No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2017
It is particularly difficult to discover in the Soviet philosophic doctrine a precise formulation of a “philosophy of science” or a “philosophy of nature.” The reason is threefold. First, there is the ambiguity found in the Marxist classics, especially in the writings of Engels who, more than anyone, was responsible for the construction of a doctrina naturae from the insights of Marx and himself. Second, is the inherent necessity of dialectical materialism or any materialistic position to identify its philosophy of nature with its ontology, despite the loud outcry of the Soviet philosophic camp against any attempt to identify its position with that nauseous word “metaphysics.” Finally, there is a condition of flux in the positions of contemporary Soviet philosophers on several important facets of a current philosophical problem—the relation of philosophy to the natural sciences.
1 B. M. Kedrov, “O klassifikacii nauk,” Voprosy filosofii, 1955, No. 2, pp. 49-68, as cited in Wetter, Gustav, Dialectical Materialism (New York, 1958), p. 250.Google Scholar
2 Engels, F., Anti-Dühring (London, 1934)Google Scholar , p. 31. See also p. 155.
3 Ibid., p. 158.
4 Lenin, V. I., Selected Works (Moscow-London, 1939), XI, p. 616.Google Scholar
5 “Edinstvo teorii i praktiki,” Voprosy filosofii, 1954, No. 2, p. 5, as quoted in Wetter, p. 273.