina et al. 1967, p.193.
Vdovina et al. 1988, p.l85f.
Kamenka 1965, p. 100.
Cf. Kline 1963, p.739f.
Vasil’ev 1984, p.55.
Ibid; cf. Vdovina et al. 1988, p.186.
Ignatow 1988, p.75.
Cf. Vasil’ev 1984, p.53 for a concise exposition of the official account of KBF.
R. v.d. Warreburg, ‘(preview of) Viktor Ilyin and Anatoli Kalinkin, The Nature of Science (Moscow: Progress, 1988)’, to appear in SEET, 1997; orig. V.V. Il’in, A.T. Kalinkin, Priroda nauki (M.: Vysšaja škola, 1985).
Cf. Scanlan 1985, pp.l56ff, Graham 19873, p.266 and p.271, referring to the CPSU Party Program of 1961, pp.71–73, as well as p.277.
N.S. Avtonomova, Filosofskie problemy strukturnogo analiza v gumanitarnykh naukakh (M.: 1977), and M.S. Kozlova, Filosofija i jazyk (M.: Nauka, 1972).
Schiller 1987, p.432; cf also Schaefer 1988, 161f, and v.d. Zweerde 1989a, p.708f, referring to the texts by Kozlova and Avtonomova in Motrošilova et al. 1986a.
Cf. ‘K vykhodu...’ 1964, p.127.
Nemeth 1983, p.209.
Kešeleva 1975, p.171; cf. Ojzerman 19863, p.3 (German translation p.8), referring to Lenin, ‘Istoričeskie sud’by učenija Karla Marksa [The Historical Fate of the Doctrine of Karl Marx]’, PSS XXIII, p.l.
Cf. Ojzerman 19863, p.l45f (in the German translation p.205f), and Nemeth 1983, p.208, Kešeleva 1975, p. 169.
Cf. Nemeth 1983, p.207.
Ojzerman 19863, p.19 (German translation p.30); cf. Ojzerman 19863, p.l0f (German translation p. 19), and Ščipanov et al. 1982, p. 161.
Mamardašvili 1968, p. 16 (quoted after the English translation, p. 104).
Op.cit., p.l7f (quoted after the English translation, pp. 105ff).
Op.cit, p.l8f (quoted after the English translation, p. 108).
Marx, MEW XIII, p.9.
Cf. Mamardašvili 1968, p.25, n.l (in the English translation p.l 18, n.10), quoting Marx’ preface to Das Kapital: “...es handelt sich hier um die Personen nur, soweit sie die Personifikation ökonomischer Kategorien sind, Träger von bestimmten Klassenverhältnissen und Interessen. Weniger als jeder andere kann mein Standpunkt, der die Entwicklung der ökonomischen Gesellschaftsformation als einen naturgeschichtlichen Prozeß auffaßt, den einzelnen verantwortlich machen für Verhältnisse, deren Geschöpf er sozial bleibt, sosehr er sich auch subjektiv über sie erheben mag” (K. Marx, Das Kapital [MEW XXIII], p.16).
Mamardašvili 1968, p.18 and p.23 (quoted from the English translation, p. 107 and p. 114).
In Soviet sources, the two are usually identified as otčuždenie (which literally means to become or to make alien, whereas “objec-tivization’ is russified as “ob”ektivacija” by Mamardašvili), an identification for which Ojzerman was criticized, but which he retained in later editions (cf. Nemeth 1983, p.207) -Mamardašvili does make this distinction.
Mamardašvili drew these conclusions in all clarity twenty years later (Mamardasvili 1991a, p.50f).
Grier 1984, p.193.
Ibid.; reference is, through H. Fleischer, Marxism and History (London: Penguin, 1973), p.8, to a text by Vladislav Žanovič Kelle (b.1920) and Matvej Jakovlevič Koval’zon (1913–1992), that marked the beginning of Soviet discussions at this point (cf. Scanlan 1985, pp.211ff).
Ibid.
S. Čatterdži, D. Datta, Drevnjaja indijskaja filosofija (M.: 1954; orig. S. Chatterjee, D.M. Datta, Introduction to Indian Philosophy (cf. Kline 1956, p.135)), S. Radkhakrišnan, Indijskaja filosofija, 2 vols. (M.: 1956–1957; orig. S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy (Bombay: (1923–1927, 1948) 1977)).
Cf. Šajmukhambetova 1987, pp.22ff, and Hegel, Werke XVIII, p 138.
Šajmukhambetova 1987, p.21.
Cf. Šajmukhambetova 1987, p.14.
Recent examples are M.A. Mamonova, Zapad i Vostok: tradicii i novadi racional’nost myslenija [West and East: Traditions and Innovations of the Rationality of Thought] (M: izd. MGU, 1991), and V.G. Alad’in et al. (eds.), Čelovek kak filosofskaja problema: Vostok — Zapad [Man as a Philosophical Problem: East and West] (M.: izd. Universiteta Druzby Narodov, 1991).
Konstitucija...1988, art. 70 (p. 24).
Cf. on this Goerdt 1989b and Shlapentokh 1990a, p.209, n.2.
This, of course, is not a study into the history of Russian philosophy, but to give just one example: it is hard not to perceive the connection between the Russian idea of sobornost ’-a basically religious concept- and Soviet collectivism as practiced in the 1930s through the ideas of Bogdanov (cf., e.g., his ‘Kollektivistskij stroj’, in: A.A. Bogdanov, Voprosy socializma; raboty raznykh let (M.; Politizdat, 1990), pp.295–304).
E.g. Volodin 1986a and 1986b (originally published in 1974); cf. also Solov’ëv 1991, p.9.
As W. Goerdt points out, one ought to be very careful with the labels ‘westernizer’ and ‘Slavophile’ (cf. Goerdt 1984, pp.262–265).
Volodin 1986a, p.138.
A.V. Gulyga is the author of a book on Schelling and of a study on Kant which, translated into French and German, as well as into Bulgarian, Chinese, and other languages, received some attention in the West (cf. ‘Bibliography’ and the review by V. Zegman, SST 31 (1986), pp. 170–174).
Gulyga 1990, p. 185.
Cf. Goerdt 1989b.
“In der Tat, für marxistische-(-leninistische) Historiker der russischen Geistesgeschichte und Philosophie findet das originäre Suchen des russischen Geistes nach ‘Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit’ (prawda), d.h. die ‘russische Idee’ ihre Erfüllung in Theorie und Praxis des Marxismus-Leninismus” (Goerdt 1984, p.510, referring to Galaktionov et al. 1970, p.616, and ibid., p.22; cf. Galaktionov et al 1961, p.455).
Goerdt 1989b.
Cf. Galaktionov et al. 1989, p.3.
Galaktionov et al. 1989, p.3f.
In the 1961 and the 1989 edition, the concluding sentence uniformly read: “Leninism, being a / the highest achievement of Russian and world culture, inherited [(u)nasledoval] all the best characteristics of Russian social thought and philosophy (Galaktionov et al. 1961, p.456, and Galaktionov et al. 1989, p.740, which has unasledoval instead of nasledoval, thus making it a once and forever conclusive event).”
Cf. Goerdt 1984, p.697f, who refers to Galaktionov et al. 1970, pp. 10–12.
Galaktionov et al. 1970, p. 11, quoted from Goerdt 1984, p.698.
Cf. Goerdt 1989b; the tiraž was small (10,000 copies), and it was sold under the counter, an indication of public interest.
Nemeth 1991.
Cf. Beljaeva 1980, p.22.
Cf. Khidašeli 1982b, p.6: “The history of the peoples of the USSR, as an established fact of Soviet science, is the best refutation of ‘eurocentrism’.”
Cf. Khidašeli 1982b, p.5.
Cf. for examples the bibliography in Rybarczyk 1975, pp. 178–213.
What is known of it in the West is due to researchers like Bernard Jeu (see Bibliography).
Khidašeli 1982b, p.ll; as early as 1967, Khidašeli opposed the identification of philosophy and mirovozzrenie (cf. Belkina et al. 1967, p. 188).
Khidašeli 1982b, p.18; cf, also p.16 and Engels, MEW XXI, p.275: “Die Frage nach der Stellung des Denkens zum Sein, die übrigens auch in der Scholastik des Mittelalters ihre große Rolle gespielt hat, die Frage: Was ist das Ursprüngliche, der Geist oder die Natur? — diese Frage spitzte sich, der Kirche gegenüber, dahin zu: Hat Gott die Welt erschaffen, oder ist die Welt von Ewigkeit da?”
Cf. Mirzojan 1982, Rapava 1982, Ismajlov 1982, p.170, and Rzakulizade 1982, p.81.
Cf. Baširov 1982, pp.230ff.
Cf. Khidašeli 1982a, p.142, referring, in n.12, to Š.I. Nucubidze, Tajna Psevdo-Dionissija Areopagita [The Secret of Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite] (Tbilisi: 1942), and to E. Honigmann, Pierre l’Ibérien et les écrits du Pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite (Bruxelles: 1952), p.18–19; the works of Pëtr Iver were published in German: R. Raabe (Hrsg.), Petrus der Iberer (Leipzig: 1895).
Khidašeli 1982a, p.137, referring to Gegel’, Sočinenija XI, p. 112; in the original this passage reads: “...der ganze Fortgang der Kultur geht darauf, den Glauben an diese Welt wiederherzustellen” (Hegel, Werke XIX, p.544).
Khidašeli 1982a, p.136.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van der Zweerde, E. (1997). The Practice of IFN . In: Soviet Historiography of Philosophy. Sovietica, vol 57. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8943-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8943-7_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4939-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8943-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive