Soviet views on Mao and Maoism

In their criticism of Maoism, contemporary Soviet philosophers follow the basic structure of the orthodox presentation of Marxism — Leninism and use the whole panoply of polemical tools which the Leninist heritage offers them. Thus far, this anti — Maoism is generally maladroit and often self-contradictory.     

Game theory and belief in God

In the last few decades game theory has emerged as a powerful tool for examining a broad range of philosophical issues. It is unsurprising, then, that game theory has been taken up as a tool to examine issues in the philosophy of religion. Economist Steven Brams (1982), (1983) and (2007), for example, has given a game theoretic analysis of belief in God, his main argument first published in this journal and then again in both editions of his book, Superior Beings. I have two main aims in this paper, one specific and one general. My specific aim is to show that Brams’ application of game theory to examine belief in God is, in particular, deeply flawed in two respects. My general aim is to show that any game-theoretic model in which a human being and God are players can only succeed at the cost of abandoning the assumption that God is omnibenevolent.     

Emerging views of the role of theory

Offers a few broadly evaluative observations about what we have learned from the articles and commentaries contained in this special section. We discuss how--although the contributions contained in this special section might be viewed on one level as suggesting a lack of consensus concerning the role of theory--on a metalevel the contributions are suggestive of movement toward consensus. The emerging consensus seems to be that not only is theory alive and well but it is unlikely that we will ever be able to do without theory. However, our ways of thinking and talking about theory appear to be undergoing change; that is, the trend is in the emergence of theory as a guide for action or action-based epistemology. We conclude with ideas about future directions, including the call for methodological pluralism, theoretical pluralism, and metatheoretical development.     

The politics and contexts of Soviet science studies (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Naukovedenie</Emphasis>): Soviet philosophy of science at the crossroads

Naukovedenie (literarily meaning ‘science studies’), was first institutionalized in the Soviet Union in the twenties, then resurfaced and was widely publicized in the sixties, as a new mode of reflection on science, its history, its intellectual foundations, and its management, after which it dominated Soviet historiography of science until perestroika. Tracing the history of meta-studies of science in the USSR from its early institutionalization in the twenties when various political, theoretical and institutional struggles set the stage for the development of the field, to the sixties when the field resurfaced within the particular political context of the Cold War, and using the history of Moscow Institute for the History of Science and Technology as a case-study, I situate Soviet naukovedenie project within the culture of late-socialism in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, asking what this discourse meant for its creators and practitioners, as well as for the high-ranked Soviet officials who provided the authoritative support for this field.