The question of the unity of scientific knowledge, including that of the unity of the natural sciences and the humanities , occupies an important place in the writings of Marx. As a consistent materialist, Marx demonstrated that the connection among the sciences was based on an objective connection among the phenomena of nature and society. This outlook provides the key to discovering the unity of the sciences in our own day. Let us see how Marx posed that question, and how (...) it stands today. (shrink)

There can be no doubt that the process of differentiation of the sciences today is going forward with rising intensity. This process is expressed in two ways: in the appearance of new sciences and disciplines outside those already existing, and as the further subdivision of existing sciences into narrower and more fragmented disciplinary branches.

Discoveries in natural science may be described concisely as a general procedure for finding the new in nature, in its phenomena, or in their essence.

For the past two decades, matters biological have been given constant attention in our press - not only in specialized publications of natural science but in those aiming at the very broadest range of readers. After the meeting of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1948, biological questions were arbitrarily converted into problems of the most purely political nature, and the struggle against dissenters was waged in this field with no less bitterness and with essentially the same means and (...) techniques as in the field of politics. There was the same attaching of derogatory labels for holding nonconforming views, the same reprisals against spokesmen for independent trends in science, the same persecution of honest people whose sole "guilt" lay in their disagreement with the views of Academician Lysenko and his followers, who called themselves "Michurinists." It sufficed merely to name a scientist - not even in the field of biology - a Morgan-Weismann-Mendelian, for the need to support the accusations against him with scientific argumentation automatically to disappear, while the individual who had been accused of the deadly sin of Morgan-Weismann-Mendelianism was immediately and just as automatically deprived of the opportunity to defend his views, prove them, or offer facts or theoretical arguments of whatever nature in support of them. In those melancholy times, it sufficed to label an honest man an enemy of the people to do away with him once and for all. The struggle in biology was a mirror image of what was then occurring throughout the land and was later defined as the cult of the individual, of Stalin. (shrink)

The problem we are discussing has many aspects.

1. As always, before beginning a discussion it is necessary to settle on the concepts with which one will operate. In the present instance we will be concerned not only with the concept of determinism, but with others associated with or correlative to it: law, causality, necessity, etc. Obviously, within the limits of a brief paper we can deal only with the most basic features.

To help people study Marxist-Leninist philosophy, it is particularly necessary to be careful about the accuracy of philosophical terminology. Vague and ambiguous expressions must be firmly eliminated. Among them, in our view, is the saying, current among us, to the effect that "the world as a whole" is the subject matter of philosophy, Marxist philosophy included. The present article is devoted to criticism of that view.

Le système des sciences ne peut être globale qu'à la condition d'incorporer non seulement les sciences fondamentales mais aussi les sciences techniques et appliquées. Pour expliquer cette incorporation nous proposons de tenir compte non Seulement du moment objectif mais aussi du moment subject. En répondant aux questions: qu'est-ce qu'on étudie?, comment on étudie? pour quel but on étudie? nous découvrons l'accroissement de la proportion du moment subjectif ce qui permets à dresser un système globale des sciences.

In Alfred Ayer's article, philosophy is sharply counterposed to science, is denied the status of a science. This is the leitmotif of his entire paper. Moreover, the defense of this conception is characteristic of many representatives of neopositivism who go along with Ayer. However, Ayer has certain distinctive ideas of his own, which require critical analysis. Fundamental among them is his acknowledgment of the extremely general character of the concepts and principles with which philosophy, as distinct from the special sciences, (...) operates. This universality which is the distinguishing characteristic of philosophy is then transformed into an argument against the recognition of philosophy as a science. In replying to Ayer we shall attempt to demonstrate that his acknowledgment by no means necessitates the elimination of philosophy from the list of the sciences, but merely emphasizes its distinctive, that is, its general character, in contrast to all other sciences, which are particular in nature. This is the theme of the present article. (shrink)

The question of a new journal and the philosophical debate of 1947 In 1922-43 Soviet philosophers had their own journal titled Pod znamenem marksizma [Under the Banner of Marxism]. It came into being in early 1922 and its third issue contained Lenin's programmatic article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism" [O znachenii voinstvuiushchego materializma]. This journal published many good combative articles in its twenty years. But during the War it fell ill and in mid-1943 ceased to exist. It was not (...) discontinued. No, it simply lacked the strength to appear. Thereafter, we Soviet philosophers did not have our own journal for several years. The lack was felt especially keenly after the end of the Great Patriotic War when philosophical studies developed quickly in our country. A wide discussion of philosophical questions, especially contentious, controversial questions—and there were quite a few of them—became necessary but there was no forum for discussing them. This was also true of the critical analysis of the philosophical literature that was coming out: a rare review appeared from time to time in the existing journals, but it was clearly inadequate and, most importantly, it did not give a comprehensive evaluation of the merits and shortcomings of the published philosophical work. It seemed to us then that an unhealthy situation such as the one involving G. F. Aleksandrov's book The History of Western European Philosophy [Istoriia zapadnoevropeiskoi filosofii], which was not evaluated on its merits and, despite its serious flaws, was praised by admirers of the author's talent, could only arise in the absence of a philosophical journal. Had there been a journal, it could have helped to prevent such stuffy situations from arising in certain sections of the philosophical front. Obviously, this opinion was quite naive: at the time many of us did not understand that if Aleksandrov had had "his" man on the journal, no criticism of his book would have been permitted. We realized this later. (shrink)

It has long become established practice, on the part of the editors of Voprosy filosofii, to hold round table discussions on various pressing problems of philosophy and related disciplines.

We know that the Philosophical Notebooks do not constitute a finished work, but are working digests done by Lenin, not for publication but only for himself, and as a basis for further work on questions of dialectics. This circumstance must always be remembered when one turns to the Philosophical Notebooks. Here are recorded and collected Lenin's remarkable thoughts as they developed upon reading the works of Hegel and other philosophers as well as certain natural scientists, and Lenin's exceedingly valuable plans (...) and notions pertaining to further work on theoretical problems of the materialist dialectic. But, at the same time, the Philosophical Notebooks contain numerous passages copied by Lenin as he did the digests of the philosophical works he read. Moreover, it is sometimes difficult to say for what purpose and toward what end Lenin did this copying: was it in order subsequently to adduce these extracts and quotations in support of his own views and postulates; was it for purposes of criticism — to demonstrate that the propositions of Marxist dialectics were incompatible with them; or was it merely as the roughest kind of material for work he would subsequently do? Many of the copied extracts in the Philosophical Notebooks are accompanied by Lenin's critical remarks, negative and positive, in brief analyses and rather extensive commentaries. But some of them remained open questions for Lenin himself. In such an instance he noted for his own information that it would be necessary to return again to the proposition he had copied, because it was something that he did not fully understand: it seemed to him that at the given point Hegel wished to say this or that; but perhaps that is not the case. (shrink)

The discovery of spectrum analysis occupies an important place on the long and thorny path of the advance of human knowledge toward the atoms, the stars, and the mastery of their laws. This great discovery was made one hundred years ago . The decisive role in this achievement belongs by right to two outstanding German scientists, Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff. This discovery simultaneously opened the path into the atomic world, making it possible to judge the internal structure of atoms (...) from their optical properties, and into the world of heavenly bodies, the chemical composition of whose substances was first determined by means of spectrum analysis. All this led to an unprecedented expansion of the field of scientific knowledge both in the direction of the investigation of microscopic objects in nature and in that of the study of macro-objects. But the most remarkable thing was that in their development both these trends in research proved to be interrelated. The penetration of science into the field of the macro-cosmos was a direct consequence of its more profound penetration into the field of the micro-cosmos. In a word, this was one of the boldest of scientific achievements, one that enabled human reason to penetrate into the depths of the substance of the earth and the cosmos, to know its properties, its composition, and its laws. (shrink)

The question of contacts between philosophers and historians of natural science, of mutual assistance and collaboration in their work, is an exceptionally important one from both the theoretical and practical points of view. This constitutes an organic component of the overall task, posed by Lenin, of strengthening the alliance between the leading natural scientists and Marxist philosophers. Here a businesslike approach is particularly needed. Lenin's behests lay in two directions. First, they have to do with the treatment of problems in (...) the history of knowledge from the standpoint of philosophy, and, second, they deal with the treatment of problems of dialectical philosophy on the basis of generalization from the data of the history of natural science. The two problems are interrelated, but they can also be considered as relatively independent. The common dialectical foundation of both sets of problems is the idea of the unity, the interconnection, of the historical and the logical. What are the behests of Lenin, and how are they being carried out? (shrink)