Search results

I The Development of Soviet Theory of Knowledge and Its Main Representatives -- II General Characteristics of Marxist Leninist Theory of Knowledge -- III The Main Tenets of the Theory of Knowledge of Dialectical Materialism -- IV Basic Cognitive Functions -- V Basic Cognitive Modes -- VI Methods and Methodologies -- VII Critique of 'Bourgeois' Theories of Knowledge -- VIII Soviet Historiography of Knowledge -- IX Evaluation -- Index of Names -- Index of Subjects.

I. The Nature of Knowledge -- 1. The Meaning of the Theory of Knowledge -- 2. Knowing in Everyday Life -- 3. Knowing in Science -- 4. Knowing by Means of Images -- 5. Knowing by Means of Concepts -- 6. The Limits of Definition -- 7. Implicit Definitions -- 8. The Nature of Judgments -- 9. Judging and Knowing -- 10. What is Truth? -- 11. Definitions, Conventions and Empirical Judgments -- 12. What Knowledge is Not -- 13. On the Value of Knowledge -- II. Problems of Thought -- 14. The Interconnectedness of Knowledge -- 15. The Analytic Character of Rigorous Inference -- 16. A Skeptical Consideration of Analysis -- 17. The Unity of Consciousness -- 18. The Relationship of the Psychological to the Logical -- 19. On Self-Evidence -- 20. So-Called Inner Perception -- 21. Verification -- III. Problems of Reality -- A. The Positing of the Real -- 22. Formulating the Question -- 23. Naive and Philosophical Viewpoints on the Question of Reality -- 24. The Temporality of the Real -- 25. Things-In-Themselves and the Notion of Immanence -- 26. Critique of the Notion of Immanence -- a) Unperceived Objects -- b) Objects Perceived by Several Individuals -- B. Knowledge of the Real -- 27. Essence and "Appearance" -- 28. The Subjectivity of Time -- 29. The Subjectivity of Space -- 30. The Subjectivity of the Sense Qualities -- 31. Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge -- 32. The Physical and the Mental -- 33. More on the Psychophysical Problem -- 34. Objections to Parallelism -- 35. Monism, Dualism, Pluralism -- C. The Validity of Knowledge of Reality -- 36. Thinking and Being -- 37. Knowing and Being -- 38. Is There a Pure Intuition? -- 39. Are There Pure Forms of Thought? -- 40. On Categories -- 41. On Inductive Knowledge -- Index of Names.

Berkowitz reviews Theory's Empire: An Anthology of Dissent edited by Daphne Patai and Will H. Corral.

The article considers the possibility of solving the fundamental problems of cognition through the use of gen-eral systems theory as an epistemology. For this purpose it is necessary to develop and expand the general theory of systems, which is achieved through its rethinking from the position of essentialism. The expected properties of such a reinterpreted general theory of systems will give it an advantage over epistemology. These advantages are due to the greater transparency of the general theory of systems, as well as the orientation to the traductive methods of thinking, best suited to the task of forming a system of knowledge as a model of be-ing with unattainable absolute certainty. In the framework of the general theory of systems (reinterpreted from the position of essentialism) the problem of cognizability of the world is solved based on the recognition of the existence of isomorphisms – the most important empirical fact, confirming the finite complexity of the world and the possibility of its cognition. According to the general theory of systems, the limitedness of our knowledge refers to particularities, minor details, but not to the general understanding of forms, phenomena and the laws of the universe corresponding to them.

Mediterranean studies flourish in literary and cultural studies, but concepts of the Mediterranean and the theories and methods they use are very disparate. This is because the Mediterranean is not a simple geographical or historical unity, but a multiplicity, a network of highly interconnected elements, each of which is different and individual. Talking about Mediterranean literature raises the question of whether the connectivity of Mediterranean literature can or should be limited in some way by constructing an inside and an outside of the Mediterranean. What kind of connectivity and fragmentation do literary texts produce, how do they build and interrupt references (to the real, to fictional forms of representation, to history, but also to other texts and discourses), how do they create and deny communication, and how do they engage with and reflect literary and non-literary concepts of the Mediterranean? These and other questions are considered and discussed in the over twenty contributions gathered in this volume. ; Mediterranean studies flourish in literary and cultural studies, but concepts of the Mediterranean and the theories and methods they use are very disparate. This is because the Mediterranean is not a simple geographical or historical unity, but a multiplicity, a network of highly interconnected elements, each of which is different and individual. Talking about Mediterranean literature raises the question of whether the connectivity of Mediterranean literature can or should be limited in some way by constructing an inside and an outside of the Mediterranean. What kind of connectivity and fragmentation do literary texts produce, how do they build and interrupt references (to the real, to fictional forms of representation, to history, but also to other texts and discourses), how do they create and deny communication, and how do they engage with and reflect literary and non-literary concepts of the Mediterranean? These and other questions are considered and discussed in the over twenty contributions gathered in this volume.

Left-wing literary criticism of the 1930's offers insight into the present resistance to social theories of literature. During this period, Marxists were less concerned with inter- preting literature than with changing the world. Pure literary questions were chided in favor of politics & economics. The evangelical strain which ran through leftist periodicals, ie, The Liberator, the New Masses, & Partisan Review, saw the critic as a legislator. Literature was to serve a larger purpose: the Wc & the party. Eventually, the mounting demand for orthodoxy, coupled with the Spanish Civil War, the Moscow trials, & the Hitler-Stalin Pact, alienated many radical writers who either became anti-Stalinist leftists or severed ties with organizations completely. A new orthodoxy dominated literary theory for 3 decades after 1940. Critics, ie, Robert Penn Warren & T. S. Eliot, declared themselves opposed to the 'communists'; their criticism emphasized the aesthetic form, neglected history, & divorced literature from society. Social critics of this period came from the U's, were dependent upon these conservative institutions for livelihood, relied on academic audiences for influence, were expected to remain detached, & urged their readers to remain contemplative rather than active. The radical critics of the '30's had been journalists, writers, & editors dependent on the radical movement for their support. The new dogma of aesthetic autonomy became as problematic as the dogma of economic determinism. By rejecting a social perspective, the critic can only describe but not explain, & write chronicles but not history. L. Goldmann, before his death in 1970, set forth a theory of literature & a method of research. For him, literary work does not reside in details of character or style, but in the mental structures which bind it together. His research method begins with a chronological study of all works, examining the empirical facts, formulating an hypothesis about the ideological structure of the work, & modifying the hypothesis through the dialectical method. His theory helped contemporary radical critics to overcome the contradictions between the extreme materialism of radical critics & the extreme idealism of academic critics. A. Karmen.