These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
The passage you are citing is on page 262 of Vol 3 of the Plenum CW, which, as you know, is the source of the scanned MIA version. As you explain, this is located about 5 pages into Chapter 7 of The Crisis in Psychology.
Starting at the top of pg 262, Vygotsky is criticizing Luria's treatment of psychoanalysis. In this paragraph, he criticizes Luria's concept of the "general methodological foundations of the epoch" which Vygotsky sees as simply lumping together the "great scientific achievements" of Darwin, Comte, Pavlov and Einstein, and then listing Marxism as just another discovery.
In the article by Luria [1925, p. 55], for example, psychoanalysis is presented as “a system of monistic psychology,” whose methodology “coincides with the methodology” of Marxism. In order to prove this a number of most naive transformations of both systems are carried out as a result of which they “coincide.” Let us briefly look at these transformations. First of all, Marxism is situated in the general methodology of the epoch, alongside Darwin, Comte, Pavlov, and Einstein, who together create the general methodological foundations of the epoch. The role and importance of each of these authors is, of course, deeply and fundamentally different, and by its very nature the role of dialectical materialism is totally different from all of them. Not to see this means to deduce methodology from the sum total of “great scientific achievements”. As soon as one reduces all these names and Marxism to a common denominator it is not difficult to unite Marxism with any “great scientific achievement,” because this was presupposed: the“coincidence” looked for is in the presupposition and not in the conclusion. The“fundamental methodology of the epoch” consists of the sum total of the discoveries made by Pavlov, Einstein, etc. Marxism is one of these discoveries, which belong to the “group of principles indispensable for quite a number of closely-related sciences” [ibid p. 47].
Then Vygotsky pokes a little fun at Luria and suggests that he could have ended his argumentation relating Freudianism and Marxism with this simplistic idea right there, on the first page of his paper.
Which brings us to your sensible question about the confusing use of "that is". This "that is" you are asking about might have been better entirely left out by the translator, in my view. I think it is just a redundant way of saying where "here" is.
"Here, on the first page, that is ..." could be put several others ways: "Right there, that is to say, on the first page ..." "Here ... in other words, on the first page of this paper ..." Etc. And dropping it altogether might be the clearest of all!
Here, on the first page, ****that is [to say]****, the argumentation might have ended: after Einstein one would only have to mention Freud, for he is also a “great scientific achievement” and, thus, a participant in the “general methodological foundations of the epoch.”
- Steve On Jun 15, 2009, at 5:41 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
Haydi,I receive messages from xmca in plain text, so I cannot see what you claim is in a large font. I am sure others have the same problem. Can you send just the excerpt you wanted in large text?Andy Haydi Zulfei wrote:Dear all , This was formerly written to a very close friend who is very busy with his very different jobs . Now is there anybody to help me with the problem ? For so-called a translation ! of Vygotsky's " The Crisis " into my native language I reached chapter 7 , page 6 of 15 of the Marxist.Org Version of the Work . And you can have the rest of the story below : The sentence in focus has been presented in larger fonts , in particular , what signification and function the " that is " phrase within the sentence , allocates to itself ? Thanks a lot , dear ... ! This is the stuff : Note please here for me the syntax and the WELL-formedness of the sentence is more complicated than its APPROPRIATENESS ; though it's very obvious the very syntax spoils the appropiacy . Thank you very much ! In the article by Luria [1925, p. 55], for example, psychoanalysis is presented as “a system of monistic psychology,” whose methodology “coincides with the methodology” of Marxism. In order to prove this a number of most naive transformations of both systems are carried out as a result of which they “coincide.” Let us briefly look at these transformations. First of all, Marxism is situated in the general methodology of the epoch, alongside Darwin, Comte, Pavlov, and Einstein, who together create the general methodological foundations of the epoch. The role and importance of each of these authors is, of course, deeply and fundamentally different, and by its very nature the role of dialectical materialism is totally different from all of them. Not to see this means to deduce methodology from the sum total of “great scientific achievements”. As soon as one reduces all these names and Marxism to a common denominator it is not difficult to unite Marxism with any “great scientific achievement,” because this was presupposed: the“coincidence” looked for is in the presupposition and not in the conclusion. The“fundamental methodology of the epoch” consists of the sum total of the discoveries made by Pavlov, Einstein, etc. Marxism is one of these discoveries, which belong to the “group of principles indispensable for quite a number of closely-related sciences” Here, on the first page, that is ??????, the argumentation might have ended: after Einstein one would only have to mention Freud, for he is also a “great scientific achievement” and, thus, a participant in the “general methodological foundations of the epoch.” But one must have much uncritical trust in scientific reputation to deduce the methodology of an epoch from the sum total of famous names. There is no unitary basic methodology of the epoch. What we have is a system of fighting, deeply hostile, mutually exclusive, methodological principles and eachtheory – whether by Pavlov or Einstein – has its own methodological merit. To distill a general methodology of the epoch and to dissolve Marxism in it means to transform not only the appearance, but also the essence of Marxism. But also Freudian theory is inescapably subjected to the same type of transformations. Freud himself would be amazed to learn that psychoanalysis is a systemof monistic psychology and that “methodologically he carries on... historical materialism” [Fridman, 1925, p. 159]. Not a single psychoanalytic journal would, of course, print the papers by Luria and Fridman. That is highly important. For a very peculiar situation has evolved: Freud and his school have never declared themselves to be monists, materialists, dialecticians, or followers of historical materialism. But they are told: you are both the first, and the second, and the third. You yourselves don’t know who you are. Of course, one can imagine such a situation, it is entirely possible. But then it is necessary to give an exact explanation of the methodological foundations of this doctrine, as conceived of and developed by its authors, and then a proof of the refutation of these foundations and to explain by what miracle and on what foundations psychoanalysis developed a system of methodology which is foreign to its authors. Instead of this, the identity of the two systems is declared by a simple formal-logical superposition of the characteristics – without a single analysis of Freud’s basic concepts, without critically weighing and elucidating his assumptions and starting points, without a critical examination of the genesis of his ideas, even without simply inquiring how he himself conceives of the philosophical foundations of his system But, maybe, this formal-logical characterization of the two systems is correct? We have already seen how one distills Marxism’s share in the general methodology of the epoch, in which everything is roughly and naively reduced to a common denominator: if both Einstein and Pavlov and Marx belong to science, then they must have a common foundation. But Freudian theory suffers even more distortions in this process. I will not even mention how Zalkind (1924) mechanically deprives it of its central idea. In his article it is passed over in silence, which is also note worthy. But take the monism of psychoanalysis – Freud would contest it. The article mentions that he turned to philosophical monism, but where, in which words, in connection with what? Is finding empirical unity in some group of facts really always monism? On the contrary, Freud always accepted the mental, the unconscious as a special force which cannot be reduced to something else. Further, why is this monism materialistic in the philosophical sense? After all, medical materialism which acknowledges the influence of different organs etc. upon mental structures is still very far from philosophical materialism. In the philosophy of Marxism this concept has a specific, primarily epistemological sense and it is precisely in his epistemology that Freud stands on idealist philosophical grounds. For it is a fact, which is not refuted and not even considered by the authors of the “coincidences,” that Freud’s doctrine of the primary role of blind drives, of the unconscious as being reflected in consciousness in a distorted fashion, goes back directly to Schopenhauer’s idealistic metaphysics of the will and the idea. Freud [1920/1973, pp. 49-50] himself remarks that in his extreme conclusions he is in the harbor of Schopenhauer. But his basic assumptions as well as the main lines of his system are connected with the philosophy of the greatpessimist, as even the simplest analysis can demonstrate.The other problem is when I reached here " Thus , we see where Freud and his system have come from and where they are heading for : from Schopenhauer and Lipps to Kolnay and mass psychology " . I searched google for " Kolnay and mass psychology " . Among the alternatives ( results ) , I reached for a link which apparently belongs to http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/crisis/6_dir/6_s3.htm Now , how can I locate this in the lchc archieve to learn about the whole story in the past ? Is there the possibility of reaching for the whole pages of the work ? Is it something different from the Marxist.Org version ? The page numbers says this must be the case . Now , the more I try , the less I succeed in remembering anything from the past . You see ! It must be the problem of age !!Best Haydi _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden (Erythrós Press and Media) http://www.erythrospress.com/ Orders: http://www.erythrospress.com/store/main.html#books _______________________________________________ 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