AN INTRODUCTION T0 THE MEANING OF ‘CONTRADICTION'

IN THE SOVIET UNION

by

Ted Krasnicki

This paper is intended to be a general introduction to the various dis-cussions regarding the principle of contradiction in the Soviet Union. Mostlysecondary sources were used, since few translations of Soviet literature are

presently available, especially that written before l96l. After l96l, trans-lations of many original articles began appearing, and I have used them

accordingly, although relatively few pertinent articles are available in com-

parison to the literature actually published in the Soviet Union. Generallyspeaking, there seems to be little interest in the West in Soviet philosophicalproblems, and I have had to compromise with what was available to me. Notably,I have had to emphasize those points of view that were most in line with the

ideology, rather than to bring out opinions and views that presented a

challenging expression to the authorities, and which had no hope of ever being

accepted into doctrine. Further, some inconsistencies were found among the

secondary sources, and I felt it was better to avoid their mention when the

original sources were not available.

This paper will be divided into five parts: the first will expose the

nature of the problem; the second will discuss the articles in Voprosy

Filosofii, following Stalin's declaration on linguistics; the third will dis-cuss the proceedings of the Institute of Philosophy of the Soviet Academy ofSciences held in April l958; the fourth will present the general features ofthe most recent discussions on the problem of contradiction; finally, the

55

95

aq1pueauougBugaq‘aaetdJauqoueu;punaae[dauougqloqBugaq

awgq;ozuawomauo12Kpoq2q6no4q11noqeamooKluoueoaoeld;0aueqoLeogueuoawaldmgsuaAa:uo;1o;pe41u0a2;[as1;s;u0g1ow

zuoggowJOuo;1d;4osaps,La5u3uo1uamn64esyqsasnq1qn0pouuguaq

9-uo;1p[a¢[eaoJdgaa4Jgaqqpunsa1;soddoaAgsn[axaKL[2n1nm2o1u;Kqgun2;o

uo;s;A;paqz)sa1;sodd0;oKqgun9se1uamdo[aAapBEE‘uog4;1ada4se

‘aseaaougpue3SP8J03pse1U9wd0[8A3p:a¢e(uo;1n[oAa)1U9wd0[9A8p;osuogzdaauoa(;eLqeA¢asqoK[[eo;¢o1s;q0M1JOgalqgssodOM1

J0)agseqom;aql'sa1;soddo;o"a[55n¢1s“aqqs;1uawdo[aAaq'sa1;soddo;0K1;un2sewaqz;oapalmouxeq1s;‘a;;[Leaa

Jgaqqu;‘1U8md0[8A9psnoauequodsagaqqu;‘"1uamaAow-;[as“Jgeqqu;p[JOMsq;;osassaooqd[Le;oapalmouxsq;40;uogggpuooaqi

'(x0pe4eds,ouaZ'6'a)saoelds;q1ugaq011oupue‘eaeldsgqlugaq01sueam1uawaAow

zuogqom;oaldmexa

s,u;ue1Kqqno1q6no4qs;s6u;q1ugsuoglagpeaguooe42aaaqgqeqi

7-suog1a;p2¢1uoaasau1;osgseqsq;uoazeaadoqagqmsagauapuaqa1;sodd0;o

“a[66n41s“2se‘euamouaqdpUEsugqqug4ua4aqugsuo;1a;pe¢1uoaaqq;oaansolasgp2seqnq‘euawouaqd;o5u;p[o;unsno;uow¢eq2

s2qouaaeldsane;Jaqgqaqqwoa;1uamdo[aAap;oSSSDOJGau1"i‘a¢n1nu40euawouaqdpuesuguq[Leug1ua¢aqu;a¢esuogqayp-eaquoo[euaelug1eu1sploqsagqaalegp‘sogsqdeqaw014e41uo3

:K[1ga;[dxa940mMP[sgqlpa1e[nm4o;a¢ug[215

5's5u;q1I5aauassaK4aAaqqu;q1;Muogqogp-eaquoaaq1;oKpnqsaq1sgsagqaaleyp‘ugueawJ3dOJdsq;u;

‘1PU1J3H1J"JPu?

z'(K1a;0ospuepugmBugpnlaug)a4n1eu;osassaa04dpueauawouaqd[[2upsagsuepuaqaagsoddo‘aAgsn[5Y5K[[en1nw‘KJ013§p

-e41uoaaq1;o(K4aAoos;p)uog1;u6oaa¢aq1s;(109440:e42qqoq‘asuasu;e14aa2u1'aJaq1ue140dmgK[¢e1n0;14edqous;Kqgunpue

KznuapsSlim->1BlnuawleqavuawurpQua\45"°141lP-‘..K1wn..MamKes01‘sdeq4ad‘zaaaaoaaaomaqplnom1;)saqgsoddo$0K1g1uap;aul

ZSMOLLO}SDME|_Bl,SSQLJDSBPLl[.U9']

'a;1aa12;psq;;o,[au4ax,sq;s;s;u1aaugs‘puooaseqq

qqgmK[4e[ha;14edsg1sa4a1u;JHQL'uo;1v6auaug;0uogleauauq;oMP[aqq

pue‘sa1gsoddo;oa[66n41spue£1;unaqa;oMELsq;‘K1;[9nb01K1g1uenbwo¢;

uog1;sue¢1aqzJOME[sq;:K1;1ea¢[Le;oK[[es4aA;unp[Oq01pgESaae1eq1

sa[dgau;4d1s4;;40smelaa4q1uopaseqsgws;[e;¢a1ew[E9;1D6[E}p1agAo§

saqgsoddg40a[6Bn¢15puv£1;unaui40M21aql(1

's1uawd0[aAapa4n1n;aLq;ssod

aqlssnosgppuewa[q04daqquosx4ewa4[euos4adawosquasaad[[;Muogsnlauoo

same place and also 0tll it. And the continuous assertion andsimultaneous solution of this contradiction is precisely whatmotion is.7

Thus, movement can be looked at in two ways: the dead and mechanical way(e.g. Aristotelian) in which an external cause is the source of movement, anddialectically, where internal differences develop in the thing and becomemutually opposed, and, following a struggle, they resolve themselves by a move-ment, that is to say, movement results from the contradiction in the thing inwhich it is and is not in one place at the same time.8 This self-movementof the thing is of imense importance by virtue of its application in society.No longer is there any need for an external mover in nature (i.e. God), butin society, movement is a class struggle because of the internal contradictionsthat develop. For instance, in capitalist society, differences arise betweenthe interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie, and such interests areopposites (i.e. contradictory). This difference intensifies and builds intoan opposition, which finally leads to a conflict.9 By applying the law ofquantitative to qualitative changes, which holds that a numerical changeresults in an overall qualitative change, the conflict is resolved by an over-all change in society, that is to say, the socialist state comes into being.Thus, changes or developments in history can be described as the coming intobeing of contradictions and their subsequent resolution into new societies.Contradictions also exist in socialist society, but the Party can mitigate theirstruggle by enforcing correct policy.]o There are, therefore, two types ofcontradictions: 'antagonistic', where the basic interests of the social groupsor classes are irreconcilable, and ‘non-antagonistic‘, where the basicinterests of social groups or classes coincide.]]

Marxism denies the theory of external movers of nature, but contemporaryMarxism declares both internal and external contradictions to exist, that is tosay, internal contradictions are in things, while external contradictions arebetween objects and phenomena.]2 It is the replacement of mechanistic ex-planation of motion with the dialectical that replaces the notion of firstmover (or source of being) with a unity of process in all of nature, so that ifall motion involves contradictions, then everything in nature or nature itselfis self-sufficient for its existence. There is ambiguity in these explanationsof contradictions, just as there is a confusion in Lenin's statement on self-movement in his not distinguishing between unity and identity.]3 These aretypical of the problems that Soviet philosophers have had to deal with.

But the most serious problem that philosophers have had to overcome iswith the principle of contradiction:

The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and notbelong to the same subject in the same respect.]4

R7

89

sougs‘qs;;s[sq;s;ss[;sqKlsqsw(pugmqno)‘qsmqo;sq;so42;osugs;e4sdss

sqsBupsqpus;q6noq;K[;usnbssq6apusesp1J0}¢s;;ewss;n;;;sqnsuo;sqsAu;

;s;[e;qs;swsq;;nq'K6o[o;uopusagolq;oqs;s;nLosqvsq;;osausgossq;

‘snqlgt-K;;[es40;uo;;e[squ;;[ss;g;0spslmouqs,esp1sq;;oK;;a;;usq;nesq;6u;K;;;sn§;oms[q0¢ds,[s6sHSBA[OSsgq;pus‘;[ss;;;os5ps[mouq

su;e;;e;gmoqpusesp}s;n[0sqvsq;;o6u;p[o;unsq;s;usss4ds¢s¢n;eu;eq;os‘smsssq;sqsBugsgpus;q6n0q;‘[s6sH40;‘s;ss6Bns4s;;sMsv'K60[oms

-;s;dsue4sq;s¢;nq‘qonsseuguosesq;osqqoaJ0}sslpq;0ms;sKs2;ous;;;Jo;‘,o;6o[,eseagol;so;;as[e;p0;4s;s¢0;5ugpQ9[Sgmsdeqqsds;;1

'5u;xu;q;qno;o;us;uoasq;q;;mslespsaussssug‘sAoqepsuo;;uswssoq;sqesmslssqq;ssoqm

‘ogbol[eo;;as[e;g'm;o;sq;Kluo;nq‘ugqugq;qno;o;us;uoasq;;unooas

o;u;sqs;;oupgpogollemqo;‘psspu1';q6noq;;owqo;sq;40agol240;

pssuousumsqsq;pus‘9ug[d;3$;pe[6ugSs;osemspgsugoaK5o[ows;s;dspusOLBOL

qagqmq;gmsa;;os[e;p‘es0;s;;nq;‘pszguoosqsemogol[ea;;ss1s;pKluo

9L'susmousqdsugq;‘s;as£qo[enp;Agpu;;oK;;[ssqs[q;;dsoqsdKlsnonsusssq;pus;dsauoa

sq;;o-qe[no;;qedsq;pus[esqsA;unsq;;os0g;0sL2;psq;uguo;sn;uoaLn;;;;dKlsssldlsq2‘uo;sn;uoaBALEU2puv's[q;s;A

s;sA;;os§qoBJBQMKJQAS;eq;Kemeqansu;‘JBAOBJOM‘pusagolsA;;as§qnsq;;mpssn;uooQJBQMKJBAGs;a;5o[sA;;as$qo‘s[;o;s;¢vu1

:u0;;oundm00

leagqdosolgqdleasussq;q;;mKq;sdmKsu;sqsmss;sXqHs;sws,s[;0;s;4Vuos;uswmoos,u;us1‘soue;su;qog"[eo;sKqde;swpuPsgosqnoqpsqspgs

-uoasem;;‘ugq;suo405'uo;un;sgAo§sq;u;psz;o;;;4oK[9J8ABSussq

peq‘uo;;s;pe¢;uoo40sldgaugqds;;q;;m‘agolLswqo;‘gpgl0;J0}Jd

5919q9G¥LJ°$°lPiK$°4a°AO96l9H1(Z

'K6o[osp;;sgAoguguo;;s;p24;uoa;0sldgaugqdsq;40sn;e;ssq;5u;K;;4e[augs;‘s4o;sqsq;‘wslqoqdsql'sA;AJns0;sgs;s;s;s;[e;oossq;;;psu;E;

-ugewsq;snwss;;soddo40s[65n4;spusK;;unsq;;0me;sq;‘snql"msglsgaos

6u;;e;;sssosuws;[s;;dssu;dO[8A8Psuo;;s;pe4;u0a;eq;‘lswsu‘ss;;soddo;os[65n4;spusK;;unsq;;omslsq;uopsseqmn;s;psq;K[ss;os4dsg

‘s;e;s;s;Ls;;dea2uguo;;n;oAsq25u;mo[[o;‘K;;unwwoo;s;[e;0os2;oK;;sssosusq;JO}osle;nqqsmods,K;¢sdsq;J0;Kluo;ouuo;;so;;;;sn§Leogqdos

-olgqdsq;Jo;‘ws;[e;o0s0;sgglss;[ddns;eq;Bnldsq;[Lnd0;sqplnom

K;s;aosug;nqsugq;u;Kiuo;ousuo;;a;peq;uooq;;mKempop0;;nq

';usms;e;s[n;6u;ussw24s;;n;ouplnoasuoLegusp

s;;q;;mpus‘ss[d;ou;4d[ls;ouge;qso;s0wsq;sspszguoosqussqss;4n;ussJ0}seqsldgougqdsgq;;sA's[d;su;JdsAoqesq;ss;s[0;AKL42s[oswg;

swsssq;;spussosldswessq;;esq0;;oupussq0;q;0q;osfqous405

the contrary would be idealism. But the difficulty is that our mind operateson the principles of formal logic irrespective of the content. Thus ontologyand formal logic are separate. The dilenma is that the materialist ontologyspeaks of contradictions (which our thoughts cannot conceive). Nevertheless,that dialectic, logic, and epistemology are a single discipline is an articulusfigei, which Soviet philosophers must contend with.

These difficulties began emerging when in l946 the Central Committee ofthe CPSU officially recognized and authorized the teaching of formal logic inthe schools.]7 Pre-revolutionary tests (e.g., by Chelpov) as well as new textsby Asmus, Strogovic, Vinogradov and Kuxmin were soon published, but were justas soon condemned as Chersekov because of their excessive formalism and began

to disappear.]8 These texts were based on the traditional Aristotelian logic,while symbolic logic was considered a branch of mathematics which, nevertheless,had to be justified in the face of dialectical logic. In l948 and unsuccess-fully in 1958, the justification was attempted by S.A. Janovska_ja.]9

with Stalin's declaration in June l950 that language and linguisticswere not class oriented phenomena, it was immediately recognized that formallogic also was not class oriented, and in November l950, the editors ofVoprosy Filosofii opened a discussion on the relation between formal logic and

dialectical logic. Sixty articles and letters were submitted by Sovietlogicians, philosophers and mathematicians. Eleven were published, and therest either summarized or listed.20 These discussions set the themes for allfuture discussions as virtually every position imaginable was expounded exceptthat dialectical logic is a part of formal logic.2] wetter suggests threeschools of thought that emerged in these discussions:

The first school supported the possibility of two logics, one formaland the other dialectical, coexisting alongside one another (M.S.Strogovich, V.I. Chersekov, the Professor of Logic at Moscow University,The Leningrad mathematician A.D. Alexandrov, V.P. Rozhin and others).The second group took the view that there could only be one logic,namely the formal variety (the chief exponent of this outlook beingthe Professor of Logic at the University of Tiflis, K.S. Bakradze).Other authors attempted in one way or another to adopt an inter-mediate position (I.I.0s'makov, P.S. Popov, B.M. Kedrov and others).22

Of particular interest are the positions of Bakradze, Strogovich and Popov.23

Bakradze emphasizes that dialectical logic is a theory of knowledge,while fonnal logic is the science of the forms and laws of correct thinking.24There cannot be two logics alongside each other. In a subsequent book, he

notes that the principle of identity in formal logic does not deny change ordevelopment, and that the Soviet philosophers erroneously suppose that a special"dialectical" logic is required to explain motion.25 Bakradze rapidly gainedfollowers to the dismay of the editors, and one follower, N.I. Kondakov

actually reformulated the Aristotlelian principle of contradiction into a mere

59

O9

xaldmoaa¢ow01sagLddeopol[eo;1oa\e;palgqm‘SUOL1E[8JpunsqoafqoaLqe1s

K[3A}1El8J01sagtddeagol[ew¢o;qeqq‘K[9w9u‘sagolOM1aqq;osmLea4

J3d0Jdsq;Bugpaeaasuogqdwnsses,qa;A06eJ15sqdaoaeosleaH9£"'1uamdo[aAap

;osassaooad;o4a1ae4eqaKuoqogpeaquoopuna1e1;d;oa4dsq;puesugqq;o1uaw

-d0[8ABppuvuogxauuoaLasaangunaqqsazyuoaaaqagqm1q6noq1;oaauagasaqqn

seagolLea;1oa[e;psau;;apAOJPGX'w-9-[951¢aqwaaaqu;1uawa121s[e;o;;;o

ueu1;MsuogssnasgpaqqpaqeugwaazII]5§5II]'K§51H5K;os4o1;paaul

Vs-1aa;4adaaomKluosg1nqJ8q10aqq;osmelaqlqqgm

1o;[;uoo1ousaopagolLeagloalegp‘SS8[9q1J8A3N££'sa1;soddo;0alnazspue

Kqgunaq1pue1U8wdO[8A3p‘uogqows1oa[;a4qagqmapalmoux;ow¢o;Jaqgq2sg

ayol[QDg109[Egp81gqM‘u0g1E[0S;u;punqsaa12s6u;q1seA;eouoa1g‘uosea4

1ua;a;;;ns;o9[dg3u;Jdaq1Bugpntaug‘smelJHO}sq;q1;M1eq1ugapalmoux

;oauaidJBMO[2s1uasa¢da¢oyollemao;1nq‘1uaw£o[dwa;oswleaq4e[na;1¢2d

Jgaqqugpg[2Aaxesagoyu1oqsnqlz€'sog1oa[e;pKqpaquelddnsaqlsnwpue

suo;1elaJxaldwoaaqowu;1ua;o;;;nsu;sgogol[ew¢o;gnu;s1$4su;aq‘JBAOQJON

-awyq;opO;J9d2JBAOsasod¢ndlea;1ae4d[LeJ0}[ea;1uap;-;Laspuealqeqs

ugewaq1eq1suogqelaaqqgm‘s;1eq1‘sugqqKEPKJBABaldwgsaqqqqgmsleepogol

Lewuo;1eq16ug14ass2ugsLa6u3smollo;‘pueqJaqqoaqquo‘qa;Ao6o41g

l€'suog1e[a4puese;1Jado¢dMau;0uogqelnmnaaea[q;1da34adw;

ueq6no¢q1d0[8A8psqdaouooaqqaoua4a;ugaA;1onpap2ugqeqqpue‘euawouaqd

;ossauaA;1au;1s;ppueK1;[;q21saAg1e1a4auqsa121os;ogol[ew¢o;1eq1

sa1ouosleaH'“uo;1a;pe¢1uoap¢nsqe“4a11e[aq11nqHuogqngpeaquoa[e1;A"

JBWJO}aqqslleaoqmO€‘AOJpUPS8[V'N"wKqapewoslesguo;1ou;1s;psgqi

6z~s1soa[[212PSPLOAQaqqsnwqagqm"uo;1o;pe41uoaleagolupue(1se¢1uoa

punuogqgsoddo‘-a'g)“u0;1agpEJ1u0a[e1;A"saanpo¢1u;sqpuesuo;1o;pe¢1uoa

om;aq1uaamqaquog1:u;1s;pPsa¢;nba¢sgqi-auoleagoloquopueo;1s;[e;4a12m

201Jo6a1eo[ea;6o[o1uopueogqsgleapgue59uo;1a;pe¢1uoa;oqdaouoa

ue;1a5aHsq;pa¢4a;sue¢15U}AQqu;seg1[n2;;;;psq;seesKqa¢aq1aqpunploq

gsnwuoggagpeaquoa;oa[dgaug4dsq;‘snql'“p8X;;aJeSugqqL12"esqouuea

auo‘umol;s6u;q1[LPUsesauouaqm'138JJ03K[[em4o;aqzsnmBuguoseea

[ea;1aa[2;p1eu1os‘auosguogqguoo30ssa9o¢déqq1nq‘suoseaaleago

-epadJO}pa124edasaaeapolgeaggaalegppueLewao;qeqgslaa;A0d0d

8Z'pa10a£a4""pu2pa1daaaeK[sn0aue1[nmgsaq1ouue3u0;1gsod04dewesaqi

:uo;1agpeJ1uoa;oaldgaugudaqqpaqeln

-w4o;a4osle§;xs,[aAonew'Q'vqeuqaqou01Bugqsaxazugoslesg1;uog1oauuoa

sgqxu1Lz'p[JOMieaqaqlupsuo;10gpe41u09Buguep;0pasnaoeaq01qouseos

9z'1aadsa¢ewesaulpueauouppueamglewesaqqpueauo12pa4ap;suoa‘laafqoamésaqgpueauo$0an41aqqloq1ouu90sluamapnfpasoddo0M1

‘qqnoulgoM9[

relations with variables.36 B. Lozovsky notes that the principle of contra-diction

does not hold that an object cannot have opposed or contradictoryproperties, but only that it cannot both have and not have thesame property at a given time. It does not, he insists, forbid

-the assertion that a thing can be both positive and negative, bothabsolute and relative; but it does forbid the assertjon that a thingcan be both relative and non-relative.37

The official summary showed that it was a victory for the defenders offormal logic within Soviet ideology, but the much discussed question of therelation of the laws of formal logic to those of dialectical “was passed overin silence“.38

3) The l958 Discussions Of The Academy of Science

Discussions continued for several years on the matter of formal vs.dialectical logic, that is, Bakradze, Kondakov and others kept the discussionsopen, but in l955, the editors of Voprosy Filosofii mounted attacks againstthem for their persistence in keeping the discussions open, irrespective ofthe "clear cut “solutions that the teachings of Marxism promulgated.39 Dis-cussions nevertheless continued but tended to be somewhat complacent andcautious, if not deliberately obscure. V.P. Tugarinov may be typical of thevast majority of philosophers of the time.40 Tugarinov maintains the Hegeliandistinction between identity and unity, which Lenin seemed to avoid: identityis an abstract category and is a feature of an absolutely simple thing, whileunity is a concrete category which indicates that a being is composed. Thus,it is with unity that one is concerned in objective reality. Tugarinov feelsthat ‘the conflict of opposites‘ is a figurative expression, and argues that a

better and more technical word should be found for 'conflict‘, although it isperfectly adequate towards explaining movement in society, but not in organicnature. This unity is both identity and difference and is indivisible. Sucha difference in unity produces a dialectical contradiction. But everydifference in unity is not a sufficient cause of dialectical contradiction, sohe distinguishes between contradictory and non-contradictory differences,treating ‘difference’ as a more general category than ‘contradiction’. Thusa contradiction always includes a difference, but not vice versa. The principleof internal contradictions is only that difference which results from contraryor opposed elements, so that it is,

the category of opposition in its triple character of relation,contrary and contradictory that allows us to understand the natureof dialectical contradiction.4]

Tugarinov defines 'contradiction' as a determined connexion or relation between

Z9

a[o1142,s0142gLv'suo11a1p241u0npa[[2o-osqans1su12626u;nB42q11M

1[asm1qu4aauoaaq[[1Muaq1Kluopu21114oddns1221s1uamn642[2uo1124pug;

1s4111snmKaq1‘u011owu;K1;nu11uoas1ppu2K1;nu11uoa10K11un2s1a4aq1

asn2aaquo11o1p241uoa2sg1uawaAom12q1u121u12w01a42s1s;u1ua1aq111‘snql

9V~uo;124np[[2ws2KLa4awu11M1u21su1sasn1uooauouaqmK11L2a4ug1oupu2

1q5noq14nouguo11a1p241uoa2Kluo$1a4aq112q1os‘uo1124np[2w1sa11u11u1

016u1puodsa440s‘L[2ws£[[2w;sa11u11u1aqplnom1uawaAowqans401‘1u21sug

s1u1ugSBAOWKpoqau112q16u1m12[apu2‘uo1124npu;[L2wsK[[2m1se11u11u;s1

qagqm‘am1110"1u21su;"u26u11a241sq2u1sgma[qo4d'eq110xn4oaq1‘paapu1

SV'u011a1p241uoa10e[d1ou14daq1KuepKlpuglqKaq1‘K[1uanbasuoapu2‘4aq1ou2

12pu21u1odauo12s1Kpoq6u1Aom212q1as;wa4ds,ouaZ1daoa2Kaq1‘1uamaAom

10Kuo6a12o2sga4au112q1Mousuguaqpu2sLa5u3uaum12q1os‘lasleg11

p8A[OS1nq‘K[1aa44oou1wa[qo4daq1asodsa;12a[3aq1pgpKluo1ou12q1pau121

-u12maqqogqmug‘QLQ1142[5512u;$01429-pKqM0442§u1K[1aq110xop242d

aq1u1La6aHpu2ouaz1su1252apews2M1321124aq10u2‘2;12Ao[soqaaz3u1

VV'1qBnoq1p2qouazs2s1u1od1sa410sa14as2

aw11amesaq112sg1nq‘aA;1aa£qos;uo11ow12q16u1u;21u;2wu;1ua1s1suoo

-ugs2M1[asw1qoqM‘[a6aHmo41wa[q04daq110ugsodas[212$2pa114aq

-upu;ua1‘K[1uanbasuoa‘pu2slaug‘x42wqagqm‘uo11a;p241uoo1ua42dd2aq1

401s1unoao2sgul-,s1,10a52snau14240uogsn1uoa2wo41s1[nsa4‘1sa412

aq01umoqss2Mmgq401qagqmM04426ugAowaq16u1p426a4xop242ds,ouaZ‘snql

EV-,s1sa4,s2,s1,q11M,sass2d,s2,s;,sasn1uoaauouaqm

‘uaq1‘K[uouo;1a;p241uoo2s1a4aqi'aw11am2saq112q1oq1ouK[u1214aa-ss2d1ousaop40sass2d4aq11auaq11;12q1sno1Aqos11;

‘pu2q4aq1oaq1uo‘1nq,5u1Aow,s2paMa1A$1Apoqaq1‘pu2qauoaq1uo‘12q11uap1Aas111‘1u;od2sass2dKpoqau112q1,s1,q1;m

su2amauo11'aAom1ousaop11uaq1‘ao2[d2ugs1sa4Kpoq211

:1u1odug214aa212s1sa41112q140‘1u1od

u1214ao2sass2dKpoqaq112q1ueamu2a11‘1u1odu1214aa212'§IKpoq2uaqm

s2uonsuo;1om12:0101pa1[dd2s;,s1,ueqm12q1smoqsaq‘qoeugag'v1s150[o

-uouamouaudu2w4a9aq110p2a[aq16u1Mo[1o1pu2‘,s1,q4aAau1sazK[2u2112qs§

‘K[[2a111oad5at-01601[2w4o1upuo11a1p241uoa10a[d10u14daq1sa121o1A

11asneaaq6uo4Meq1snm11‘s[a6u3pu2;a6eHKqpaoldwa12q1K[aw2u‘uo11ow

u1suo;1a1p241uoo6u1ssa4dxe10KemauoKluos2Ma4aq1aaugs12u1Mous01

pa1dma112uagqma[a1142u2paqsglqndpu2uo11;sodsno1Aa4dsgqpas4aAa4aq5951

uguaqmKs4aAo41uooa[q24ap1suoodnpa4411s112qog"V-pa111w4aduogssnasgp

[931qd0S0[1qdaa4;ALaA;12{a42s2Ma4aq1‘pueu4aq1o221uo‘pu9[0du1

'K60[oap101uos2a410

1uamaA2[suaaq1mo41s1[nsa4qogqmu1uos2e4a4nasqo10140saq1s1sgql

'2uawouaqduaaM1aqsuo112[a41nq‘suog12[a4a4nd1oua42suo112[ag

'pasoddoKL[2n1nw242qagqmpu2‘uo11o1p241uoas1u110u4oqe42qogqmsaa4o1

asoq1sa12a1pu1qagqm1221s2,ssau14241uo3,pu2‘1ue4a1;1pa42qagqms5u1q1

generated great discussion in the many years that followed until the invasionof Czechoslovakia by the Soviets.

The problem of contradictions in formal vs. dialectical logic finallyprompted the Institute of Philosophy of the Soviet Academy of Sciences toorganize a debate "on the questions of dialectical contradictions in the lightof contemporary science and practice". Although every participant agreed thatthere are "real contradictions" in nature, the participants formed two groups:one supporting the Hegelian conception of contradictions as promulgated byEngels and Lenin, and the other supporting the principle of contradiction ex-clusively and who interpreted the Marxist conception of ‘real contradiction‘as a polar opposition rather than a contradiction in the strict sense of theterm.48 The opinions in this l958 conference can be summarized as follows:49E. Kolman criticized the current definition of real contradictions, and N.V.Karabanov criticized the current definition of the law of the unity andstruggle of opposites, although these criticisms were more on the level ofwording than of content. Yet, there was much dispute as to what a real contra-diction was. S.P. Dudel, N.V. Karabanov and E.V. Il'enkov in particularemphasized Engels‘ thesis of the simultaneous and mutual self-position andself-negation of contrary or opposed aspects of an object, while Kolmanespecially rejected this view and spoke of the simple conjunction of variouspolar-opposed forces or tendencies in some objects. The difference in the twogroups clearly emerged when Il'enkov §t_al, felt that in some cases, contra-dictory formulations were technically unavoidable and even true. But A.A.Zinovev and other logicians opposed this vehemently and argued that suchformulations can represent nothing in reality.

The most controversial figure at the conference was without a doubtKolman, who came quite close to the positions of Schaff and Bartos in maintain-ing that Engels misunderstood the relationship between higher and lowermathematics by his denial of the ‘categoricity of thought‘, and consequentlythat there are things in the Dialectics of Nature with which mathematiciansand scientists cannot agree.50 Czech by birth, Kolman was well versed inancient and contemporary philosophy, which was unusual in the Soviet Union atthat time.5] It is no surprise then, that not only did Kolman hold the viewthat contradictions of formal logic are to be avoided absolutely, so that theformulations of a dialectical contradiction must never violate the principleof contradiction, but he also reiterated that the formulations of Marx andEngels on the contradictoriness of motion were not rigorous and needed muchmore precision.52 Engels, Kolman pointed out, answers the question as towhether a body is in a given place at a certain time with a yes and a no, andthis clearly violates the principle of contradiction.53 Kolman then arguesthat the dialectical contradiction is not a simultaneous affirmation and

63

V9

namvq.sqKw

,13gL;u0o,aa2Lda401JO;ugxool$2MAOUP5JHlqagqmm4a1sq;sdeqaad‘KL[eug3

z9'dpqsu0;1Q[aJLQao4d;9aJ2u;Kluoqsgxaueo-uogqsanbuguouemouaqdaqqugqqgm-qagqmpueJ8q10qaea

3S0ddS9Jd‘4aAaMoq‘qogqmsqaadseSssa304dauoug40uouamouaqd

auougsqoadseaAgsn[axaKL[2n1nmpuea1;sodd040aauesaadeqg

‘seuog1a;pe41uoaleagqaalegplsgxaewaq1sau;;apXJOM4a11e[aqi

l9;,uo;1n[oA

-a4;oe4qa5[2,,aq1M0[[0}ueqq4aq12¢saA[asmaq1algauooaa01Kouapuaq

2aAeqsegaeqquoa1eu1szgsodaq‘1U9wdO[BA8p40a[d;au;4daqqsesuogqogp

-eaquoa;oKJ8A03S§pquegllgaqsgqa1;dsap‘uaqmJaudosolgqdsgoa64noq2

ugaqJ0}pas;1seqaosles;[a6aH09'u0;1n[oAa¢[egaospueJEM-SSBLDJSPUQE

-ua[LynK1a;aosJLQH1u;suogqagpeaquoa;o1uamdo[aAap[eu¢a1ugaqqqeul1;w

-pe01p;e¢;9aaeKaq1aaugs‘qagoosugKllegaadse1nq‘sugulpueeuawouaqd

u;K[uogousuog1agpe¢1uooaz;u6oaa¢01Lye;oqms¢aqdoso[;qdsgoaanoq

aq1sasgqseqaosleXJOMsgqi69~1as£qoamesau1punauou;paugopsgqngqm

Kqgun2w4o;sa;ouepua1K¢e41uoaqons1nq‘138}}8~J81U03401aa;;a‘aA;12au

pusaA;1;sod‘aldmexe40;‘auapualpau;w¢a1apumos1;sequog1ogp2¢1uoo

sq;;o1uamaLaqaee‘Jaq1¢n589'a1a‘ssauglnpueKqneaq‘uogslndaapue

uog1:e4112‘ssauq4eppue1q6;[‘alodq1n0saq1puealodq14ouaul‘aA;1e6au

aqqpueaAg1;sodaqq‘1;Mo1‘uaA;6aaesaldmexapuv‘sa;auapua1pueslaedse

Aue41uoa;oKlgun2sesuogqoppeaquos[eu4a1u;sau;;ap140m4aw¢o;aqi

-pauogquawaqplnoqsasaqqugsau;41aop1ue1¢odw;awog£9'ueu;snny'A'Q

;ouo;1aa¢;pan;JBPUHmealJaqwaw£140;2Kqua11;4Msumqogumpue‘Jaw4o;aql

01[anbas2seEEIUIU5IJ§E§I§§]EEXKEUE6sq;Kq5g5Lu;p8M0[[0}K[a1e;paww;

sensgulpua‘s¢aq1opuPAOUg1UE1Su0'A'3Kqpalypamsguguaq-ws;x4ew

1a;Ao5uosaugJ1aopsno;4eA;ou0;139[[03[ego;;;ouesgqogum99‘II15§6III

T6§§§§I§§IEE'KK5U§5aqq;ouogleoglqndauqMESosle9951JQGKaqi

s1uamdo[aAeq1uaoa3(7

'4aq1ou240m4o;auo

ugsuoglagpealuoa[294;oanualsgxaeqg‘lemeu‘wsgx¢ew;ogauaqlequamepun;

aqq1daoa201K6o[oap;Kqpa[Ledm0asenBUOKJBAQq6noq1Le‘uogssnssgp

Lea;1g4apueaaJ;u;QSQBJDULpax¢2m2PBLBSABJaoua¢a;uooaql‘lleu1

gS'u°L13!P

—9J1U03;oa[d;ou;4dauq;oK1g[gqea;Ldd2aq11gm;[gsnwauo‘suoglagpealuoo

Lea;1oa[e;paA2s01aapuoupleqq‘pgpK1;4o£ewaqqse‘pau;e1u;empue‘sgqq01

6ugKlda¢u;1;gMssemA0xua,11v§‘uo;1ow;ou0;1eue[dxas,[a6aHugzgtegaaqem

Kqpalsgmsumqnq‘aaaqmaslasgq1pezguovaa;Lasmgqs[a6u3'K1g[ea¢

40sloadse1ua4a;;;p1n0qe192;ugsg1nq‘laafqoewesaqllnoqeuogleau

In nature, social life and man's thought, development takes place insuch a way that opposed and mutually exclusive aspects or tendenciescome to light in an object; they enter into "battle" which leads tothe annihilation of the old and to the appearance of new forms. .This is the law of development.63

The above definitions of contradictions are so vaguely formulated thatthey by no means ended the discussion on contradictions. Many philosopherstried to improve and develop or to make more explicit the official doctrine.Butenko, for instance, tried to show the contradictory nature of the dial-ectical categories64 by giving their contraries; for example, movement andrest, identity and difference, singular and general, part and whole, contentand form, cause and effect, contingent and necessary, object and subject,possibility and reality, etc.65 Kalosin observes that in the law of the unityand struggle of opposites, it is not only the unity that is important, but theconflict of contraries. .He observes that in the contrariness of contra-dictory tendencies, there is no rest but only conflict between these differenttendencies.66 Andreev, on the other hand, tries to show that,

The contraries are united in the sense that they are principlesof a single object, of a single phenomenon and that they cannotexist one without the other. One cannot imagine the exploitedwithout exploiters, the old without the new, the positive withoutthe negative, the just without the unjust, etc. The two poles ofany contrariness are compenetrant. If one of the contraries ceasesto exist, the other ceases to be a contrary.67

Between l962 and l965 many articles appeared in both the FilosofskieNauki and Voprosy Filosofii on the problem of the contradictoriness of motion.In the former, ten out of the eleven articles submitted were published, and ofthese, the more interesting ones are those by V.I. Sviderskii, S.T. Meliukhin,and N.S. Narski.

Sviderskii tackles the issue of Hegel's and Engels’ interpretation ofZeno's paradox of the flying arrow.68 Agreeing with Kolman that no formulationof a dialectical contradiction can violate the principle of contradiction offormal logic, he shows how motion is, in fact, contradictory, and yet can be

described without violating formal logic. This task is for him simplifiedprimarily because formal logic only deals with the aspects of conservation,stability, retention, rest, and continuity that are inherent in all processesof change and development, while in a dialectical contradiction, the aspects(e.g. rest and motion, continuity and discontinuity, finite and infinite, etc.)do not appear in the same object at the same time or in the same relationship.Zeno's paradox is the perfect example. Hegel and Engels, and consequently,Lenin, maintain that the arrow is at a given instant both in and not in a givenplace. But Sviderskii notes that this does not express the major significanceof the problem because the whole point rests not in the presence or non-

65

99

LL‘soeldusA;62;2;0upu2;2K[sn0su2;[nw;ss42ss;4dmooKsq;ssgpoqsq;pu2ssLa;;42d

‘suogsuswgp;0sssus;2u;m4s;spu;sgq;;oMs;Au1-s;os£qoa;dosso4a;w4sq;oq;;Muog;o24s;u;uodnps;ss;;u2wKL[20;sKqd5;s[a;;42d

2qogqMu;u0;;22;L2ao[so2ds;os4sqds;2q;u;sBu2qn5u;puodss4-4002s;s4sq;pu2‘spuoq12u4s;xspu2L2u4s;u;ug‘suo;;;puoou;

s6u2qaq;;MK[;u2;suooss6u2qasL0;;42d240pLs;;sql'ss;;4sdo4dsno;42Asu;w4s;sppu2s4n;on4;ss;;;os;42d[246s;u;s42;2q;splay;

sno;42Aq;;Mps;asuuoaK[qn[OSS;pu;sgs[0;;42do;doaso4o;mK4sA3

‘s[dw2xs403'u0;qs2;

K4o;a;p24;uoo-uou2u;ss;;sodd0sssq;ussM;squo;;2[s4bu2sousssssq;;osL;s4

0;;q6noK4osq;o;;;;us;os;us;s;suoa2pu2‘ss;;soddoussM;squo;;21s44s;ug40

sss9o4dsq;S;uo;;o;p24;uo0sA;;os§q0sq;‘K;;[2s4u1'K4o;o;p24;u0oK[L2og60[

;ous;;2q;K2M2up;opsA;sauoosq;snmpu2‘ws;ssL246s;u;suou;q;;M

K[sn0su2;[nw;s;s;xs;snmKsql"s6u2qa;ossgauspus;40‘ss;2;s‘ss;;4sd04d

;us4s;;;pgops;n;;;suo3sqK2wss;;soddoqang'ss;gsoddo;o,,sL66n4;s

2‘u0;;a24s;u;u2‘u0;;2[s4;u2o;;;u6;s2s;u0;;3gp24;uoasA;;aspqou2;nq

‘s1;o;s;4vKqps;2[nw4o;$2ssussK42ugp40sq;u;poo;s4spuns;uo;;a;p24;uoa

[2w4o;V0L'ws;[2;4s;2mL2o;;as[2;pu;,uo;;o;p24;uoa_s2sw2ssq;;ou

s;ogol[2w4o;u;,uo;;o;p24;u0o_2;2q;smgelasqssn20sqsgq;K25K[s;2s

u2asq'K4o;a;p24;uo:squeouo;;;sodo4dou;2q;ssz;u6oas4u;qqn;Lsw

'ss6u2qsu0;;2aoLsgq;;nq‘ssgpoq4sq;o0;

;asdss4q;;Muo;;2aoLs;;sug2;s4M0442sq;s4sqM‘;[ss;;uo;;0m0;uo;;owpu2

;sa4ussM;squo;;a;p24;u03sq;ps44s;su24;s2q;;qs4sp;A5‘K[[2;;usss3

59'xop242dM0442s,ousZ;ouo;;2;s4d-4s;u;[2uo;;24sq;s;‘Ms;A4nou;‘sgqi'sm;;u;M0442sq;;ouo;;20o[;0sueqapu2uo;;2ao[;0uo;;us;s4;o‘£;;[;q2;42Apu2K;;[;q2;s;os40;a2;sq;;0K;gunsq;:uo;;ow;ouo;;a;p24;uoosq;;osuo;;2;ss;;u2msq;;osuopu2q;2sA2qsM‘s4sH"M0442Buyl;sq;;ouo;;owsq;pu2;ss4sq;ussM;squo;;o;p24;uoaou

sgs4sq;‘snqi's;2;s;uso2§p2;xsusq;0;s;2;sK42;usws[ssuom04;M0442sq;JOs62ss2dsq;K[sn0su2;1nm;ssqSKEMLE[[;M;;

‘;qB;L;u;s;M0442sq;qa;qM6u;4np;u2;su;sq;sq4sAs;2qM"-

‘K250;sg;2q;‘uo;;2:o[;us32§p2;xsusq;0;M0442Bugl;sq;40uo;;23o[

suom04;uo;;;su24;K42;uswa[ssq;ss;2[s4;;4;KluoBuguesms2q;u2;su;u2‘MON'uo;;ow;ouo;sss4dxsps;;wg[sq;s2‘s5u2qo;o;a2sq;0;ps;2[s4

s;;u2;su;sq;‘s4o;s4sq1'ps;2d;o;;u2sq0;s;s4n;an4;sswg;4sq;ou2;ouo;;2;ss;;u2msq;qa;qMpuosq‘s4n;an4;ssmg;usA;240uo;sss4dxsps;;m;[

2;nq‘smg;;osau242sdd2s;ps;s[dw0a2;0us;;u2;su;u2‘so2[dpuoasssq;

u1's;dsauoa;us4s;;;ps42uo;;2so[pu2so2[d‘s4o;s4sq1'2usmousqd6u;;s;xs4sq;oq;;Muogxsuuoo[2;a2dss;;0;;aadss4q;;Mpsu;m4s;spsqosle;snmss2[d

s,Kpoqsq;q5n0q;[2‘ss;poq4sq;o0;sA;;2[s4‘sa2dsu;uo;;;sods,Kpoqsq;0;

s4s;s4‘pu2q4sq;osq;uo‘uo;;2ao;'so2[du;2;4sa2seq;;‘swnLoA2s2q;;;2q;ssusssq;u;‘K2s0;s;;2q;‘sous;s;xsL2;o2dss;;6u;u;2;u;2wK[[2n;o2

s,Kp0qsq;0;s4s;s4so2Ld'uo;;2oo[pu2sa21dussM;sqqs;n5u;;s;p0;s2qsuo

‘s32Ld;s4;;sq;u1's62ss2ds;;u;;nq‘so2[dusA;62upM0442sq;;osousss4d

H

Thus, because the dimensions of the space localization (i.e., themeasured location) are indeterminate, the particle is at and not at a givenplace at the same time. The objective contradiction is here explained andreasoned out without violating the principle of contradiction, although theconclusion is contradictory. .

Any diligent reader should imediately recognize that the conclusion is -

a non seguitur: If the precise location of the particle'is indeterminate, thenclearly one simply cannot say that it is at a given location or place. But onthe other hand, it is quite in order to say that the particle is either at thegiven place or not at the given place, and this conforms to the law of excludedmiddle. Meliukhin simply confuses conjunction with disjunction.

Yet he does forsee this objection. He argues that a disjunction does notproperly represent the 'unity' of the opposites in a thing. For instance, ‘aparticle is either a corpuscle or a wave‘ is unjustified because a unity ofthese opposites exists.

The main point of Meliukhin's article is that an objective contradictionis a unity of opposites, and not a contradiction in the Aristotlelian sense;so it would seem that there are two very different meanings for the term‘contradiction’.

Narskii summarizes the many articles that had been recently published inFilosofskie Nauki on the contradictoriness of motion, and although his articlewas not meant to close the discussions on this topic, it seems to have doneso, as no significant articles seem to have been published to date on thismatter.72 Narskii holds a similar view to that of Meliukhin: thata dialectical contradiction must be thought of in a logically non-contradictoryfashion. He draws several conclusions from the published articles: l)Mechanical motion is a dialectically contradictory process, and this cannot beseen if one ignores the categories of the theory of reflection (i.e. Lenin'scopy theory), 2) Statements that violate the principle of contradiction areeither erroneous or require modification. Narskii cites Lenin on this matter:"The question is not whether motion exists, but how to express it in thelogic of concepts'L73 He also chastises those that would hold that a particleis simultaneously a corpuscle and a wave: "for,strictly speaking, a microscopicobject is neither a corpuscle nor a wave".74 Further, he also accusesSviderskii of propounding metaphors by his definition of instant motion. More-over, formal logic is not a special case of dialectical thought, but is a sub-ordinate aspect of it, 3) A proposition expressing a dialectical contradictiondoes not require that it contain predicates that simultaneously affirm and deny,but it can and should contain predicates that affirm and deny the subject indifferent but indispensably interrelated and mutually conditioned relationshipsand this is what a dialectical contradiction is, for"this is precisely the

67

89

‘umo$1;p[9qaAeq01smaas1;pun‘saxe1ggqsqeq1eq1

uo;1gs0dewesaqqKLLe1uawepun;sgsgqi'qaq1oqaeaq1;Ms[q;1edm0ou;qauol

ouaqesa;1oa[e;ppueo;6oL40suo;1o;pe41uooom;aqq‘séugueew1uaJa;;;p

OM1qqgm‘uo;1nLoAaqsq;;o,sqaq1e;iaq1KqpasnKlengsualxaossum1;asnea

—aqKlqeqoqd‘paugegaqSEMwqalaqqKtuo'aA0qeuaasse‘,K¢e¢1u0a,queawMOU

,u0;1agp2q1uoa,‘ogolLeagloalegp0113BdS8Jq1;M1nq‘lglyqenglddepun

Bugueawueglalqolsgqvs1;pauyeqaq,uo;1a;peq1u0o,‘ogollemqo;01laadsaq

q1;M's6u;ueew‘1uaJa;;;pKllequamepun;‘om;peq,u0g1a;pe41uoa,mqeqaql

znq‘sogotOM1sq;50K1;[gqea;[ddeaq1uguogzaugqsgp@JS5UO[ousumuoglagp

-eqquoa.[ea4.40[aa;1aa[e;ppU9uog1o;pe41uoaLeogoluaaM1aquo;1ou;1s;p

aq1‘qaglaeasqeaMe;euemloqKqpaanpoqquyKlugqeq',uo;10;peJ4uoa,

;oBuyueawsq;;oLesgeqdde-aq2pue‘ugueqpueslaug;ouogqeqaqdqaqug

-eqLequamepun;2Mes5,09Klqeaaqqqng'a;6o[[eo;1aale;pq6no4q1uaas

aqKluopLnoaqagqmpun‘lsgxapypqagqm‘aqn1euugsassaooqdpueeuamouaqd

‘sugqlxaldmoopueaymeupu;auopuefqglnaqugqsgxa1ouplnoaqagqm

sugqgaldwgspunogzelsu;auo‘suogqagpeqquoa;osadl0M140aauegdaoae

1ue1;seqea02[dqoolaqaqq‘s,Qgaqgu1"sqeaKuuwJO}ug[e15Kqpa1e¢a1;

-aqsensgqgpue‘(aAoqea11o1s;4vuoluamwoosgq';o)euamouaqdpuns6u;q1ug

qsgxaK[[en1aesuoglogpeqquooLeogol1eq1BugueawseuguaqKqpagaqdqaqug

sumsalgsoddouaaM1aqa[66n41s2501[nSBJaqlsgaueqo[[212q1uog1daa

-uoa,s[a6u3‘uguugeqaqq1v'suog1a;pe¢1uooLeagqaelegp40Bugueawaq1

u;u0;1n[oAaueuaaqseqaqaqq‘uogun19LAO§aqq;oBugpuno;aqqaougg

sqqewag6u;so[3(9

"1oa;;aBugqsvl2peqaA2qsuogsnlo

-uoaasaq11eq1‘uaql‘maasp[noM11LL'a[og1¢25961sgqugsuogsnlauoa

aqq;oawosszeadaqaqqogqmup3;50[s,LaaHuo0;5[uga[a;1JeJaqgoue

paqsglqndggqsqeq9L-sma1sKsogolpanlea-gqlnwuopaqeaddesalagqqeagpeqods

algqm‘Kuo1s;qpueKologaos‘s9;1;[0d‘sagqlaseqans‘saaqgewqaqqouo

Klugewsnao;01pamaas;;;os;[;3Kso4doApun;qneNagxs;os;[;5aqzugsa[o;14e

luanbasqng'suog1o;peq1uoaLeagqaalepppueLeagol;o4a11emaq1uoaaualgs

9uaaqaA2q01smaasaqaqq‘a[a;14es,;;xs4eN;ouog1ea;[qndsq;4a1;v

'a4n1an41spuea[0401pqeaqugsadzsno;4eA

;ose[Lamse‘Kpn1sqapunK1;1uaaq1oluguo;1eq1auad;oS[9A9[sno;JeA;o

1oadsa4u;uogqagpaqquoo[ea;1oaLu;pqsgnugzsgp01Kaessaaausg1;‘ssalaqq

—J8A3U‘1ng'uo;1;u6oa;osasodqndsq;40;alqgssodsguoggow;ouogqdgqssap

KJo1ogpe41uoa-uoueqagqmupsemKuemaqgpamoqssaLo;1¢eaql(VgL‘"([9A9[

agmeupaq112)uopqseaqpueuoggae;opue‘(uo;1aa[;a440[8A9[agzem

-eugxaq112)uo;1ow;ossaooqdKJQAaq1;oK1;nu;1uoos;ppueK1;nu;1uoaaq1

‘(uo;1om[eagueqoaw;ouogzezglenqdaauoa;0[9A3[Leagqqawoaaqq12)sands;o

K1;nu;1uoas;ppunK1;nu;1uoaaqquppaA[oAu;uo;1a;peq1uooaqq;o4a1oe¢eqa

But Narskii's position is, after all, probably the only possible position.The Soviets were clearly beaten on the matter of ‘real’ contradictions existingin things and phenomena, and this became manifest to logicians when some

critical thinking was allowed. It must have been readily foreseen by most

philosophers, except for a few dogmatists, that Lenin's view regardingAristotle, (namely, that he correctly formulated the principle of contra-diction, but incorrectly applied it to objective realityl leads to'agnosticism' or to a sort of skeptical idealism, for if the mind cannot con-ceive of contradictions, it cannot likewise conceive of those contradictionsthat are said to be present in objective reality; and therefore, the mind no

longer 'reflects' objective reality; it would a_priori preclude our everknowing reality as it is "in itself“. But on the other hand, Marxism is based

on the tenet that all change, especially that in society and history, comes

about by contradictions developing and spontaneously forming a qualitativelynew product. The Socialist state exists only because of the contradictionsthat developed in the previous capitalist society. without contradictionsin reality, the Socialist state, with its dictatorship of the proletariat,no longer has any metaphysical justification for its existence. That is, ithas no justification in the principles of reality, and consequently, the'system‘ breaks down. Narskii's position solves the problem, but at the ex-pense of misusing language. The term 'contradiction‘ is retained, but in so

far as dialectical materialism is concerned, it means ‘contrary’. Thus, allof nature and society has contraries which struggle against each other toform a new product. The contraries are related to a thing, in so far as a

‘thing’ or phenomenon is a unity, not in the same respect but in regard todifferent aspects of the thing or phenomenon. The principle of contradictionis not violated because such contraries are not attributed to the thing in thesame respect or at the same time. This relation is perhaps a bit difficultto determine clearly and unambiguously in each case, just as it may be difficultat times to determine what two aspects can be considered as contraries(assuming that there are no more than two). But this difficulty is tolerablesince it allows a wide range of possible attributes to be considered as

'proofs' of the law of the unity and struggles of opposites, and consequentlyof the truth of Marxism-Leninism.

But this solution also seems the only possible one because any otheralternatives would lend to undesirable conclusions. To tamper with themeaning or applicability of the principle of contradiction amounts tointellectual suicide, unless there is a good reason for doing so. But up tillnow, all human inquiry has failed to find such a reason, and the reason why ithas failed to do so is that the distinction between truth and falsity restsolely upon this principle. On the other hand, the Marxist conception ofcontradiction has been watered down so much, and rightly so. that a further

69

OL

'a[q21aedsa4

Kllenqaallaquglseal12amoaeqseq1;‘uogggsodqualsgsuoaK[[eog6o[

2sepuv'paz;u;1n¢asKlleagqgaouaqmspuapeep01pal1eq1wsg1em6op

[ea;1;4aun4a;L42aaqqmo4;K43JP}25;sgqi-a¢n4n;aqgu;uo;1ez;1e-walsspe[ge1eppueaqelawoa$1;qggm6uo[es1uamqs;[[aqwaKuemassKLqeq0¢d

[[LMauopue‘1ua1sgsuo:KL[eo;5o[s;£4oaq1s,;;»s¢eN‘SS9[9q1J8A8N

'a4n1eu6u;K;;powupuaAapun‘a4n1eu;o

euawouaudBugugeldxaug‘BJOM10u;;‘ssaaonsqanwsexsnpeqseqlsamaqq

uo;1;sod2qans1noq1;M'1samaqq;o12q1(es)ueqq4a11aqs;uo;1;s0de

qansMoq4ea[o1ousg11'K1;[ea4u;a[qe;1ua;Jadxa40a[qeA;ao4ads;zeqm

01paglddeK[;pea¢aqueapue‘1ue1s;suoaK[[eo;6o[5;uoglgsodaq1esneoaq

osauopaAeqKaqi'suoae40;paqs;4no[;aAnqK1;[2a4ugeldxa01sa1;sodd0

409L55J1S26ugp4e6a¢uogqgsod4e[;w;s2pa1e5[nwo4daAeq1eq1suo;6;[a4

Kuew'a5ueqaugugeldxaupSS9U8A§138}}8U§s1;JO‘salpsoddo;oa[66n¢1s

pueK1;unaq1;oM9[eq1;ossaussalasna1a[dwoa2u;1[nsa4p[n0Muogqnlgp

ME

1Short Handbook of Communist Ideology, p. 2-5.

2Lenin, V.I., Philosophical Notebooks, p. 357-8. ~

3Ibid., p. 251-2.

4Stalin, J., Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p. 572-3.

5Lenin, opus Q. p. 257.

6Lenin, opus git, p. 358.

7Engels, F., Anti-Duhring, p. l35.

86. wetter (in Soviet Ideology Today, p. ll7-8) notes some difficultieswith this view. Is motion the result of a contradiction, or does motionformally embody a contradiction? If the former, then the struggle of oppositesalready is a motion so that one has to discover the origin of this motion. Ifthe latter, then this ‘same place‘ is an abstract point on a line. But such apoint is not extended, so that no addition of non-extended points can yieldextension, however small. Consequently, there is no contradiction, since a

line is not composed of points, and a body would not traverse such points.

9See wetter,G., Soviet Ideology Today (SIT), p.102,

]OIbid., p. 103.

]]Short Handbook of Communist Ideology, p. 4.

]2See Wetter, opus git. p. lOO.

13See Wetter, G., Dialectical Materialism, (DM), p. 350-1.

MAristotle, Metaphysics,_ Book F, lO05b-l.

l5L . .enin, gpg§_g1t,, p. 366.

l6 .

See Wetter, PN, p. 519.

]7See Bochenski, “Soviet Logic" in Studies in Soviet Thought, I, p. 30.

18See Kline, G., in Journal of Symbolic Logic, #l7. l952, p. l25.

19Kung, G., "Mathematical Logic in the Soviet Union", in §tgdies inSoviet Thgught I, p. 39. Mathematical logic is now considered a branch ofscience, and not a philosophical appendix to mathematics.

7l

ZL

'(wq3)ms;[2g¢a1ewLeo;1oa[2;q;ose;4o6a1239H1'9J"°§UQ8'K1UPLdW04;9JPVAou;4e6ni01seoua¢a;e¢[Ly'9g5[‘p2¢6u;ua1‘emz;[e;4e1ewo6oxsao;1xaLe;p;g4o6a1exayuasouloos"d'A‘Aou;4e6niOV

‘was‘d‘wu‘¢e21em6£

"98"d"5I6T8£

.‘es'd"5IETL€

'5IaT9s

"vs'd‘8l#‘wsv‘QULLXSE

'62s"d"iI6TV£

'82s‘d‘wo‘J@119M£€

"921"d"5I6Tz€

‘8ZL"d‘LL#‘1SP‘EULLXLQ

'26-vald‘(L§6L)2#‘11§Ii55fI§‘T§5I55K‘u9Xl5°Lon"N'W‘A0¢puPXa1v0€

‘L"9Zl‘d‘LL#‘W50‘9U!LX6z

'LZL‘d‘LL#1st‘QULLMKqP911LW$UPJlSQ‘l8L-8LL‘d(l96t)z#‘LlJ°$°l!3XSOJHOAus‘HPHHPUxv»"XL50l1KqPUZLOPweQ“"0'v‘x$.18ALx@w8z

‘ass"d‘wo‘J9119MLz

‘(Liv'd‘LS6L‘5!LJLi‘F5155?"I'N‘A0xvpu0»)‘EIETQZ

(‘Alt"d‘LS6L‘5£LJ!i‘FY1553's'x‘@1p@4n@s)ass"d‘we‘J9l19M9z

"sax'd‘LL#wsv‘GULLNVZ

'8L-OLZ‘d(lS6l)L#‘@@;@so1s1K$0430AUL‘"LH!139LPLPL$0u.1@w¢o;19WP9Jd""S'd‘A°d°d

‘LL-608‘d(0961)s#!.!.}OSO|_!.jXSOJHO/\U_L||L>|1.§0|_§0U,|_BU.|JOJ.[.Z].[.LUP8-Ad0""S'N‘L131./\85QJ1S

'00Z‘86l'd‘(0§6l)Z#‘EFJOSOLPJKSQJHQAug‘ngqglxalegpggqgolgguasoloos0nsoJd0AW""S‘X‘azpe4x99£z

'8-L29‘d‘wu‘43119Maaszz

'SZL‘d‘z1#1sr‘auslxlz

'v-ea"d‘€96l‘8l#‘(1s0)v@501vsloqwis;0L9UJ"0Pua"9‘QUPLNOZ

4]P1anty-Bonjour, CDM, p. 109.

42Schaff, A., "dia1ectika marxistowska a zasada sprzecznosci". in Mvs1Fi1osofizne, Warsaw, 1955 #4, p. 143-158, as transmitted through Sviderskii,"On Contradiction in Mechanica1 Motion", Fi10sofskie Nauki, 1962 #5, in SovietStudies in Phi1osophv, V01. I #4, p. 32.

43Lobkowicz, N., "The Princio1e of Contradiction in Recent SovietPhilosophy", in Studies in Soviet Thougpt, I, p. 47. '

44Ibid,, p. 47.

45Bartos, J., "paradoni, these o rozpornosci pobybu a prob1em zasadspravneho mys1eni", in Fi1osoficky casopis, Praha, 1957, 3, p. 340-357, astransmitted through Lobkowicz, opus git, p. 48.

46Lobkowicz, opus 51; , p. 48.

47Ibid.

48 bid., p. 44.I

49 . .From Lobkowicz, opus §l§,, p. 44-49.

50 . .Lobkowicz, opus pit , p. 49.

5]Ibid., p. 46.

52Sviderskii, opus 51; , p. 33.

53P1anty-Bonjour, opus pi§., p. 118.

54Ibid.

55P1anty-Bonjour, opus §it,, p. 119.

56(M0skva, 1958).

57(State Pub1ishing House for Po1itica1 Literature, Moscow, 1959).

58 . .

See P1anty-BonJour, opus plt,, p. 109.

591919 , p. 112. '

6OIbid., p. 106.

6]Ibid., p. 116.

62Short Handbook of Communist Ideplpgl, p. 4.

“toq-

73

UL

'(8#0L6L‘LLJ°$°lLdX50iH5K)€L€-V98‘d‘LL615U%¢dS‘KHa°5°l!Hdu;sagpnlg1a;Ao5up‘uogoqK¢e4odwa1uo3pue[a6aH""5'1‘;;qs4eNLL

.Z.ou

‘0L6l‘L!§°$°L!dK$°43°A)982-ZZZ‘d‘LL6L-0L6L‘J9lU!M‘KH3°$°lLHdUL$9!P"1S1a;Ao5u;‘qsogsqdoaagw;oo;6o1au1ug""v-V‘A8,AOU}Z‘aldmexa4059A

¢adf ZSPEQISL

'PLqIV[

'62‘d"Psq1€L

'€E"V2‘d‘€#AI'l°A‘XH3°$°L!HdUL59LP"1S19LA°Sui‘Z#S96l‘LX"PN9¥X5J°$°l¥d‘"¥X"PN9LX5&°5°lLdUL5U°L55"3$LGBN1

punuogzowLeagueqoawu;uog1ogpe¢1uo3;oswa[qoJdaqi""5'N‘ggqsJeNzL

p-dG??? LlPPQILL

'OZ‘Vl'd‘V#III'L°A‘KUa°5°l!UdU!59LP"1S19!A°SU!‘9#V96L‘LXHPN9LX$J°$°LLd'"£U°!1°NJo559uLJ°13LP9J1U039H1J0

1U9W91P1SKJ°13LPPJ1U°3'U°NPQXPH919LqL55°d1151""i'S‘U!UX"!L9N0L

'V£'d"PlqI69

'1!.I)SOHO‘§.[.)|SJ9p1./\§89

'VLL‘d‘J"°Fu°9-K1UPLd998'61‘d‘6S6L‘PAX$°N‘!XL1X9lPLPKoxsaaggsalegaaqew§;406a19xgfguoqezKAOuso"q'1‘AGSJPUVLQ

'g[["d‘anofuog-KqueldKqpa11;wsue4;SP‘Z8L'09L‘d‘096L‘PAXSOH‘9Lq°$°dBQUQBH'WZ!lP!491@WFLW593L19lPLP

ug"‘K1souz0[odA;1o¢dKq.¢oqgeA1su;pauoxez""1'5‘u;s;[n»99

'g[[jd"1gosno‘Jnofuog-K1ueLdKqpa11;msu241SE‘Z31-Z1‘d‘095[‘EAXSON‘ggzolgaosg;g;oso[g;emsguo;z;Aa4OEOUUBWGJAOSA;1o¢dup

mz;uo;zgAa4Kqs;osoL;;gwzgLe;4a1ewKqsaogqxalepu‘d-V‘oxuaqngsg

‘7Q[‘d"§I5'snHo‘¢nofu0g-Klueldaag'¢am4o;aqg;osag4o6a1uo[e1uawepun;aqqaxe¢a11e[aq11uq1pau;21u;2mcum‘s[a6u301

anps;3;1D9[9;psq;;0SME[puesa;¢o6a1e0uaaM1aqu0;1ou;1s;paqivg

Bibliograghy

Blakeley, T.J., (ed.) Themes in Soviet Marxist Philosophy, Boston: D. ReidelPublishing Co. Vol. 37, T975.

Cornforth, M., Science Versus Idealism, Westport: Greenwood Press, Publishersl975.

De George, R.T., Patterns of Soviet Thought, Ann Arbour: The University ofMichigan Press, l970.

Fleischer, H. (ed.), Short Handbook of Communist Ideology, Dodrecht-Holland:D. Reidel Publishing Co., l965.

Joravsky, D., Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, London: Routledge andKegan Paul, l96l.

Kirschenmann, P.P., Information and Reflection, Dordrecht-Hollard: D. ReidelPublishing Co., l970.

Lefebvre, H., Dialectical Materialism, London: Jonathan Cape, T968.

Lenin, V.I., Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Moscow: Foreign LanguagesPublishing House, l947.

Lenin, V.I., Philosoghical Notebooks, Moscow: Progress Publishers, l976.

Planty-Bonjour, G., The Categories of Dialectical Materialism, New York:Fredrick A. Praeger Inc., Publishers, l967.

Kolakowski, L., Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. III, Oxford: Clarendon Press,l978.

Stalin, J., Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Moscow: Foreign LanguagesPublishing House.

wetter, G., Dialectical Materialism, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, l958.

Wetter, G., Soviet Ideology Today, New York: Fredrick A. Praeger Publishers,l962.

Articles

, Soviet Studies in Philosophy, V. I, l962, New York.

, Studies in Soviet Thou ht, V. I, T961, Dordrecht-Holland: R. ReidelPublishing Co. (Quarterly?.

The following are from Soviet Studies in Philosophy (SSIP):

Kopnin, P.V.. "Contemporary Science and the Marxist-Leninist Theory ofKnowledge", SSIP. Winter, l97l-72.

Meliukhin, S.T., "Is It Possible To Make A Non-Contradictory Statement On TheContradictoriness of Motion“, SSIP, Vol. III #4.

75

9L

‘LS-VV"d‘"KHd°$°LLHd19LA°S1U999BusU°L13LP9J1U°3409LdL9ULJdaqlu"N‘Zv@M0xq01

'£v-es'd‘nuoaun1@sA0sBu:H19L5°1lP3L1Pw9H19N""0‘unx

‘L;-79'd‘"KaA4n§V-Kqdosolgqd19LAO§ugsa;4o5e1e3UQ""H‘4aqos;a[3

'8€'6Z'd‘"3L5°119LA°S“"N'F‘LN5U9H308

¥l96L‘I'l°A‘355I‘i5IK5§_F?_§5I5i§woi;adv5ULM°ll°Jaui

'9'E8'd‘€S6l‘8l#56“VZl‘d‘ZS6L‘LL#‘9¥5°13!l°qWxSJ0l9UJ"°PUP"5‘aull

'LL'0L6L‘J91ULM‘dISS‘"53P5KHd°J3!N$93¥5°T9H1"0""V'V‘A3-A°U!Z

'€#‘III'L°A‘dISS‘"93"9¥9S4°K5°L°P°H19WQQ1U!3L5°1LQPONJ9"°L193!LddVaqiU0""V'V‘A9-AQUFZ

6s_‘4

'V#I'l°AdISS‘“"°!10NLP3LuPU39N"L"°L13LPPJ1u°3U0""I'A¥!X$49P!AS

'Z#‘III'l°A‘dISS‘"U°L1°NJ93L5°1auiU!5m9Lq°Jd9w°Su"“I‘I‘A°419d

's#‘11'l°A‘dISS‘"$3L5KHdmnluengupsuo;19gpe41uo3L23g19aLe;q;oldaouogaqi""3'w‘;gqsAoue;,[awQ

'€#‘AI'l°A‘dISS‘".¥X"PN9lX5J°5°lLd."L5U°¥55"3$lGaqlPUPu°L10N[93!uPU39NU!U°¥l3LP9J1U°Q)0SwalqoidQUL“"S'I‘£lX5J9N

66

‘LL6l5u2¢ds‘dISS‘unaowK¢@¢0dwa1u0aPUPL959H““S'ILLSXJPN

'2-L#‘11'L°A‘Ei§§‘"9DU91].S[.X3_.).0I].d9Z>U0:)GqlDUEUJS[.A_L1[.S0d[ED[.E>O"|:3g60"||_ELLl.AO;],,"§‘1‘_L1.)]SJ9N