Search

Soviet Marxism is often characterized by the term ontologism. The latter could be defined as a totalizing assertion about material being as inherently dialectical, often coupled with an understanding of thought as mere reflection. This fundamental assertion is said to remain unchallenged among dogmatic party philosophers and critical Marxists alike. Far from an innocent misconception, Soviet ontologism is associated with some of the harshest historical events like the Lysenko affair, where the imposition of the dialectical optic onto the natural sciences resulted in an ideological blockade of research. Various sources of this peculiarity have been identified in Soviet Marxism, from the endorsement of dialectics of nature to the rejection of Cartesian metaphysics. However, a political account of Soviet ontologism is yet to be written. This article will address the question of ontologism as it has been theorized in relation to the philosophy of Evald Ilyenkov. Tracing the history of Russian ontologism from the nineteenth century, we will recover its nationalist dimension. Then, drawing on the philosophical controversies between Lenin and Bogdanov, which in turn will be linked to Ilyenkov's intervention, we will examine the various strands of ontological thinking in Soviet Marxism and identify Ilyenkov's position. Finally, we will ask what insights can the ontological thinking of Soviet Marxism provide in the context of contemporary philosophical turns towards ontology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the intricate relationship between the concepts of "dao" and "One" in Daoist philosophy, emphasizing the significance of the One in various aspects of early Daoism. Topics include the role of the One as the central concept, its ontological, generative, and political implications, and the varying perspectives on whether the One or dao takes precedence in Daoist thought.

Mastering of the "sociology" major by domestic students takes place in accordance with the curricula approved by the management of each university, taking into account the normative documents of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. Therefore, modern applicants (students) are initially inclined to functionalism and systemic theory in sociology, offering to study the works of the classics of sociology of the end of the 19th century - the beginning of the 20th century. However, the applicants will later learn about theoretical polyparadigmism in modern sociology and the possibility to choose not only classical concepts for the implementation of their scientific developments. This possibility was a consequence of the fact that changes were taking place in the paradigm of system theory. This influenced the evolution of sociological theorizing. Therefore, the above now affects the choice of applicants, post-graduate students and doctoral students of the basic concept for their sociological explorations, in order to avoid accusations of ignorance of modern sociological theory. The situation, as a rule, has two contradictory sides. So, on the one hand, there are classical instructions or settings for scientists to carry out their cognitive procedures (for example, diagnosis, classification, stratification, typology, or systematization in general). On the other hand, alternative post-classical foundations have already been proposed, which are rather only outlined in most textbooks and textbooks on sociology, and therefore deserve in-depth study in order to reveal their diverse potential (heuristic, diagnostic, methodological, etc.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]