UDC

130.122

Authors

Rafael’ Yu. Rakhmatullin
Bashkir State Agrarian University; ul. 50-letiya Oktyabrya 34, Ufa, 450001, Respublika Bashkortostan, Russian Federation;
e-mail: rafat54@mail.ru

Abstract

This article analyses and evaluates the concepts of ideality in Soviet philosophy. The author focuses on the 1960s – 1980s, when a debate flared up in Soviet philosophy about the concept of Evald Ilyenkov, who considered ideality as a form (scheme, structure) of practical activity. This idea contradicted the generally accepted point of view that ideality is only inherent to the psyche. Ilyenkov’s vision was reinforced by the concept of Mikhail Lifshitz, who believed that ideality could be found in nature. In this case, ideality and ideal were identical concepts. David Dubrovsky opposed Ilyenkov and Lifshits as he believed that ideality is present only in the human consciousness. In the 1980s, Daniil Pivovarov came up with the idea of uniting all three concepts into one. He believed that each of them reflected one of the stages of evolution of ideality: from a natural standard to a type of human practical activity, resulting in the formation of a subjective image of an object in the form of knowledge about the latter. The article concludes that the problem under study remains unresolved. The author believes that the easiest option is to consider it as a language problem: to not attribute ideality to something that is beyond consciousness. However, in this case there appears the effect of Gödel’s theorem: it is impossible to fully explain ideality with the help of ideality itself (thought, sensual image). While, if we agree with the thesis about the objective existence of ideality, we have to acknowledge the correctness of Plato’s doctrine of ideas.

Keywords

ideality, problem of ideality, Soviet Philosophy, E.V. Ilyenkov, M.A. Lifshitz, D.I. Dubrovsky, D.V. Pivovarov, interiorization, operationalism

References

1. Rakhmatullin R.Yu. Fraktal’naya kontseptsiya tvorchestva [Fractal Conception of Creativity]. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, kul’turologiya i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2015, no. 7-1, pp. 145–147.
2. Spirkin A.G. Soznanie i samosoznanie [Consciousness and Self-Consciousness]. Moscow, 1972. 303 p.
3. Klassen E.G. Ideal’noe. Kontseptsiya Karla Marksa [Ideality. The Concept of Karl Marx]. Krasnoyarsk, 1984. 148 p.
4. Rakhmatullin R.Yu. Problema ideal’nogo v svete trudov D.V. Pivovarova [Issue of Ideality in the Papers of D.V. Pivovarov]. Intellekt. Innovatsii. Investitsii, 2016, no. 10, pp. 51–55.
5. Gregory R.L. The Intelligent Eye. London, 1970 (Russ. ed.: Gregori R.L. Razumnyy glaz. Moscow, 2003. 240 p.).
6. Plekhanov I.A. D.I. Dubrovskiy i E.V. Il’enkov: neokonchennyy spor o prirode psikhiki i ideal’nom [The Unfinished Dispute over the Nature of Psyche and the Ideal]. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo, 2007, no. 1, pp. 153–162.
7. Khamidov A.A. Problema ideal’nogo i ee reshenie E.V. Il’enkovym: analiz polemiki [The Problem of Ideality and Its Solution by E.V. Ilyenkov: Analysis of the Polemics]. Goncharov S.Z. (ed.). Kreativnost’ gumanitarnogo obrazovaniya: dukhovno-tsennostnye i intellektual’nye aspekty [Creativity of Education in the Humanities: Spiritual, Axiological and Intellectual Aspects]. Yekaterinburg, 2014, pp. 36–61.