DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2020-1-29-41

The theses of Ilyenkov and Korovikov revisited, or what’s the use of the polemic between «gnoseologists» and «ontologists»

Viktor K. Shreiber
Ph.D. in Philosophy,
Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy

Chelyabinsk State University,
129, Kashirin brothers st., Chelyabinsk, 454001, Russia;
e-mail: shreiber@csu.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5947-1689

Ilyenkov and Korovikov presented their sensational theses on the subject of philosophy long before the Khrushchev Thaw. Although the authors of the theses were ostracized, Ilyenkov became the founder of the so-called «gnoseologism», and the dispute between «gnoseologists» and «ontologists» occupied the minds of leading theorists in the field of dialectical materialism for two decades. The point is that both parties considered themselves authentic spokesmen for Engels’s position. However, a close scrutiny of his construction of the «great basic question of all philosophy» shows one-sidedness of both approaches. Additional evidence in favor of the mutual but hidden relationship of the ontological and the epistemological in philosophical disputes can be obtained through analyzing the evolution of the idea of substance from Milesians to Parmenides. The concept of being, introduced by the head of the Elean school, had the distinction between knowledge-in-opinion and knowledge-in-truth as its premise. In the fourth section of the article, the author proposes that philosophy has its own empirical basis and tries to show it with the help of Engels’s description of pre-reflective ideas about the soul-and-body relationship. It is observed that in this thinking Engels opted for the phenomenological manner. This approach gets its development in the section «How is the basic question of philosophy possible». Here the author argues that such a question exists and its current form is the relationship of the subjective and the objective. This conclusion is supported, firstly, by peculiarities of the philosophical question as such, analysis of which was performed by Floridi. Another thought-provoking point is Russell’s proposal to differentiate between questions of philosophy and questions posed by philosophers. Finally, the article discusses the importance of the polemic under study for clarifying the structure of the worldview.

Keywords: Ilyenkov, historicism, basic question of philosophy, Engels as a phenomenologist, Parmenides and being, antithesis of «ontologism» and «gnoseologism», values, structure of worldview.

References

Camus, A. (1990). Mif o Sizife [The myth of Sisyphus]. Buntuyuschiy chelovek. Filosofiya. Politika. Iskusstvo. Per. s fr. [A rebellious man. Philosophy. Politics. Art. Trans. from French]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., pp. 23–100.

Drobnitskiy, O.G. (1970). Tsennost’ [Values]. Filosofskaya entsiklopediya: v 5 t., pod red. F.V. Konstntinova [Encyclopedia of philosophy: in 5 vols, ed. by F.V. Konstntinov]. Moscow: Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya Publ., vol. 5, pp. 462–463.

Engels, F. (1961). Dialektika prirody [Dialectics of nature]. Marks K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 20, pp. 339–626.

Engels, F. (1961). Ludvig Feyerbakh i konets klassicheskoy nemetskoy filosofii [Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy]. Marks K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 21, pp. 269–317.

Erakhtin, A.V. (2016). Osnovnoy ili osnovnye voprosy filosofii [Basic or basics issues of philosophy]. Filosofiya i obschestvo [Philosophy and Society]. No. 1(78), pp. 57–67.

Floridi, L. (2013). What is a philosophical question? Metaphilosophy. Vol. 44, iss. 3, pp. 195–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12035

Hegel, G.F. (1935). Filosofiya istorii [Philosophy of history]. Sochineniya: v14 t. [Works: in 14 vols]. Moscow, Leningrad: Sotsekgiz Publ., vol. 8, 470 p.

Heidegger, M. (2009). Parmenid [Parmenides]. Saint-Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’ Publ., 384 p.

Hermann, A. (2004). To think like God: Pythagoras and Parmenides: the origins of philosophy. Las Vegas, NV: Parmenidas Publ., 335 p.

Husserl, E. (2004). Krizis evropeyskikh nauk i transtsendental’naya fenomenologiya: Vvedenie v fenomenologicheskuyu filosofiyu [The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy]. Saint-Petersburg:: Vladimir Dal’ Publ., 400 p.

Il’enkov, E.V. (1991). Dialektika abstraktnogo i konkretnogo [Dialectics of the abstract and concrete]. Filosofiya i kul’tura [Philosophy and culture]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., 464 p.

Il’enkov, E. and Korovikov, V. (2016). Strasti po tezisam o predmete filosofii (1954–1955) [Passions for theses on the subject of philosophy (1954–1955)]. Moscow: Kanon+ Publ., 272 p.

Kozlova, M. S. (1989). Mirovozzrenie [Worldview]. Vvedenie v filosofiyu: v 2 ch., pod red. I.T. Frolova [Introduction to philosophy: in 2 parts, ed. by I.T. Frolov]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., pt. 1, pp. 21–29.

Marx, K. (1963). Teorii pribavochnoy stoimosti. Ch. II [Theories of surplus value. Pt. 2]. Marks K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 26, pt. 2, 704 p.

Mitrokhin, L.N. (2004). Iz besed s akademikom Oyzermanom [From conversations with academician Oizerman]. Voprosy filosofii [Russian Studies in Philosophy]. No. 5, pp. 33–77.

Sokolov, V.V. (ed.) (1969). Antologiya mirovoy filosofii: v 4 t. T. 1: Filosofiya drevnosti i srednevekov’ya. Ch. 1 [Anthology of world philosophy: in 4 vols. Vol. 1: Philosophy of antiquity and the middle ages. Pt. 1]. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ., 576 p.

Tugarinov, V.P. (1968). Teoriya tsennostey v marksizme [Value theory in Marxism]. Leningrad: LSU Publ., 124 p.

Received 04.10.2019

Shreiber V.K. [The theses of Ilyenkov and Korovikov revisited, or what’s the use of the polemic between «gnoseologists» and «ontologists»]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofia. Psihologia. Sociologia [Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology], 2020, issue 1, pp. 29–41 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2020-1-29-41