<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>Questions on the theory of cognition formed one of the focal points in the dispute between orthodox Russian Marxists and Aleksandr Bogdanov and his followers. Bogdanov was an adherent of Mach’s theory, which abandoned Kant’s concept of “things-in-themselves” (<italic>Ding an sich</italic>) outside the cognizing subject. According to Mach and Bogdanov, there is no need to duplicate human experience in appearances given in the senses and things behind these appearances. The orthodox Marxists, Lenin as well as Plekhanov, insisted that Kant’s concept of things-in-themselves should be retained, but in a modified form: the things-in-themselves do not form a limit to our knowledge, as Kant (allegedly) thought, but turn into “things-for-us” in the everyday processes of material and scientific production. Both solutions, the Machian and the orthodox Marxist, have their problems. In the Soviet era, Lenin was depicted as the winner of the dispute. But a closer examination of Bogdanov’s arguments shows that he actually found some weak points in Lenin’s conception. However, this does not mean that Lenin’s critique of Bogdanov as a subjectivist in his theory of cognition was groundless.</p></abstract>

Questions on the theory of cognition formed one of the focal points in the dispute between orthodox Russian Marxists and Aleksandr Bogdanov and his followers. Bogdanov was an adherent of Mach’s theory, which abandoned Kant’s concept of “things-in-themselves” (Ding an sich) outside the cognizing subject. According to Mach and Bogdanov, there is no need to duplicate human experience in appearances given in the senses and things behind these appearances. The orthodox Marxists, Lenin as well as Plekhanov, insisted that Kant’s concept of things-in-themselves should be retained, but in a modified form: the things-in-themselves do not form a limit to our knowledge, as Kant (allegedly) thought, but turn into “things-for-us” in the everyday processes of material and scientific production. Both solutions, the Machian and the orthodox Marxist, have their problems. In the Soviet era, Lenin was depicted as the winner of the dispute. But a closer examination of Bogdanov’s arguments shows that he actually found some weak points in Lenin’s conception. However, this does not mean that Lenin’s critique of Bogdanov as a subjectivist in his theory of cognition was groundless.

Aleksandr Bogdanov and Lenin on “Things-In-Themselves”

Cultural Science

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"Aleksandr Bogdanov and Lenin on \u201cThings-In-Themselves\u201d"}

Questions on the theory of cognition formed one of the focal points in the dispute between orthodox Russian Marxists and Aleksandr Bogdanov and his followers....

Aleksandr Bogdanov and Lenin on “Things-In-Themselves”

Article Category: Research articles

Publicado en línea: 22 dic 2021

Páginas: 177 - 190

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/csj-2021-0014

Palabras clave
Aleksandr Bogdanov, Lenin, things-in-themselves, materialism, empirio-criticism, realism, naturalistic epistemology

© 2021 Vesa Oittinen, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Aleksandr Bogdanov and Lenin on “Things-In-Themselves”

Article Category: Research articles

Publicado en línea: 22 dic 2021

Páginas: 177 - 190

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/csj-2021-0014

Palabras claveAleksandr Bogdanov, Lenin, things-in-themselves, materialism, empirio-criticism, realism, naturalistic epistemology

© 2021 Vesa Oittinen, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Palabras clave
Aleksandr Bogdanov, Lenin, things-in-themselves, materialism, empirio-criticism, realism, naturalistic epistemology