2 Answers

  1. There was no such trend as Machism in the history of philosophy, although Soviet reference books will say the opposite.

    In 1905, Lenin and Plekhanov divided all their opponents into “idealists”and” Machists.”

    K. M. Jensen observes: “After the philosophical conflict with Bogdanov, Lenin persistently began to call “Machists” both supporters of his opponent and any Marxists who were inclined to positivism. This ideological stigmatization continued as long as Bogdanov's views and positivism were seen as a threat to the party line.”

    Something like this is what it looked like:

    “Heads infected with the Machist infection are rendered absolutely unsuitable for < the scientific development of the strategy and tactics of the upcoming political struggle>. This was precisely the colossal harm to the revolution of this kind of “spiritual sivukha” – E. Ilyenkov, 1979.

    “Machism” is Ilich's dirty word, boys.

    Mach was a neutral monist – in terms of the content of his views and the terminology that has been established and unchanged to this day. A neutral monist is one who refuses to distinguish between the material and the ideal, preferring to talk about both in terms of something third.

    But when Mach was asked to become president of the Society of Monists, he wrote back:

    “There are as many monisms as people think about it. Monism is a goal that we all strive for, not something that is firmly established and sufficient. It would be foolish to organize a religious sect without thinking about philosophical issues. In addition, all this is not particularly important, since it occupies only a narrow circle of intellectuals.”

    Anyone who agrees with Mach on a number of issues can, of course, call himself a Machist, but it is necessary to speak about Mach separately, and not about directions, movements and societies.

    I tried to keep the conversation simple, but I haven't been able to do it yet. If nothing “for dummies” appears here, I'll try again.

  2. Ernst Mach's theory of the ability to use scientific achievements descriptively, as well as ideal thinking, with an attempt to” save ” reasoning. An attempt to reach the minimum level for which it will be acceptable to use in scientific works and other collections. But that's in a nutshell. In a global sense, this is much more than that.

Leave a Reply