|
Abstract. The author analyzes the problem of the demarcation of history idealistic and materialistic understanding, shows that the structuralistic and postmodern Marxism interpretations are very close to each other as they misinterpret the essence of history materialistic understanding, makes postmodern conclusion that this theory is idealistic according to the structuralistic interpretation of Marx's historical theory and refers to the famous debate between D. I. Dubrovskii, E. V. Il'enkov and M. A. Lifshits to clarify the question of the nature of ideal.
|
|
Key words and phrases: материалистическое понимание истории, идеализм, демаркация, монизм, структуралистский марксизм, ideal, ideell, материальное, субъективная реальность, объективная реальность, диалектический материализм, всеобщее, особенное, единичное, history materialistic understanding, idealism, demarcation, monism, structuralistic Marxism, ideal, ideell, material, subjective reality, objective reality, dialectical materialism, universal, particular, singular
|
References:
- Al'tyusser L. Za Marksa. M.: Praksis, 2006. 392 c.
- Al'tyusser L. Lenin i filosofiya. M.: Ad Marginem, 2005.
- Bodriiyar Zh. K kritike politicheskoi ekonomii znaka. M.: Biblion - Russkaya kniga, 2003. 272 c.
- Dubrovskii D. I. Problema ideal'nogo. Sub"ektivnaya real'nost'. M.: Kanon+, 2002. 368 s.
- Il'enkov E. V. Dialektika ideal'nogo // Logos. 2009. № 1. S. 6-62.
- Lifshits M. A. Ob ideal'nom i real'nom // Voprosy filosofii. 1984. № 10. S. 120-145.
- Maidanskii A. Voskhozhdenie k ideal'nomu // Logos. 2009. № 1. S. 63-73.
- Marks K., Engel's F. Sochineniya. 2-e izd. T. 3.
|
Русский
