Hi Victor,
I appreciate your arguments but I can hardly agree with you. No doubt that
Spinoza lived much earlier then Kant and Hegel and his ideas on the first
sight lie far from classical German philosophy. But “on the second sight”
everything is substantially more complicated.
Ilyenkov considered himself a spinozist and argued for spinozism with all
possible passion. Many times he recurred to the idea that the basic
Spinoza’s ideas were profoundly dialectical. I fully agree with him in that
issue and can argue for it myself, but now let’s read the fragment from
“Dialectical logic”
Spinoza understood thought much more profoundly and, in essence,
dialectically, which is why his figure presents special interest in the
history of dialectics; he was probably the only one of the great thinkers of
the pre-Marxian era who knew how to unite brilliant models of acutely
dialectical thought with a consistently held materialist principle
(rigorously applied throughout his system) of understanding thought and its
relations to the external world lying in the space outside the human head.
The influence of Spinoza’s ideas on the subsequent development of
dialectical thought can hardly be exaggerated. ‘It is therefore worthy of
note that thought must begin by placing itself at the standpoint of
Spinozism; to be a follower of Spinoza is the essential commencement of all
Philosophy.’ [Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Hegel]
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay2.htm
I can add here the reminiscence of Georgi Plekhanov who put the question
about Spinoza before Fredrick Engels and received a single meaning answer
that Marxism is a form of Spinozism.
It’s necessary to repeat: Ilyenkov being an expert in Spinozian philosophy
better then anybody new the weak and undeveloped sides of Spinoza’s system,
but he was sure that the greatest historical scale of the Spinoza’s figure
in our culture prevails over all his metaphysical faults.
This issue is extremely urgent especially in psychological context. Recently
one of my colleges reproached me similarly in arrogating spinozism to Lev
Vygotsky whereas he was a Marxist instead of spinozist. I can’t agree with
him too. Vygotsky was passionate follower of Spinoza and spinozism of Lev
Vygotsky didn’t contradict to his Marxism.
Important detail: both thinkers EVI and LSV have come to Spinoza’s ideas and
basing on them have come to substantially similar theoretic conclusions.
Both of them hold Spinoza’s portrait on their desk. Both of them leaved us
unfinished texts consecrated to Spinoza and entitled by his name.
Surely we can estimate the Spinoza’s ideas as abstract with respect to
Marxist ideas, but this is a special sort of abstractness, abstractness
which contains in it all richness of developed whole.
I‘ll be happy to continue this discussion and I’m going to develop mentioned
above ideas in my second report in Sevilla at Veresov symposia.
Cheers,
Sasha
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Victor
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:25 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Method/Methodology
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Victor" <victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 19:02
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Method/Methodology
>
>
>
>
> Andy, not all materialist theory is critical. Both Lenin and EVI, the
> latter much more thoroughly than the former, demonstrate that historical
> materialism is a positive natural science (See chapters 8 and 9 of
> Dialectical Logic and all of chapters 1 and 2 of Dialectics of the
> Abstract...).
>
> Alex, I would take issue with you on the assertion that EVI was a
> consistent
> spinozist (03.03) PM 21/08/2005. Spinoza, for all the sophistication of
> his
> particular form of materialism, it still remains metaphysical rather than
> practical, a point of view sharply and well critiqued by EVI.
>
> Victor
>
> Addendum:
> Historical Materialism as a positive science of the development of human
> social life can as such produce a methodology, the historical dialectics
> of
> practice.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 2:37
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology
>
>
>
> I'm not entirely convinced of your argument Sasha, but I do sympathise
> with your basic thesis. People like Tony Smith (The Logic of Marx's
> Capital, Replies to Hegelian Criticisms) who promote the search for a
> "method" in Marx repulse me. I have Bert Ollman's "Dance of the
> dialectic. Steps in Marx's Method" on my bookshelf, and haven't got to
> open it yet. Do you agree, Sasha, that a critical attitude towards
> claims of a "Marxist methodology" is also appropriate? Can critique be
> reduced to a "method"?
> comradely,
> Andy
> At 01:49 AM 22/08/2005 +0400, you wrote:
>
> Hi, Andy
> Indeed, "Discourse on Method" can be roughly translated as
> "Methodology" but
> we can do it just because that is a text of Descartes, because
> according his
> philosophy the method of thinking or the law of thinking reflects
> the
> causality of "mental substance" as it is. This method and this law
> exists
> independently from laws of objective or "extensive" world or
> "substance".
> That's why the Descartes method can be comprehended as so called
> "methodology". (But still and all I think that this interpretation
> will be
> too rough even for Descartes.)
> But when we are translating the texts of Spinoza, Hegel or Marx
> applying the
> term "methodology" will be a gross error.
> As for "the methodology of medicine" we have to pay attention not
> only on
> date, but at the subject of term as well. Even now a medicine
> remains more
> an art of curing than theoretically well-founded discipline. And
> what can we
> expect from medicine 1800? It's useless to examine this
> "methodology" with
> hope to find the slightest signs of dialectic or theoretical
> reflection in
> it. A compendium of uncoordinated, theoretically untied empirical
> methods -
> that is this "methodology", and usually all other methodologies as
> well. (I
> advisedly emphasize the situation. I know that the antique medicine
> was very
> close to philosophy - good dialectical philosophy. But the medicine
> of XIX -
> XX centuries renounce succession as heir from antique culture in
> favor of
> utmost empiricism.)
> And finally I want to underline the characteristic detail that
> according to
> OED the first language where it was used was English - the language
> (the
> culture) basicly connected with tradition of classical
> empiricism of
> J.Locke.
> As for mentioned by Wolff-Michael German scholars who "love to use
> expressions like "methodisch-methodologisch" I can suppose that
> this is
> connected with Neo-Kantianist tendencies.
> Cheers,
> Sasha
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [[1]mailto:xm
> ca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:32 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology
> >
> >
> > But surely Sasha, isn't "Discourse on Method" roughly
> translated as
> > "Methodology"? I agree with your conclusion that the
> study of any
> > particular science is inseparable from the study of the method
> of that
> > science, but I do question the recentness of the
> concept of
> > "methodology." According to the OED, the word was first
> used in
> > English in 1800 as "the methodology of medicine".
> > Andy
> > At 03:09 PM 21/08/2005 +0400, you wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > IMHO the problem of meaning of so called
> "methodology" is a
> > little bit more
> > complicated than it can be estimated from the first sight.
> First of
> > all this
> > term is rather new. It was brought into fashion in the
> beginning of
> > the last
> > century. Neither Hegel nor Marx had ever used it.
> Certainly
> > Ilyenkov knew
> > this term but never used it either.
> > In the strict sense this term derives to those
> philosophical
> > schools which
> > suppose the thinking and the objective reality as
> something
> > initially
> > distinct and independent of each other.
> > On the contrary according the Spinozian point of view there
> is no
> > methodology without theory. In other words a method
> can be
> > comprehended only
> > as a reflection of theory, of "idea". One can not
> discuss
> > method in
> > abstracto. (For example a soviet philosopher
> G.P.Schedrovitsky
> > pretended to
> > invent a universal abstract methodology applicable in any
> sphere.)
> > We can read at Spinoza's "On the Improvement
> of the
> > Understanding"
> > [2]http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/spinoza/Imp
> rovement.ht
> > ml
> > ".method is nothing else than reflective knowledge, or
> the idea
> > of an idea;
> > and that as there can be no idea of an idea --- unless
> an idea
> > exists
> > previously, --- there can be no method without a
> pre-existent
> > idea."
> > That is why Ilyenkov - a consistent spinozist - never used
> term
> > "methodology" as well as "epistemology". From his
> POV the
> > only possible
> > "methodology", "epistemology" or "the
> theory of
> > knowledge" is di=lectic. But
> > real, genuine dialectic is impossible in abstraction
> from real,
> > concrete
> > theoretical or practical process.
> > We can find a fragment in Ilyenkov's "Dialectical
> logic"
> > "...Marx, Engels,
> > and Lenin established that it was dialectics, and only
> dialectics,
> > that was
> > the real logic in accordance with which modern
> thought made
> > progress. It was
> > it, too, that operated at the 'growing points' of
> modern
> > science, although
> > the representatives of science were not wholly conscious
> of the
> > fact. That
> > was why logic as a science coincided (merged) not
> only with
> > dialectics but
> > also with the theory of knowledge of materialism. 'In
> Capital
> > Marx applied
> > to a single science logic, dialectics, and the theory of
> knowledge
> > of
> > materialism (three words are not needed; it is one and
> the same
> > thing),' is
> > how Lenin categorically formulated it."
> > [3]http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/es
> say9.htm
> > As for Vygotsky who used this term the situation is
> much more
> > complex.
> > Indeed we can find the terms "methodology" as
> well as
> > "dialectic" in
> > Vygotsky's theoretical luggage. But the division of his
> theoretic
> > heritage
> > into theoretic and methodologic halves is extremely
> unproductive.
> > He has
> > advanced in theory as far as in methodology, and vice versa.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sasha
> >
> >
> >
> > Alexander V. Surmava, Ph.D.
> > Assistant Professor
> > The Russian State University for the Humanities
> > The Vygotsky Institute of Psychology
> > Liapidevskogo str. 8-2-274
> > 125581 Moscow, Russia
> > tel./fax: 7 (095) 455-88-24
> > mob.: 7 903 579-19-20
> > e-mail: monada@netvox.ru
> > = monada@voxnet.ru
> > ICQ: 84411775
> > [1]http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> [[2]mailto:xm
> > ca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf Of Carol Macdonald
> > > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:34 PM
> > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I don't have a reference except for Wertsch (1979)
> ACTIVITY
> > THEORY but
> > > we make a very strong distinction at our university,
> and
> > regard
> > > methodology as the study of method, or metatheory, and
> method as
> > the
> > > specific method adopted in a particular study.
> Margaret
> > Donaldson, who
> > > was my Ph D supervisor two decades ago explained the
> distinction
> > to me,
> > > and so I wrote about method in my little studies I did
> then.
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > [[3][4]mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > On Behalf Of Ares, Nancy
> > > Sent: 17 August 2005 07:34 PM
> > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > Cc: Franz Breuer
> > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology
> > >
> > > although the chapter below is not particular to
> cultural
> > historical
> > > theory,
> > > Harding presents a very clear distinction between method
> and
> > > methodology,
> > > making a strong case for attending to methodology in terms
> of
> > > epistemology;
> > > philosophies of knowledge, knowers, and knowing; and
> theory to
> > > distinguish
> > > research paradigms, rather than simply to methods that are
> > > characteristic.
> > >
> > >
> > > Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist
> method?
> > In
> > > S.
> > > Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology: Social science
> issues
> > (pp.
> > > 1-13).
> > > Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
> > >
> > > Nancy Ares
> > > Assistant Professor
> > > Teaching & Curriculum
> > > The Warner Graduate School of Education
> > > and Human Development
> > > University of Rochester
> > > P.O. Box 270425
> > > Rochester, NY 14627
> > > 585-273-5957
> > > fax 585-473-7598
> > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > From: Wolff-Michael Roth
> > > > Reply To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:23 PM
> > > > To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity
> > > > Cc: Franz Breuer
> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Method/Methodology
> > > >
> > > > Is there anyone from Germany on this list? I know
> German
> > scholar love
> > > > to use expressions like "methodisch-methodologisch".
> I will
> > copy this
> > > > message to a friend in Germany, Franz Breuer, a
> qualitatively
> > working
> > > > psychologist and co-editor of the online journal FQS:
> FORUM
> > > QUALITATIVE
> > > > SOZIALFORSCHUNG / FORUM QUALITATIVE SOCIAL RESEARCH.
> > > >
> > > > In my book on research method that is going to be
> published
> > this or
> > > > next week, I point out that methodology is something
> like the
> > science
> > > > of method, as distinct to the particular method you
> use in
> > enacting a
> > > > project. More so, I think it is important to practice
> method
> > for
> > > > graduate students rather than merely to read
> methodologies,
> > treatises
> > > > that conceptualize different ways of doing research. . .
> > > >
> > > > I think there is a greater penchant in Germany, for
> example, to
> > do
> > > real
> > > > methodological work, as you can find it in Stegmüller
> (1974),
> > who
> > > > distinguishes different ways of conducting historical
> research,
> > etc.
> > > >
> > > > Stegmüller, W. (1974). Probleme und
> Resultate der
> > Wissenschaftstheorie
> > >
> > > > und Analytischen Philosophie, Band I:
> Wissenschaftliche
> > Erklärung und
> > > > Begründung[Problems and results of a theory of
> science and
> > analytical
> > > > philosophy, volume 1: Scientific explication and
> explanation].
> > Berlin:
> > >
> > > > Springer-Verlag.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we can get Franz to assist us on this list?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 17-Aug-05, at 10:16 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A visiting colleague has rasied the issue of the
> distinction
> > between
> > >
> > > > > method
> > > > > and methodology in a cultural-historical
> > > > > perspective. I do not know offhand of any good
> written
> > discussions
> > > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > distinction although I think it is important.
> > > > > Can anyone help?
> > > > > mike
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > [4]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > [5]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > [6]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > [7]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > [8]htt=://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > Andy Blunden=[9]http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm (61)
> 3 9380
> > 9435
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. 3D"[5]http://w=w.voxnet.ru/~monada" 2. 3D"mailto:xmca-
> > bounces@weber.ucsd.edu"
> > 3. 3D"[6]ma=lto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu" 4.
> > 3D"[7]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 5.
> > 3D"[8]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 6.
> > 3D"[9]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 7.
> > 3D"[10]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 8.
> > 3D"[11]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca"
> > 9.
> > 3D"[12]http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm"__________
> ________________________
> > _____________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > [13]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> [14]htt=://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> Andy Blunden=[15]http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm (61) 3 9380
> 9435
>
> References
>
> 1. 3D"mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu"
> 2.
> 3D"http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/spinoza/Improvement.ht
> 3. 3D"http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay9.htm"
> 4.
> 3D"mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu" 5.
> 3D"http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada"
> 6. 3D"mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu"
> 7. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca"
> 8. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca"
> 9. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca"
> 10. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca"
> 11. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 12.
> 3D"http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm" 13.
> 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 14.
> 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca"
> 15.
> 3D"http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm"__________________________________
> _____________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 01 2005 - 01:00:09 PDT