共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
《哲学笔记》是列宁在一九一四——一九一六年深入地研究哲学,尤其深入地研究了黑格尔的著作时所写的读书摘要、札记、批注和短文的汇集。它在认识论、辩证法、逻辑的同一,对立统一规律,认识的辩证过程等很多方面发展了马克思主义哲学,是列宁留给我们的一份珍贵的哲学遗产。是我们学习、研究马克思主义哲学不能不读的书。但是,由于《哲学笔记》摘录了哲学史上许多哲学家的言论,特别是摘录了许多黑格尔 相似文献
2.
在《哲学笔记》中,列宁曾说:辩证法、认识论和逻辑“不必要三个词:它们是同一个东西”(《列宁全集》第38卷,第357页)。在这里,列宁提出了被人称为“三者同一”的思想。《哲学笔记》问世后的半个世纪以来,中外哲学界对这一思想做了广泛的研究探讨。但 相似文献
3.
一 《哲学笔记》是列宁的一部重要哲学著作。它是列宁研究哲学时各种读书笔记的汇集,其中包括三十二篇读书笔记和五篇读书批注。写作年代从1895年开始到1916年为止,但其主要部分写于1914—1916年。就内容看,《哲学笔记》中除了马克思和恩格斯《神圣家族》一书的笔记外,列宁大量阅读了资产阶级哲学,哲学史、自然科学等著作。列宁最注意的是黑格 相似文献
4.
5.
由北京大学、厦门大学等单位发起的首次全国《哲学笔记》研究与教学讨论会,于去年12月8日至15日在厦门大学举行。应邀参加会议的代表共六十余人。会议开得紧凑、集中、热烈。大家一致认为,《哲学笔记》是列宁继《唯物主义和经验批判主义》之后,又一部划时代的哲学巨著。它既是列宁酝酿哲学新突破的思想实验室,又是一个取之不尽、用之不竭的理论宝库。我们决不能因为它是以笔记的形式叙述的,就忽视和低估它对发展马克思主义哲学的意义。在此评价的基础上,与会代表集中对以下三个问题展开了深入的讨论。 相似文献
6.
目前对列宁《哲学笔记》中关于辩证法体系的探讨性文章,一般地都认为其中关于“辩证法的要素”,就已经是一个完整而严密的体系,或者说它“提供了辩证法体系的雏形”。其实,不论是“辩证法的要素”的前七条也好,整个十六条也好,都只是从辩证法的结构方面,来揭示辩证法体系的具体内容及其内在联系。应该说,“要素”十六条是列宁对唯物辩证法体系的 相似文献
7.
一些哲学著作和文章在论述假象问题时,常引用列宁在《哲学笔记》中所表述的一个公式。“假象=本质的否定的本性。”(《列宁全集》第38卷,第137页)并以此公式为出发点,阐发假象的定义。本人认为,由于“假象”一词翻译不确切,对列宁的这一重要哲学公式,一直存在着误解。这种误解,妨 相似文献
8.
9.
10.
我们认为,结合现代科学成果,对哲学范畴在确切把握其含义的基础上,对其所反映的对象进行分类研究,也是哲学改革的一个重要途径。马克思主义哲学是关于自然界、人类社会和思维发展的一般规律的科学,它的一系列概念和范畴都具有普遍的意义。但是,唯物辩证法所讲的普遍性并不是脱离特殊性的抽象的普遍性,而是包含着丰富的特殊性的普遍性,即如列宁所说:“不只是抽象的普遍,而且是自身体现着特殊、个体、个别东西的丰富性的这种普遍”。(《哲学笔记》第98页)唯物辩证法之所以不同于唯心主义 相似文献
11.
12.
在马克思主义文献中关于国家的定义存在着某种张力.马克思主义的一种传统将国家看作是阶级的反思,而另一种传统则将国家理解为社会的反思.当列宁开始质询这些关于国家的文本时,呈现给他的是马克思恩格斯文献的现有参考书目、理论档案.这些文本大多数都致力于阶级国家概念,由此就决定列宁处理其问题的答案类型. 相似文献
13.
Jiří Marek 《Studies in East European Thought》1977,17(1):63-80
History and the philosophy of science have played a very important role in dialectical materialism; their results have been destined to support the correctness of the ideas of Marxist philosophers, especially in their application in historical materialism.From this point of view, the circumstances of the origin of the works of the Marxist classics cannot be neglected: Engels wrote hisDialectics in Nature in the period of classical physics, and Lenin published hisMaterialism and Empirio-Criticism at the beginning of the 20th century when our modern physics first began: shortly before the publication of Lenin's book, Röntgen and Becquerel discovered new kinds of radiation, Balmer published his ideas concerning the regularity of the hydrogen spectrum, Plank wrote his first articles about the elementary quantum and Einstein published his three famous articles (1905).During this period, physicists themselves did not understand their results, so important for the further development of physics. In this atmosphere of uncertainty, Lenin — a lawyer and politician — undertook his attempt to criticise the ideas of physicists.We trace one misinterpretation by Lenin of these ideas from books by Mach and Helmholtz. 相似文献
14.
15.
Robert K. Garcia 《Ratio》2015,28(1):51-64
Peter Unger has challenged philosophical objectivism, the thesis that traditional philosophical problems have definite objective answers. He argues from semantic relativity for philosophical relativity, the thesis that for certain philosophical problems, there is no objective answer. I clarify, formulate and challenge Unger's argument. According to Unger, philosophical relativism explains philosophical idling, the fact that philosophical debates appear endless, philosophical disagreements seem irresolvable, and very little substantial progress seems made towards satisfactory and definite answers to philosophical problems. I argue, however, that the reality of philosophical idling is doubtful and, ironically, undermined by philosophical relativism. I then raise problems for several steps in Unger's argument for philosophical relativity. I conclude by arguing that philosophical relativism can avoid self‐defeat only by an ad hoc limitation of its scope. 1 相似文献
16.
Hamid Seyedsayamdost 《Metaphilosophy》2019,50(1-2):110-129
In recent years a new discussion on the nature of philosophical expertise has emerged: whether philosophers possess a special kind of expertise, what such expertise would entail, how to measure it, and related concerns. The aim of the present article is to clarify certain related points across these debates in the hope of paving a clearer path forward, by addressing the following. (1) The expertise defense, which seems central to many discussions on methodology and expertise, has been misconstrued at times. (2) Questions of expertise and methodology could be separated more clearly. (3) The study of expertise may be important in its own right; however, there may be good reasons to give priority to methodological concerns. (4) Finally, when viewed in light of methodological concerns, a new project emerges when engaging with recent contributions to the expertise debate. The present article attempts a brief outline of this project. 相似文献
17.
18.
19.
20.