Appearing for the first time in English, Art and the Working Class is the work of Alexander Bogdanov, a revolutionary polymath and co-founder, with Vladimir Lenin, of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Bogdanov was a strong proponent of the arts, co-founding the Proletarian Culture (Proletkult) organization to provide political and artistic education to workers. In this book, Bogdanov discusses the origins of art, its class characteristics, and how it might be created within (...) a revolutionary socialist context. (shrink)

When it comes to Quine's position on the naturalization of epistemological inquiry, it is generally considered that as the first and most important step, that position implies the abandonment of Cartesianism and the skepticism it implies. However, here we will argue that such a diagnosis is inappropriate, and that, in principle at least, Quine's attitude towards skepticism, even of the Cartesian type, is much more flexible than is usually thought, and perhaps even than Quine himself thought. In this regard, we (...) will try to show how Quine was actually the one who accepted what Barry Stroud called the 'conditional correctness of skepticism (Cartesianism)' and not the logical positivists, and that the main reason for this is that he recognized the autonomy of the discourse (‘epistemology’s meta-context’) established by Descartes. (shrink)

The subject of this paper is Charles Morris’ semiotic theory that has as one of its major projects the unification of all sciences of signs. However, since the above project has proven to be unsuccessful, we will try to examine here the reasons that led to this. Accordingly, we will argue that to transcend the particularities of individual disciplines that he wanted to unify, Morris had to make certain ontological assumptions, instead of theoretical and methodological ones, that they could share. (...) However, because the 'sign' as an ontological category could in our view only be established if we follow the principles of the pragmatic philosophical tradition, we will try to show that the reasons for this failure should be primarily sought in different effects that consistent application of the pragmatic principles has in each of them (primarily in linguistics and the philosophy of language). On the other hand, this should enable us to draw several important conclusions regarding Morris’ project: namely, that his failure does not have to mean giving up semiotics as a potentially key discipline in approaching some fundamental philosophical problems, but also that it would demand return to the original semiotics developed in Peirce’s works. (shrink)

This paper deals with Schaffer’s distinction between metaphysical structures, as well as his appeal for revival of neo-Aristotelian approaches that imply ordered structure, based on the criticism of Quine’s method that, in his view, implies flat metaphysical structure. However, although we believe that Schaffer’s distinction between metaphysical structures is an interesting and, basically, acceptable view, we will try to show that Schaffer’s arguments are not convincing enough to persuade us to abandon Quine’s method and adopt the Aristotelian metaphysical model. Moreover, (...) when mistakes that Schaffer makes are corrected and Quine’s method is given due attention, we will see that this can enable us a more tenable interpretation of the concepts that Schaffer speaks of (metaphysical structures), but also – as in his case – to draw certain conclusions that go beyond objectives of classification as such. (shrink)

Although Williams’ contextual thesis is above all a critique of one way of interpreting contextualism in epistemology, viz., simple conversational contextualisam, I will argue that this thesis has also been a very successful means for the critique of a standpoint on which that interpretation, and the entire traditional epistemology rests - epistemological realism. Accordingly, in spite of certain weaknesses in Williams’ position pointed out by his critiques, in this paper I will try to show that, by interpreting the problem of (...) scepticism as first and foremost a methodological necessity of epistemological realism, Williams succeeds in offering an enlightening diagnosis of the sceptical paradox problem which is at the centre of epistemology traditionally construed. (shrink)

In this paper we will try to show the differences between Quine’s and Gibson’s interpretation of the naturalized epistemology project. Namely, although Gibson points out that the genetic approach advocated by Quine is the best strategy there is to investigate the relations between evidence and theory, and that externalizing of empiricism that it requires is one of Quine’s major philosophical contributions, we argue that the assumptions on which Gibson’s project is based, apart from the fact that they are in conflict (...) with some strongly held intuitions, would have to be essentially different from Quine’s. In other words, contrary to Quine’s position within which we have the possibility of staying on more moderate, and in our opinion, more plausible behavioristic line of approach, we will try to show that one of the consequences of Gibson’s interpretation is that this possibility is ruled out in Gibson’s case. On the other hand, this should enable us to draw some more radical conclusions about the nature of Quine’s epistemological project. (shrink)

In this paper, we will try to confront Quine’s and Davidson’s holistic position through Davidson’s thesis of the mental as a non-ontological category. In this regard, since Davidson came to this position through the thesis of the mental as a decidedly conceptual category, we will try to show how this approach does not, nevertheless, rule out the possibility of its interpretation in ontological terms. However, in what follows we will draw attention to the fact that the mental can be interpreted (...) so that it proves to be immune to ontologizing in Quine’s sense. This would be the evidence of different ways, which are not necessarily compatible, to argue for Davidson’s central thesis - the thesis about holistic character of the mental - as well as, which is closely related, a certain difference that exists between Davidson’s view of the mental as a conceptual category on the one hand, and a holistic category on the other. (shrink)

This paper deals with Peirce’s understanding of perceptual judgment, relating it to the conditions for the use of language defined by Michael Dummett. Namely, drawing on Dummett’s requirement for harmony between descriptive and evaluative aspects of our linguistic practice, we will try to give an interpretation of Peirce’s view of perception that implies rejecting the idea that the formation of a perceptual judgment has an inferential structure. On the other hand, since it is, in Peirce’s opinion, the structure of abductive (...) inference, this approach should enable us to draw some conclusions related to abduction in general. (shrink)

This philosophical hypothesis is based on actual facts and logically possible interactions between several entities, leading to the phenomenon called ‘gravitational attraction. -/- All current theories and hypotheses rely primarily on theoretical ideas about how gravitational attraction functions but fail to explain all its aspects, including the connection between gravity and the quantum world. This is why the question of gravity remains unresolved to this day. A solid philosophical foundation is needed to identify the most likely causes and mechanisms behind (...) gravitational attraction. Understanding gravity correctly is of pivotal importance if we hope to comprehend the possibility of antigravity and its potential mechanisms. This work addresses all these questions and more. -/- The hypothesis in this document regarding gravity is based on exploring all involved entities and the mutual interactions between them that could be responsible for the emergence of the phenomenon we call ‘gravitational attraction.’ The subjects involved in this system are as follows: 1) Earth’s magnetism, 2) the paramagnetic properties of oxygen, and 3) the electric charge of all objects. -/- This hypothesis is intended to address dilemmas that current theories fail to explain. These dilemmas are as follows: -/- 1) Why is gravity such a weak force? 2) Why does gravity only attract, especially in comparison to magnetism? 3) How does gravity attract non-magnetic objects -/- In essence, according to this hypothesis, the effect of gravitational attraction might be directly linked to Earth's magnetism or magnetic field, even though objects—especially non-magnetic substances—are not directly attracted by it. Instead, all objects are attracted because of Earth's magnetic field influencing oxygen. The attraction of all objects on Earth, including non-magnetic ones, occurs because all substances possess a certain electric (or electromagnetic) charge. This charge, within a certain proximity to these charged objects and substances, affects the charge of oxygen, in addition to the electromagnetic charge already imposed on them by Earth. -/- In this way, all objects form a field of more strongly charged paramagnetic oxygen particles around themselves. It is this field that is pulled more strongly toward Earth, dragging along the object responsible for the enhanced electromagnetic charge of this field. This means that gravitational attraction results from Earth's magnetic field in combination with the interactions between the properties of oxygen and the involved objects. -/- This hypothesis about gravity also helps explain how and why planes fly, including the dilemma of why the air above an airplane’s wings moves faster than expected. It also accounts for why all objects are so easily lifted into the air during strong winds. -/- Within existing theories of gravity, antigravity is impossible to explain, let alone achieve. This hypothesis provides an easy-to-understand mechanism for antigravity systems, provided its core assumptions are correct. The claims of this hypothesis can be scientifically tested. This work provides ideas for these tests. (shrink)

There is an undeniable link between overpopulation and climate change. Overpopulation is dangerous in its own right, and the facts about the current state of affairs are truly terrifying, yet heavily overlooked and underreported. Overpopulation has led to—and continues to accelerate—deforestation. The scale of deforestation is also overlooked and heavily underreported, as is the critical role of forests in ecosystems, including their influence on healthy rain patterns. Changes in rain patterns are among the most dangerous consequences of climate change, which (...) will lead to shortages of drinking water in the foreseeable future all over the world. This, too, will be caused by deforestation, as the facts confirm. This article will explain how deforestation has caused shifts in humidity, directly contributing to the severity and frequency of droughts and floods. Additionally, changes in relative humidity are responsible for higher temperatures and the shrinking of glaciers and polar ice caps. These water reservoirs are diminishing not only because they are melting but also because they are drying out—all as a consequence of altered humidity. This shift in humidity has led to a seemingly absurd paradox: on one hand, the air is becoming drier; on the other hand, the total amount of water in the atmosphere is increasing. Scientists have been ignoring the causes and consequences of this paradox for many years. All of this has been directly influenced by deforestation, which, in turn, has been driven by the growing number of humans on this planet. We have far exceeded sustainable population levels. Another problem that exacerbates all issues related to climate change is human intervention in the climate through various weather engineering methods, often referred to as geoengineering. These methods include cloud seeding, CO2 capture, and others. They all worsen the situation, and humans fail to realize this, largely because we have ignored the enormous role of humidity levels in our ecosystems—particularly their impact on rain patterns. All of this is a consequence of deforestation. The solutions to climate problems lie in afforestation and global depopulation. These measures are relatively easier and faster to implement. Unfortunately, for them to succeed, humankind must first acknowledge these issues as the real causes of climate change and act swiftly, especially since deforestation continues unabated. We are in danger of having wasted time meant to save our planet by barking up the wrong tree—CO2 emissions. We are losing essential time. We cannot afford to be a society that "doesn’t look up!" The facts in this article are undeniable. The problem is deforestation, which is caused by overpopulation. Let the facts speak! (shrink)

There are several observations related to magnetism and magnetic fields that the current model of magnetic field patterns fails to explain. However, the alternative model proposed by this hypothesis accounts for these observations comprehensively. Furthermore, the current model cannot adequately explain how or why magnetic attraction and repulsion occur; in fact, it raises more questions than it answers. In contrast, the magnetic field pattern proposed by this hypothesis resolves these issues without introducing inconsistencies or additional dilemmas, while also addressing everything (...) the currently accepted model claims to explain. -/- The entire concept of this hypothesis originated from patterns created by magnets on ferrocells. Until now, science has largely dismissed these patterns as insignificant. However, the interactions revealed by magnets on ferrocells are both fascinating and specific. These interactions suggest that the patterns are not merely decorative but are, in fact, non-random. A model based on these magnetic fields can explain all observations related to magnetism, including magnetism itself. Unfortunately, the scientific community has yet to show interest in these findings. -/- One aspect that the current model of magnetic fields fails to explain is the spikes formed in ferrofluid. Another unresolved question concerns the patterns produced by magnetic fields on ferrocells. Additionally, the direction of magnetism—depicted as moving from north to south—is problematic. Not only is there no evidence to support this directional assumption, but it also creates a dilemma: how can magnets repel each other when their south poles or north poles are brought together? -/- Another major flaw of the currently accepted model is its inability to explain the mechanics of magnetic attraction and repulsion. All of these unanswered questions are addressed by this hypothesis, which offers an alternative pattern of magnetic fields. (shrink)

The significance and potential of systems theory and complexity theory are best appreciated through an understanding of their origins. Arguably, their originator was the Russian philosopher and revolutionary, Aleksandr Bogdanov. Bogdanov anticipated later developments of systems theory and complexity theory in his efforts to lay the foundations for a new, post-capitalist culture and science. This science would overcome the division between the natural and the human sciences and enable workers to organize themselves and their productive activity. It would (...) be central to the culture of a society in which class and gender divisions have been transcended. At the same time it would free people from the deformed thinking of class societies, enabling them to appreciate both the limitations and the significance of their environments and other forms of life. In this paper it is argued that whatever Bogdanov's limitations, such a science is still required if we are to create a society free of class divisions, and that it is in this light that developments in systems theory and complexity theory should be judged. (shrink)

The most important figure among Russia's radical Marxists was A.A. Bogdanov (the pseudonym of Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Malinovskii). Not only was he the prime exponent of a proletarian cultural revolution; it was Bogdanov's ideas which provided justification for concern for the environment. And his ideas are not only important to environmentalists because they were associated with this conservation movement; more significantly they are of continuing relevance because they confront the root causes of environmental destruction in the present, and offer (...) what is perhaps the only way to overcome these causes. (shrink)

What is the relation between science and ideology? Are they incompatible, complementary or the same thing? Should science avoid "contamination" from ideology? Is there an only way to do science? Does anyone of them lead to the same results and give us the same worldview? We will focus on the figure of Alexander Bogdanov, Russian physician and philosopher, in order to discuss these and other relevant topics. His theories gave birth to what may be called later "the theory of (...) two sciences", which entitles this work. (shrink)

With the failure of the Soviet Union, Aleksandr Bogdanov has come under increasing scrutiny as the anti-authoritarian, left-wing opponent of Lenin among the Bolsheviks and the main inspiration behind the Proletk'ult movement, the movement which attempted to create a new, proletarian culture (Sochor, 1988). Bogdanov's efforts to create a new, universal science of organization, a precursor to systems theory and cybernetics, has also attracted considerable attention (Gorelik, 1980; Bello, 1985; Biggart et.al. 1998). And he has been recognized as (...) an early environmentalist and as a feminist (Graham, 1984; Gare, 1994; Gare, 1996, pp.249-52). But few people have paid much attention to Bogdanov as an historian, sociologist and philosopher of science. Yet Bogdanov developed highly original ideas on science, offering unique resolutions to the oppositions between instrumentalism and realism and between internalist and externalist accounts of scientific development, and following from these, proposed a radical transformation of science as the foundation for an equally radical transformation of society. (shrink)

The stable evolutionary strategy of Homo sapiens and patterns of risks arising in the course of this evolution were discussed in article. These patterns were predicted by Bogdanov’s option of General systems theory.

What is the relation between science and ideology? Are they incompatible, complementary or the same thing? Should science avoid “contamination” from ideology? Is there an only way to do science? Does anyone of them lead to the same results and give us the same worldview? We will focus on the figure of Alexander Bogdanov, Russian physician and philosopher, in order to discuss these and other relevant topics. His theories gave birth to what may be called later “the theory of (...) two sciences”, which entitles this work. (shrink)

This is Part 1 of an article aimed at defending Marx against orthodox Marxists to reveal the possibilities for overcoming capitalism. It is argued that Marx’s general theory of history as technological determinism along with his call for the dictatorship of the proletariat is inconsistent with his profound insights into alienation and commodity fetishism as the foundations of capitalism. Humanist Marxists focused on the latter in opposition to Orthodox Marxists, but without fully acknowledging this inconsistency and its implications, failed to (...) realize the full potential of Marx’s work. The outcome has been the triumph of “neoliberalism,” effectively a synthesis of the worst aspects of capitalism with Soviet managerialism. Here I argue that eco-Marxists should combine humanistic Marxism with the defence of genuine science to revive a tradition of thought going back to Aleksander Bogdanov and Ernst Bloch, and to Marx himself. However, traditional Marxists’ lack of appreciation of the importance of the “superstructure” has hindered even eco-Marxists from developing the culture required to replace capitalism. In Part 2 I will argue that the call for an “ecological civilization” brings into focus what is required: a realistic vision of the future based on ecological concepts. -/- . (shrink)

Can Marxist-Leninist philosophy disregard dialectical materialism, the analysis of material and social contradictions, the need to overcome and resolve them in the service of revolutionary transformation? ‘Does the lecturer acknowledge that the philosophy of Marxism is dialectical materialism’, as Lenin asked Bogdanov one day in May 1908? What had 'official Soviet Marxism' really become, capable of combining ideological dictatorship with militant philosophical ignorance, in turn justified by the achievements of modern science, skilfully used as an instrument of domination and (...) preservation of the established order? How can one conceptually dominate reality and its contradictions, knowing well that knowledge is never neutral but is class-based? These questions are answered by Evald Ilyenkov, one of the greatest Marxist philosophers of the 20th century, re-examining Lenin's Materialism and Empiriocriticism at the end of the 1970s with a text entitled Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of Positivism, still unpublished in Italy, and identifying in the revolutionary leader an exceptional theoretical ally. Just as Lenin had had to fight the attacks promoted by the theories of Bogdanov, who approached the empirio-criticism of Mach, Avenarius and Berman, seeing it as dogmatic and reactionary materialism directed against the natural sciences, so Ilyenkov fought against the penetration of positivism into Soviet politics and philosophy, criticizing the rejection of the dialectic only functional to the technocratic project of building 'socialism' in the Brezhnev era, a disguised heir of the empirio-criticism denounced by Lenin as the natural metaphysical conclusion to the logic of positivism. (shrink)