{"title":"走向理论形成的理论:从阿尔都塞到列宁","authors":"Nikola Dedic","doi":"10.2298/fid2303399d","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his theoretical efforts, Lenin made two excursions into philosophy - first in the book Materialism and Empirio-criticism and then in Philosophical Notebooks. There are obvious differences between these two works, which are reflected in the attitude towards Hegel (first rejection and then enthusiasm and acceptance of Hegel?s dialectical method), but also significant similarities. The paper points out that what links Lenin?s two books is the concept of theoretical formation. We derive the term theoretical formation from Lenin?s concept of socio-economic formation: in every society, a large number of modes of production coexist, which are overdetermined by one mode as dominant. Society is thus not a complete and rounded form, but a contradictory overdeterimned formation. The main thesis of the paper is that Lenin applies the concept of over determined formation to the reading of philosophy. Philosophical discourse is never whole but is split between two irreconcilable tendencies - materialism and idealism. Philosophical work is nothing but a struggle for the theoretical dominance of one tendency over another. This struggle between philosophical tendencies is, as Louis Althusser points out, an extension of the class struggle in theory and takes place both in the entire history of philosophy and within each individual philosophical text. The philosophical text is thus a contradictory formation of unequal and combined development.","PeriodicalId":41902,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a theory of theoretical formations: From Althusser to Lenin\",\"authors\":\"Nikola Dedic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/fid2303399d\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In his theoretical efforts, Lenin made two excursions into philosophy - first in the book Materialism and Empirio-criticism and then in Philosophical Notebooks. There are obvious differences between these two works, which are reflected in the attitude towards Hegel (first rejection and then enthusiasm and acceptance of Hegel?s dialectical method), but also significant similarities. The paper points out that what links Lenin?s two books is the concept of theoretical formation. We derive the term theoretical formation from Lenin?s concept of socio-economic formation: in every society, a large number of modes of production coexist, which are overdetermined by one mode as dominant. Society is thus not a complete and rounded form, but a contradictory overdeterimned formation. The main thesis of the paper is that Lenin applies the concept of over determined formation to the reading of philosophy. Philosophical discourse is never whole but is split between two irreconcilable tendencies - materialism and idealism. Philosophical work is nothing but a struggle for the theoretical dominance of one tendency over another. This struggle between philosophical tendencies is, as Louis Althusser points out, an extension of the class struggle in theory and takes place both in the entire history of philosophy and within each individual philosophical text. The philosophical text is thus a contradictory formation of unequal and combined development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/fid2303399d\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/fid2303399d","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Towards a theory of theoretical formations: From Althusser to Lenin
In his theoretical efforts, Lenin made two excursions into philosophy - first in the book Materialism and Empirio-criticism and then in Philosophical Notebooks. There are obvious differences between these two works, which are reflected in the attitude towards Hegel (first rejection and then enthusiasm and acceptance of Hegel?s dialectical method), but also significant similarities. The paper points out that what links Lenin?s two books is the concept of theoretical formation. We derive the term theoretical formation from Lenin?s concept of socio-economic formation: in every society, a large number of modes of production coexist, which are overdetermined by one mode as dominant. Society is thus not a complete and rounded form, but a contradictory overdeterimned formation. The main thesis of the paper is that Lenin applies the concept of over determined formation to the reading of philosophy. Philosophical discourse is never whole but is split between two irreconcilable tendencies - materialism and idealism. Philosophical work is nothing but a struggle for the theoretical dominance of one tendency over another. This struggle between philosophical tendencies is, as Louis Althusser points out, an extension of the class struggle in theory and takes place both in the entire history of philosophy and within each individual philosophical text. The philosophical text is thus a contradictory formation of unequal and combined development.