These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Yes, "Russians" includes Lenin.There is good reason for this book to stir controversy. I was a member of a Trotskyist group in Britain for 11 years, and in the early 80s, around the time when the group published Ilyenkov's book, "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" was being used as the central text for "Party education". Now I have to say that this "party education" was a horrific experience and one that I would never want to repeat, let alone expose anyone else to. It really involved bashing you (metaphorically) over the head with any concession to the idea of any difference-in-principle between thing and idea. And Lenin's tone throughout the book is overbearing and pedantic.
But the context in which it was *written* and the purposes it served, which Ilyenkov spends the majority of his book explaining, make all this quite understandable, even laudable. And Lenin is actually right. He actually does not overstep the line. (I can't necessarily say the same for the way it was used in the 1980s).
Andy Martin Packer wrote:
Okay, Andy. When you say "Russians" are you including Lenin in this statement? That would mean that Hook was wrong in his reading. Martin On 1/27/09 8:11 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:It is very clear that when Russians talk about "reflection" they mean specifically both the meanings Boris Meshcheryakov mentioned, i.e., "reflecting" as in bearing the traces of the object, and "reflecting" upon things as one does in a quiet moment mulling over things, which means it also includes reflecting as in the extreme weather conditions we are experiencing in Melbourne at the moment (4 consecutive days over 40degC) "reflecting" the impact of atmospheric carbon production. It should not be taken as solely referring to mirrors, in Russian or English. Andy Martin Packer wrote:I'd like to learn Sasha's views too. For one thing, I've been critical of Ilyenkov (on the basis of little knowledge), a thinker who I know Sasha has a strongly positive opinion of. Martin On 1/27/09 2:21 PM, "ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org" <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:Sasha, I believe you have leaked your mastery of Spinoza on this forum before, if it is not you I am thinking of please forgive me._______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden: http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca