Vasilij Vasil'evič Sokolov (1919 - 2017) Russisch filosoof was in zijn tijd dé scholar van de Sovjet Unie over #Spinoza [3]



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