Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T03:25:08.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cybernetics and Marxism-Leninism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Maxim W. Mikulak
Maxim W. Mikulak*
Affiliation:
State University College, Fredonia, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the course of the nineteenth century it became clear that the unfettered speculation obtaining in philosophy frequently could not be useful in science. However, in the Soviet Union it is asserted that natural science can draw its correct "theoretical conclusions" only by relying upon the philosophic and the methodological teachings of dialectical materialism. Certain Soviet Marxists have, on allegedly philosophic grounds, rejected Western genetics, the resonance theory of the chemical bond, the principle of uncertainty of quantum mechanics, relativist cosmology, the relativization of space, time, and matter, probability theory, and symbolic logic. The intriguing question then remains whether Soviet dialectical materialists determine the validity of scientific theories and accomplishments on the basis of a priori judgments derived from philosophic analysis or whether the Soviet attacks on Western scientific thought are, rather, political and ideological in nature.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 1965 , pp. 450 - 465
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Two comprehensive bibliographies of Soviet publications on cybernetics are available in Comey, D. D., “Soviet Publications on Cybernetics,” Studies in Soviet Thought, No. 2, 1964, pp. 142–61Google Scholar; and L. R. Kerschner, “Western Translations of Soviet Publications on Cybernetics,” ibid., pp. 162-77.

2 , No. 11-12, 1945, p. 2.

3 Ibid., No. 9, 1946, p. 5.

4 , No. 3, 1950, pp. 331 ff.

5 April 5, 1952.

6 BΦ, No. 5, 1953, pp. 210 ff.

7 Ibid., No. 4, 1955, pp. 147 ff.

8 , March 26, 1962.

9 In (Moscow, 1957), p. 22

10 Biophysics (USSR), No. 2, 1957, pp. 134 ff.

11 (hereafter ΦиK) (Moscow, 1961), p. 90.

12 , No. 5, 1954, pp. 3 ff.

13 , July 2, 1954.

14 , No. 12,1926, pp. 72 ff.

15 In his Kriticky nÝklad symbolicke metody moderni logiky (Prague, 1948) Kolman displayed a critical acquaintance with Western literature on symbolic logic.

16 BΦ, No. 4, 1955, pp. 148 ff.

17 See note 7, above.

18 , No. 16, 1959, p . 23.

19 , No. 8, 1960, p . 68; BΦ, No. 9, 1960, p p . 164 ft.

20 (Moscow, 1963), p. 34.

21 BΦ, No. 6, 1959, p . 148.

22 Ibid., No. 11, 1962, p . 153.

23 , April 2, 1963.

24 BΦ, No. 4, 1955, p . 149.

25 Ibid., No. 3, 1957, p. 157.

26 , NO. 1, 1959, p . 67.

27 , No. 17, 1960, p. 76.

28 BΦK, pp. 97-98.

29 BΦ, No. 3, 1957, p. 156.

30 ibid., p. 157.

31 , No. 2, 1960, p. 109.

32 , p. 86.

33 BΦ, No. 4, 1955, p . 147; , No. 7, 1959, p . 999; BΦ, p. 86.

34 BΦK, p. 227.

35 F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature (Moscow, 1954), p. 353; Engels, Anti-Dühring (Moscow, 1954), pp. 195, 510; B. M. ) (Minsk, 1958), pp. 88 ft.; M. H. (Moscow, 1959), p. 280.

36 BΦ, No. 5, 1960, p. 54; QBE, pp. 25,169, 231.

37 (Moscow, 1960), p. 56.

38 In BΦK, p. 111.

39 (Kharkov, 1959), p. 21.

40 , No. 2, 1960, p. 108.

41 ,pp. 26, 97, 112 ff., 180, 182, 228.

42 , p. 13; BΦ, No. 4, 1957, p. 158.

43 Anti-Dühring, pp. 123-27; Dialectics of Nature, pp. 326-39.

44 Dialectics of Nature, p. 330.

45 BΦ, No. 3, 1957, p. 161.

46 In BΦK, p. 111.

47 , No. 2, I960, p. 116; $BK, p. 115.

48 BΦ, No. 4, 1963, p. 78.

49 BΦ, No. 4, 1957, p. 153.

50 , pp. 58 ff.

51 p. 237; BΦK, p. 8

52 Anti-Duhring, p. 127.

53 BΦ, No. 3, 1956, p. 119; ), No. 2, 1960, p. 41; BΦ, No. 2, 1961, p. 103; No. 1, 1963, p. 36. It is interesting to note that a philosophically minded Russian chemist, I. Orlov, raised similar objections in 1926 to a “thinking” machine demonstrated by Professor Shchukarov; see , No. 12, 1926, pp. 72 ff.

54 Dialectics of Nature, p. 335.

55 Ibid., pp. 331-32.

56 ), No. 9-10, 1926, pp. 89 ff.; A. (Leningrad, 1930).

57 , No. 2, 1960, p. 41.

58 , No. 17, 1960, p. 76.

59 Biophysics (USSR), No. 2, 1957, p. 143.

60 In BΦK, pp. 159 ff.

61 BΦ, No. 4, 1957, p. 142; No. 8, 1958, p. 92; No. 2, 1961, p. 39; No. 10, 1961, p. 92; No. 8, 1962, p. 78; BΦK, pp. 123, 262-305, 338-45; Epaeda, April 6, 1962.

62 BΦ, No. 3, 1957, p. 154.

63 BΦ, No. 2, 1961, p p . 39-51.

64 In BΦK, p. 123.

65 , pp. 31 ff.

66 , No. 17, 1960, p. 86; BΦ, No. 2, 1963, p. 70.

67 See my “Lenin on the ‘Party’ Nature of Science and Philosophy,” in Essays in Russian and Soviet History (New York, 1963), pp. 164-76; “[Soviet] Philosophy and Science,” Survey, No. 52, 1964, pp. 147-56.

68 (Moscow, 1954), pp. 6 ffi.

69 (Moscow, 1956).

70 In BΦK, pp. 178-79.

71 Every important Soviet textbook on Marxism-Leninism has a section devoted to practice as the criterion of truth; see V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (Moscow, 1952), pp. 136 ff.; (Moscow, 1960), pp. 320 ff.; Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow, 1963), pp. 109 ff.