De
cover is van de Hongaarse vertaling [van hier] V.V. Szokolov: Spinoza filozófiája és a jelenkor [Spinoza’s-filosofie en het heden]. Moscow (1971) |
In dit blog
breng ik het review geschreven door de filosoof Friedrich Rapp dat verscheen in Studies in Soviet Thought [Vol. 5, No. 4
(Dec., 1965), pp. 333-335] van
V. V.
Sokolov: Filosofija Spinozy i
sovremennosf (The Philosophy of Spinoza and the Present Day). MGU 1964. 450
str.
[De eerste
alinea waarin de reviewer enige opmerkingen maakte over de volgens hem i.h.a.
onbevredigende manier waarop de filosofiegeschiedenis naar de hand van het
dialectisch materialisme verdraaid werd, sla ik over.]
The book
under review furnishes an agreeable counter-example to the neglect of history
of philosophy. In fact, it is a scholarly investigation of Spinoza's
philosophy, and an evaluation of its place in the development of philosophical
reasoning from Greek philosophy to the present time. The monograph is based on
intense study of Marxist as well as of Western literature concerning Spinoza.
The author
begins with a detailed exposition of the sources of Spinoza's thinking. The
subsequent analysis and discussion of the Dutch thinker's system occupies about
half the book. In a concluding chapter the further development of Spinozism and
its role in contemporary thinking are viewed. Throughout the book the author
exhibits an embracing and profound knowledge of the com plicated
cross-references within the history of philosophy. Naturally, the attempt to
consider all these connections often leads to very special questions. Thus the
danger arises that, in spite of the clear style, the points may not easily be
seen among the manifold details. It would have been very useful to have the
approximately 1250 notes and the index of names completed by a subject index
and a list of the quoted books.
To confront
and compare Spinoza's system, with its extremely speculative reasoning, and
dialectical materialism would mean making the fund of European philosophical
tradition available to contemporary Soviet thought. In fact, from about
1920-1932 there was an intense and stimulating discussion about the relation
between dialectical materialism and Spinozism. The prevailing personalities in
this discussions were Lunacarskij, Aksel'rod and Deborin (Cf . L. Kline, Spinoza in Soviet Philosophy, London.
1952, p. 14-16). However, as the author of the reviewed book points out (p.
383), Plexanov's formula of the "theological appendage" in Spinozism
"literally hypnotized" (bukvaVno
zagip notizirovala) many Soviet philosophers. Thus, in 1932, Mitin and his
followers came to power and the discussion stopped. The book under review is
the first one on Spinoza since 1940 and at the same time the first Marxist
study which deals with all aspects of the system (I. A. Konikov in the review
of Sokolov's book in VF 1965, 8, 166-169).
What are the
main results of Sokolov's monograph? As the author holds the Marxist-Leninist
view-point, his book shows in what sense a sufficiently broadened materialism
can be found within the history of philosophy and especially within Spinoza.
What renders the book so precious is the combination of this view-point with a
sober judgement, for his intimate knowledge of the historical connections and
his consciousness of the philosophical problems prevent Mr. Sokolov from
unbalanced and over-simplified statements. Furthermore, a special merit of the
monograph consists in raising the discussion of atheism from popularised
agitation to the level of speculative philosophy.
It seems to
the reviewer that in dialectical materialism there are two possibilities for a
really philosophical treatment of atheism: (1) the humanistic approach of the
young Marx regarding the alienation of men and pleading for the reestablishment
of his very nature as veiled by religion; (2) the cosmological approach,
prevailing in Spinoza. In the latter case, the question is whether the ultimate
ground for the existence of the world has to be seen in a transcendent personal
being that created the world or in a principle immanent in things themselves,
which thus comes out to a pantheistic "deification of matter". Mr.
Sokolov calls special attention to Spinoza's rationalism and tries to show that
in his philosophy the second view-point was the dominant one. He claims that
the theistic traits within the Dutch thinker's system can be explained by
caution with respect to the Inquisition and by the lack of other expressions to
explain his ideas.
Some short
remarks: Mr. Sokolov opposes to Spinoza's teaching of strict determination the
dialectical concept of objective chance based on the infinite possibilities
always arising in nature. But does such an appeal not equal an escape from a
lawful ordered cosmos to the agnostic concept of an indefinite creativity? The
attempt to consider the philosophical teachings within the context of the
contemporary social conditions offers interesting views but no cogent
arguments. The censure that Spinoza's static concept of the world neglects its
dynamic and historical character is surely correct. Besides this, it seems to
the reviewer, the shortcoming of Spinoza's system consists in the lack of a
clear and consistent elaboration of its basic categories and, furthermore, in the
rationalistic identification of the logical and the real orders. Thus, in spite
of its genial intuitions, this system without serious changes could hardly
serve as a completely satisfying philosophical theory. Because of his
historical approach Mr. Sokolov has not engaged much in questions of this type.
This
stimulating book with its high standard of learning will be of great value to
every scholar interested in Spinoza and his place in the development of philosophical
thought. It is not less relevant for studies in dialectical materialism, for it
shows how this doctrine could possibly be enriched when making use of the
patrimony of the history of philosophy.
F. Rapp
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten