Towards a theory of theoretical formations: From Althusser to Lenin

IF 0.2 N/A PHILOSOPHY
Nikola Dedic
{"title":"Towards a theory of theoretical formations: From Althusser to Lenin","authors":"Nikola Dedic","doi":"10.2298/fid2303399d","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his theoretical efforts, Lenin made two excursions into philosophy - first in the book Materialism and Empirio-criticism and then in Philosophical Notebooks. There are obvious differences between these two works, which are reflected in the attitude towards Hegel (first rejection and then enthusiasm and acceptance of Hegel?s dialectical method), but also significant similarities. The paper points out that what links Lenin?s two books is the concept of theoretical formation. We derive the term theoretical formation from Lenin?s concept of socio-economic formation: in every society, a large number of modes of production coexist, which are overdetermined by one mode as dominant. Society is thus not a complete and rounded form, but a contradictory overdeterimned formation. The main thesis of the paper is that Lenin applies the concept of over determined formation to the reading of philosophy. Philosophical discourse is never whole but is split between two irreconcilable tendencies - materialism and idealism. Philosophical work is nothing but a struggle for the theoretical dominance of one tendency over another. This struggle between philosophical tendencies is, as Louis Althusser points out, an extension of the class struggle in theory and takes place both in the entire history of philosophy and within each individual philosophical text. The philosophical text is thus a contradictory formation of unequal and combined development.","PeriodicalId":41902,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/fid2303399d","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In his theoretical efforts, Lenin made two excursions into philosophy - first in the book Materialism and Empirio-criticism and then in Philosophical Notebooks. There are obvious differences between these two works, which are reflected in the attitude towards Hegel (first rejection and then enthusiasm and acceptance of Hegel?s dialectical method), but also significant similarities. The paper points out that what links Lenin?s two books is the concept of theoretical formation. We derive the term theoretical formation from Lenin?s concept of socio-economic formation: in every society, a large number of modes of production coexist, which are overdetermined by one mode as dominant. Society is thus not a complete and rounded form, but a contradictory overdeterimned formation. The main thesis of the paper is that Lenin applies the concept of over determined formation to the reading of philosophy. Philosophical discourse is never whole but is split between two irreconcilable tendencies - materialism and idealism. Philosophical work is nothing but a struggle for the theoretical dominance of one tendency over another. This struggle between philosophical tendencies is, as Louis Althusser points out, an extension of the class struggle in theory and takes place both in the entire history of philosophy and within each individual philosophical text. The philosophical text is thus a contradictory formation of unequal and combined development.
走向理论形成的理论:从阿尔都塞到列宁
在他的理论努力中,列宁两次涉足哲学——第一次是在《唯物主义和经验批判》一书中,然后是在《哲学笔记》中。这两部作品之间存在着明显的差异,这体现在对黑格尔的态度上(首先是对黑格尔的排斥,然后是对黑格尔的热情和接受?辩证方法),但也有显著的相似之处。文章指出列宁与列宁之间的联系是什么?这两本书是概念理论的形成。我们是从列宁那里得到理论形成这个词的吗?S的社会经济形态观:在任何一个社会中,大量的生产方式都是共存的,它们被一种占主导地位的生产方式所过度决定。因此,社会不是一种完整的、圆满的形态,而是一种矛盾的、过度规定的形态。本文的主要论点是列宁将超定构的概念应用于哲学阅读。哲学话语从来不是完整的,而是分裂为两个不可调和的倾向——唯物主义和唯心主义。哲学工作只不过是一种倾向对另一种倾向的理论支配地位的斗争。正如路易斯·阿尔都塞所指出的那样,这种哲学倾向之间的斗争是理论上阶级斗争的延伸,它既发生在整个哲学史上,也发生在每个哲学文本中。因此,哲学文本是一种不平等发展和综合发展的矛盾形态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
24 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信