What do you think?
Rate this book
Marxism and the Philosophy of Science
Skillfully deploring a large cast of characters, Sheehan retraces the development of Marxist philosophy of science through detailed and highly readable accounts of the debates that have characterized it. The opening chapter discussed the ideas of Marx and Engels, and the second, Marxist theoreticians of the Second International. In the third chapter Sheehan covers Russian Marxism up to World War II. Sheehan concludes with a close analysis of the development of the debate among non-Soviet Marxists, placing particular emphasis on the contributions of leading British in the 1930s.
456 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
22 people are currently reading
585 people want to read
About the author
Helena Sheehan
11 books17 followersProfessor Helena Sheehan is an academic philosopher, historian of science, and writer on communication studies, politics, and philosophical (particularly Marxist) subjects. Sheehan is a retired (Professor Emeritus) Communications lecturer at Dublin City University and has been a visiting professor at the University of Cape Town.
Born in the United States, Sheehan describes her childhood as Catholic and conservative, Sheehan began studies her university and taught primary school as a nun. As a result of studying, she became an agnostic and liberal, then later an atheist and radical. She then left the convent. Sheehan earned a Bachelor of Science degree in 1967 from St. Joseph's University (then known as St. Joseph's College) in Philadelphia, followed by an MA in 1970 from Temple University in Philadelphia. She earned a PhD in 1980 from Trinity College (Dublin) in philosophy – then already active in the Trinity College Dublin Communist Society.
As an historian of science, Sheehan develops the view that Marx and Engels shared fundamentally the same view on the philosophy of science. A Marxist humanist, Sheehan has written critically of Lysenkoism and Stalin's impact on scientific development.
Sheehan has lectured at the Humanist Association of Ireland.
In her personal life, Sheehan is the partner of the trade unionist Sam Nolan.
Born in the United States, Sheehan describes her childhood as Catholic and conservative, Sheehan began studies her university and taught primary school as a nun. As a result of studying, she became an agnostic and liberal, then later an atheist and radical. She then left the convent. Sheehan earned a Bachelor of Science degree in 1967 from St. Joseph's University (then known as St. Joseph's College) in Philadelphia, followed by an MA in 1970 from Temple University in Philadelphia. She earned a PhD in 1980 from Trinity College (Dublin) in philosophy – then already active in the Trinity College Dublin Communist Society.
As an historian of science, Sheehan develops the view that Marx and Engels shared fundamentally the same view on the philosophy of science. A Marxist humanist, Sheehan has written critically of Lysenkoism and Stalin's impact on scientific development.
Sheehan has lectured at the Humanist Association of Ireland.
In her personal life, Sheehan is the partner of the trade unionist Sam Nolan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
October 22, 2018
Review of Helena Sheehan’s Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History
This is a remarkable and amazing book. Among the best I have read. It came out in 1985 with new editions and new “Afterword” in 1993 and 2017. The book is so astonishing that Sheehan has a written a memoir about how she wrote this book that will come out next year with Monthly Review Press.
Before I comment on the content, I am compelled to mention the form. Sheehan is a brilliantly clean and clear writer. The prose just sings off the pages and I found myself having read twenty pages before I could blink. Undergraduates could read this with ease. Second, her explanations are meant to be fair, meant to be immanent critiques. She lays down the ideas of each theorist as if they themselves would have wanted to have them presented. There is a fullness and vigor to her presentation that makes, for example, Engels, Lenin, Lukacs, and Gramsci come alive. Only then does she offer her own take. And her takes are decisive; she does not resort to hints, she does not equivocate. She calls out authors on mistakes, exaggerations, distortion, and deceptions. She condemns institutions for their brutality, mendacity, and murder. And all this from someone who considers herself a Marxist who continues to believe that it is the most rigorous, thorough, systematic, and truthful mode of analysis and praxis that civilization has ever known. One gets to know Helena Sheehan and to trust her, to like her.
The book aims to be a history of (European) Marxism from the time of Marx and Engels to 1940. It is a particular kind of history focused on Marx, Engels, and Marxists had to say about the relationship of Marxism to (natural) science, the history of science, philosophy, and the history of the philosophy of science. Sheehan insists that rather than the usual canon in philosophy of science that goes from the Vienna Circle, Popper, Kuhn, to Feyerabend, there is a far more robust and rigorous track that goes from Engels through all kind of Marxist (many of whom I had not heard of).
The central concept is “dialectical Materialism.” This means that Sheehan clarifies what “dialectic” means and has meant; it means she clarifies what “materialism” means and has meant; and, it means she is constantly comparing dialectic materialism with mechanism on the one and idealism on the other. Basically, we receive a history of ideas on these concepts from Marx/Engels to 1940. But she also compares these ideas to those of Kant, Hegel, Darwin, Wittgenstein, Russell, and many more. The book is an orientation to all Western thinking from a compass in which north is Engels work on dialectical materialism.
Along the way she takes us to places I have never been. For example, she excavates the history of Marxism in the newly formed Soviet Union including the influence of Soviet Marxism on Western Europe. For example, she takes us through a set of names and ideas of British Marxists that shone from the 1930s to the 1940s – including one of the heroes of this book, Christopher Caudwell. (John Bellamy Foster also makes much of Caudwell in his “Marx’s Ecology,” but I suspect he is mining Sheehan’s work. Foster’s book is also where I found the cite for Sheehan’s work.) For example, she excavates in detail Engels foundational work on creating a Marxism that goes beyond but incorporates political economy. The claim is that Marx and Engels had a division of labor where Marx worked on political economy and Engels on Science and philosophy of science. She rescues Engels from the diminishment he receives as Marx’s sidekick and restores him to a place as equal partner, one of the most brilliant minds of his time, and as having anticipated and transcended most of what today passes for philosophy of science.
She brings to my attention that I am, or rather have been, a partisan on the other side of her polemic. She, along with Marx, Engels and a long line of others reject the claim (also popular among some major Marxists – e.g. Lukacs) that Marx had discovered a method that applied only to the non-natural sciences. She shows that the better, truer project all along has been to regard dialectical materialism as something that applies equally to Nature, natural sciences, history, philosophy, everything.
At the core of this book is the question of the place of the “dialectics of nature.” The question: Is Nature itself subject to dialectical laws? I have believed that even if Nature operates dialectically it does so in a way different from how it works in social life. I might still want to hold on to my prior view. But Sheehan as forced me to reconsider the viability of my conviction. At the very least I have to let go of what I mistakenly thought was my sure grasp on this issue. Another part of my solid ground comes into question and I am left unbalanced. My world view threatens to unravel.
I finished the very long book and immediately stated re-reading the first two chapters. It is like a film that you want immediately to see again (like “Body Heat” or like “Arrival” – yes, Sheehan’s book is that good). As I finished the book, I thought “she should write a book about how this book was written.” And she has, “Navigating the Zeitgeist: A Story of the Cold War, the New Left, Irish Republicanism, and International Communism.” (Monthly Review Press, 2019). All this from someone who started her career as a nun teaching elementary school. Amazing. We should all start out as nuns teaching elementary school.
This is a remarkable and amazing book. Among the best I have read. It came out in 1985 with new editions and new “Afterword” in 1993 and 2017. The book is so astonishing that Sheehan has a written a memoir about how she wrote this book that will come out next year with Monthly Review Press.
Before I comment on the content, I am compelled to mention the form. Sheehan is a brilliantly clean and clear writer. The prose just sings off the pages and I found myself having read twenty pages before I could blink. Undergraduates could read this with ease. Second, her explanations are meant to be fair, meant to be immanent critiques. She lays down the ideas of each theorist as if they themselves would have wanted to have them presented. There is a fullness and vigor to her presentation that makes, for example, Engels, Lenin, Lukacs, and Gramsci come alive. Only then does she offer her own take. And her takes are decisive; she does not resort to hints, she does not equivocate. She calls out authors on mistakes, exaggerations, distortion, and deceptions. She condemns institutions for their brutality, mendacity, and murder. And all this from someone who considers herself a Marxist who continues to believe that it is the most rigorous, thorough, systematic, and truthful mode of analysis and praxis that civilization has ever known. One gets to know Helena Sheehan and to trust her, to like her.
The book aims to be a history of (European) Marxism from the time of Marx and Engels to 1940. It is a particular kind of history focused on Marx, Engels, and Marxists had to say about the relationship of Marxism to (natural) science, the history of science, philosophy, and the history of the philosophy of science. Sheehan insists that rather than the usual canon in philosophy of science that goes from the Vienna Circle, Popper, Kuhn, to Feyerabend, there is a far more robust and rigorous track that goes from Engels through all kind of Marxist (many of whom I had not heard of).
The central concept is “dialectical Materialism.” This means that Sheehan clarifies what “dialectic” means and has meant; it means she clarifies what “materialism” means and has meant; and, it means she is constantly comparing dialectic materialism with mechanism on the one and idealism on the other. Basically, we receive a history of ideas on these concepts from Marx/Engels to 1940. But she also compares these ideas to those of Kant, Hegel, Darwin, Wittgenstein, Russell, and many more. The book is an orientation to all Western thinking from a compass in which north is Engels work on dialectical materialism.
Along the way she takes us to places I have never been. For example, she excavates the history of Marxism in the newly formed Soviet Union including the influence of Soviet Marxism on Western Europe. For example, she takes us through a set of names and ideas of British Marxists that shone from the 1930s to the 1940s – including one of the heroes of this book, Christopher Caudwell. (John Bellamy Foster also makes much of Caudwell in his “Marx’s Ecology,” but I suspect he is mining Sheehan’s work. Foster’s book is also where I found the cite for Sheehan’s work.) For example, she excavates in detail Engels foundational work on creating a Marxism that goes beyond but incorporates political economy. The claim is that Marx and Engels had a division of labor where Marx worked on political economy and Engels on Science and philosophy of science. She rescues Engels from the diminishment he receives as Marx’s sidekick and restores him to a place as equal partner, one of the most brilliant minds of his time, and as having anticipated and transcended most of what today passes for philosophy of science.
She brings to my attention that I am, or rather have been, a partisan on the other side of her polemic. She, along with Marx, Engels and a long line of others reject the claim (also popular among some major Marxists – e.g. Lukacs) that Marx had discovered a method that applied only to the non-natural sciences. She shows that the better, truer project all along has been to regard dialectical materialism as something that applies equally to Nature, natural sciences, history, philosophy, everything.
At the core of this book is the question of the place of the “dialectics of nature.” The question: Is Nature itself subject to dialectical laws? I have believed that even if Nature operates dialectically it does so in a way different from how it works in social life. I might still want to hold on to my prior view. But Sheehan as forced me to reconsider the viability of my conviction. At the very least I have to let go of what I mistakenly thought was my sure grasp on this issue. Another part of my solid ground comes into question and I am left unbalanced. My world view threatens to unravel.
I finished the very long book and immediately stated re-reading the first two chapters. It is like a film that you want immediately to see again (like “Body Heat” or like “Arrival” – yes, Sheehan’s book is that good). As I finished the book, I thought “she should write a book about how this book was written.” And she has, “Navigating the Zeitgeist: A Story of the Cold War, the New Left, Irish Republicanism, and International Communism.” (Monthly Review Press, 2019). All this from someone who started her career as a nun teaching elementary school. Amazing. We should all start out as nuns teaching elementary school.
January 16, 2019
This book was helpful and interesting but not nearly as much as i had hoped. It gives a broad overview, of varying length and detail, of seemingly every "marxist" (broadly defined) the author could (or wanted to) find that had at some point stated some opinion on the question of science. I'll start with the positives. It was relatively thorough; i learned a great deal about many marxists that i wouldn't have thought to look into before, and i have a lot to follow up on after reading this. I can imagine that this book would be especially valuable to "academic marxists" or those in academia (presumably STS in articular) who are interested in dialoguing with the Big Names in academic marxism, such as lukacs and gramsci (negri etc obv came to prominence after the book was written).
Another positive point is that i got the sense that the author has a keen sense of some of the important strengths that marxism/dialectical materialism brings to an understanding of science, especially science considered as a social project. it describes matter and human society and labor in a dynamic back-and-forth where each is altered by the other, in ways that are organized but not determined. the "dialectic" here describes human labor arranging the material world in ways guided by human social structures, and the results of this labor is that society itself is changed.
it provides an intellectual tradition that neatly avoids many of the pitfalls and false dilemmas of present in science studies, from logical positivism to mechanistic materialism to the various strands of idealism that together rend the STS community in cyclical Science Wars.
Sadly, promoting the utility of marxism as a tool for scholars working in science studies and the history of science is really where the authors vision ends. the author appears to be wholly uninterested in that fundamental tenet of marxism, that philosophy is only valuable to the extent that it helps to organize us to work towards a better, communist society. in fact, many of book's subjects were heavily and directly involved in socialist organizing in addition to their philosophical works. this is generally treated by the author as some kind of incursion on the much more crucial task of putting pen to paper and producing Good Philosophy, and figures who are crucial to the latter 20th century Theory circles like gramsci and lukacs have remarkably inordinate amount of space devoted to their contributions to marxist science philosophy, which frankly seemed to range from bizarrely awful to totally mediocre despite the author's obvious fascination with them. other authors who are rightfully given a decent amount of time and space (non-soviets, like bernal and haldane) are given due credit for being totally on the ball as far as science goes but given presented as having an ambiguous record whenever they are deemed too Stalinist for the author's taste. the author's presentation of soviet philosophy of science was alright up until the death of lenin where it took an entirely predictable nosedive and went on for over 50 pages about the Dangers of Stalinism and Lysenkoism, which not only contained very little that was not the mandatory anticommunist talking points about cults of personality and the dangers of Evil People In Charge. this was especially disappointing not only because it had nothing of note to say about the period beyond bizarre psychologizations about the evils of stalin, but also because it was a period that (as far as i can tell, this book certainly didn't enlighten me) did a lot to set the stage for the soviet tradition in applied mathematics and physics which diverged dramatically from the tradition in the west, taking as fundamental problems that were marginalized as "applied math" in the west, which went down a rabbit hole of ever-expanding abstract construction (which have value and merit, but are certainly more removed from practical problems). the echoes of this split are still felt very keenly in physics and mathematics: dynamics systems, classical mechanics, physics, PDEs and functional analysis all carry a heavy debt to soviet scientists and it would have been really interesting to see an ostensible marxist describe the social conditions that led to this profusion of work. indeed it would have been really interesting to see an ostensible marxist describe the stalin era in terms of social relations instead of personal manias but even that was apparently too much to ask.
overall it was a neat book but i diagnose the author with acute Trotskyism.
Another positive point is that i got the sense that the author has a keen sense of some of the important strengths that marxism/dialectical materialism brings to an understanding of science, especially science considered as a social project. it describes matter and human society and labor in a dynamic back-and-forth where each is altered by the other, in ways that are organized but not determined. the "dialectic" here describes human labor arranging the material world in ways guided by human social structures, and the results of this labor is that society itself is changed.
it provides an intellectual tradition that neatly avoids many of the pitfalls and false dilemmas of present in science studies, from logical positivism to mechanistic materialism to the various strands of idealism that together rend the STS community in cyclical Science Wars.
Sadly, promoting the utility of marxism as a tool for scholars working in science studies and the history of science is really where the authors vision ends. the author appears to be wholly uninterested in that fundamental tenet of marxism, that philosophy is only valuable to the extent that it helps to organize us to work towards a better, communist society. in fact, many of book's subjects were heavily and directly involved in socialist organizing in addition to their philosophical works. this is generally treated by the author as some kind of incursion on the much more crucial task of putting pen to paper and producing Good Philosophy, and figures who are crucial to the latter 20th century Theory circles like gramsci and lukacs have remarkably inordinate amount of space devoted to their contributions to marxist science philosophy, which frankly seemed to range from bizarrely awful to totally mediocre despite the author's obvious fascination with them. other authors who are rightfully given a decent amount of time and space (non-soviets, like bernal and haldane) are given due credit for being totally on the ball as far as science goes but given presented as having an ambiguous record whenever they are deemed too Stalinist for the author's taste. the author's presentation of soviet philosophy of science was alright up until the death of lenin where it took an entirely predictable nosedive and went on for over 50 pages about the Dangers of Stalinism and Lysenkoism, which not only contained very little that was not the mandatory anticommunist talking points about cults of personality and the dangers of Evil People In Charge. this was especially disappointing not only because it had nothing of note to say about the period beyond bizarre psychologizations about the evils of stalin, but also because it was a period that (as far as i can tell, this book certainly didn't enlighten me) did a lot to set the stage for the soviet tradition in applied mathematics and physics which diverged dramatically from the tradition in the west, taking as fundamental problems that were marginalized as "applied math" in the west, which went down a rabbit hole of ever-expanding abstract construction (which have value and merit, but are certainly more removed from practical problems). the echoes of this split are still felt very keenly in physics and mathematics: dynamics systems, classical mechanics, physics, PDEs and functional analysis all carry a heavy debt to soviet scientists and it would have been really interesting to see an ostensible marxist describe the social conditions that led to this profusion of work. indeed it would have been really interesting to see an ostensible marxist describe the stalin era in terms of social relations instead of personal manias but even that was apparently too much to ask.
overall it was a neat book but i diagnose the author with acute Trotskyism.
August 21, 2020
Boka tek føre seg vitskapsfilosien i marxismen frå Engels og fram til krigen. Ho snakkar om marxismen sitt tilhøve til vitskapen frå midten av 1800-talet, gjenom den 2. Internasjonalen, i Sovjet og til sist i dei sovjettru kommunistpartia i Europa.
Det som skjedde andre stader eller i andre parti er i liten grad med, men eg har ikkje god nok kunnskap til å vita om det speglar dei faktiske tilhøva eller om det er manglar i boka. Mao vert ikkje nemnd, trass i at hans arbeid frå perioden vart viktige. So som so ofte elles vert dette ei europasoge heller enn ei verdssoge.
Ho er nok best for dei som alt har lese ein del. Delar er lettlesne og svært bra, andre delar krev store bakgrunnskunnskapar. Ho fortel berre undantaksvis om kva tid dei ulike aktørane er fødde og døydde.
Trass manglar følte eg at eg lærde mykje, og tenkjer ho er vel verd å lesa for folk som har lyst gå i djupna på marxisme og naturvitskap.
Det som skjedde andre stader eller i andre parti er i liten grad med, men eg har ikkje god nok kunnskap til å vita om det speglar dei faktiske tilhøva eller om det er manglar i boka. Mao vert ikkje nemnd, trass i at hans arbeid frå perioden vart viktige. So som so ofte elles vert dette ei europasoge heller enn ei verdssoge.
Ho er nok best for dei som alt har lese ein del. Delar er lettlesne og svært bra, andre delar krev store bakgrunnskunnskapar. Ho fortel berre undantaksvis om kva tid dei ulike aktørane er fødde og døydde.
Trass manglar følte eg at eg lærde mykje, og tenkjer ho er vel verd å lesa for folk som har lyst gå i djupna på marxisme og naturvitskap.
December 26, 2023
So many types of Marxists with so many opinions about science. I read this book after it came up multiple times in a Marx/STS reading group I sometimes participate in. That group, along with Science for the People and the Cornell STS department hosted an event with Sheehan in 2021, which you can watch here. I feel like it's a good sampler to see if you'd enjoy this type of book. I think I will be returning to this text for reference many times in the future.
December 12, 2022
Sheehan traces the conception of nature as dialectical from early correspondence between Marx and Engels and throughout Engels' Dialectics of Nature, to the idealism versus materialism debates in the latter half of the nineteeth century and early twentieth century responding to the crises of science (Heisenberg uncertainty principle, relativity, evolution, sub-atomic particles), ending in the mid-twentieth century at the end of the Comintern and start of the Khrushchev era of the USSR. It's a sweeping survey of perhaps a hundred different thinkers, covering the origins, strengths and muddled parts of their theories. I learned a lot, and took detours to read many of the works referenced, and found it helpful in organizing what I already knew of the various debates. On the other hand, I found the blind spots of her narrative to be frustrating, to the point that I began to lose confidence in the areas she discussed in which I did not already feel reasonably well versed.
The strength of her account was, I thought, the first three chapters, which focused on Marx, Engels, and the philosophy of science up until around 1917. Amply quoting her sources, she demonstrates the fools errand of trying to "rescue" Marx from Engels or from Lenin. She also traces how philosophical differences (or ambiguity) towards science and materialism devolve to political differences (eg, Kautsky versus Lenin).
The fourth and fifth chapters, which made up well over half the book I thought were more flawed. The fourth chapter is a slow, 80-page build-up to how Lysenkoism took hold in the USSR in the late 1930s and 1940s. Sheehan approaches the political and geopolitical context of the 1920s-1940s USSR with surprisingly little historical context, positioning Stalin and Lysenko both as leaders who know how to dazzle people but are self-centered and power-hungry in any strategic thinking they manage to stumble into, rather than leaders dealing with high stakes decisions in low resource environments with fascists threatening to invade. Where her discussion of philosophical positions is generally very well-cited, historical occurrences are stated with few sources, complicating my efforts to learn more about the subjects at hand.
The fifth chapter, which surveyed the development of philosophical thought from 1920-1950ish, was disproportionate in both length (some 180 pages) and emphasis, which was overly focused on the works of British thinkers of the time (100+ pages, of which 40 pages were Christopher Caudwell alone). The works of French and German scholars was quickly summarized in a half dozen pages each, and a smattering of paragraphs were devoted to the US and Yugoslavia. There was a complete absence of discussion of thought in China, Africa, the Caribbean, and other parts of the global south. Every scientist was assessed according to their critique of Lysenkoism; those who wrote against him were correct and brave, while those who did not critique his ideas (Bernal) or who were open to some form of environmentally determined inheritance (Haldane) were naive or uninformed or, despite their perspicacity in other spheres of thinking, not able to "realize the gravity" of philosophical debates.
Despite these flaws, as a scientist, I found this to be a valuable read for better understanding Marxism, Philosophy, and Science. The footnotes often have fun anecdotes, and Sheehan's writing style is clear and often a little humorous.
Updated review here.
The strength of her account was, I thought, the first three chapters, which focused on Marx, Engels, and the philosophy of science up until around 1917. Amply quoting her sources, she demonstrates the fools errand of trying to "rescue" Marx from Engels or from Lenin. She also traces how philosophical differences (or ambiguity) towards science and materialism devolve to political differences (eg, Kautsky versus Lenin).
The fourth and fifth chapters, which made up well over half the book I thought were more flawed. The fourth chapter is a slow, 80-page build-up to how Lysenkoism took hold in the USSR in the late 1930s and 1940s. Sheehan approaches the political and geopolitical context of the 1920s-1940s USSR with surprisingly little historical context, positioning Stalin and Lysenko both as leaders who know how to dazzle people but are self-centered and power-hungry in any strategic thinking they manage to stumble into, rather than leaders dealing with high stakes decisions in low resource environments with fascists threatening to invade. Where her discussion of philosophical positions is generally very well-cited, historical occurrences are stated with few sources, complicating my efforts to learn more about the subjects at hand.
The fifth chapter, which surveyed the development of philosophical thought from 1920-1950ish, was disproportionate in both length (some 180 pages) and emphasis, which was overly focused on the works of British thinkers of the time (100+ pages, of which 40 pages were Christopher Caudwell alone). The works of French and German scholars was quickly summarized in a half dozen pages each, and a smattering of paragraphs were devoted to the US and Yugoslavia. There was a complete absence of discussion of thought in China, Africa, the Caribbean, and other parts of the global south. Every scientist was assessed according to their critique of Lysenkoism; those who wrote against him were correct and brave, while those who did not critique his ideas (Bernal) or who were open to some form of environmentally determined inheritance (Haldane) were naive or uninformed or, despite their perspicacity in other spheres of thinking, not able to "realize the gravity" of philosophical debates.
Despite these flaws, as a scientist, I found this to be a valuable read for better understanding Marxism, Philosophy, and Science. The footnotes often have fun anecdotes, and Sheehan's writing style is clear and often a little humorous.
Updated review here.
June 30, 2020
This is broad survey of Marxist thinking about the philosophy of science from Marx and Engels through the Second International and on to the Russian Revolution ending with the Comintern. While a long book it still skips quickly across a number of thinkers, especially the more minor figures. The other problem I have with this book is the impression it gave (me, at least) that the high point of Marxist thinking about science is Engels "dialectics of nature". In fact I (among many others) find the extension of dialectics to the natural world to be a step too far. Dialectics it seems to me are a social construct. This doesn't make them any less objective, but they remain an analytical device to understand human relations (including relations to nature) not an inherent part of the non-human world.
So a good and extensive survey, particularly of early Soviet science and the ideological debates of the 1920s and 1930s. It also covers (albeit quite briefly) thinking in the wider Comintern. But fundamentally not as critical or as wide ranging as for example Kolakowski's survey of Marxist thought.
So a good and extensive survey, particularly of early Soviet science and the ideological debates of the 1920s and 1930s. It also covers (albeit quite briefly) thinking in the wider Comintern. But fundamentally not as critical or as wide ranging as for example Kolakowski's survey of Marxist thought.
June 20, 2024
Basically written as a survey of all the major (and many minor) thinkers who touched on the interaction between Marxism and the philosophy of science from Marx/Engels to the 1940s. Interesting to see how they grappled with the same questions wracking mainstream philosophy of science at the time. But the book is too cursory most of the time (with some idiosyncratic exceptions) and not written with much clarity. I learned a fair amount, but not as much as I was hoping.
August 3, 2021
I read this several years ago and recommend it highly. It's one of the clearest and most engaging books I've read about dialectics and the history of Marxist thought. In particular, it makes a very strong case for a dialectic of nature, dismantling the argument (which originated with the Frankfurt School) that dialectical reasoning applies solely to human society.
October 27, 2015
Written by one of my old lectures this book is a really nice overview of, well of the title.
I think what is great about the book is how well Helena gets across her passion for the subject, and helps bring you through the dryness of the topic.
I'm writing this review almost 6 years since I've read the book so my memory isn't the sharpest, but it still stand to me when thinking about the interaction of my life's interaction with technology and the constant march of history.
Probably not a summer's easy read, but definitely one to grab if your a student, academic, or have a hard core passing interest.
I think what is great about the book is how well Helena gets across her passion for the subject, and helps bring you through the dryness of the topic.
I'm writing this review almost 6 years since I've read the book so my memory isn't the sharpest, but it still stand to me when thinking about the interaction of my life's interaction with technology and the constant march of history.
Probably not a summer's easy read, but definitely one to grab if your a student, academic, or have a hard core passing interest.
September 6, 2022
Didn't feel very cohesive. Lots of little bios of different Marxist figures with little engagement in actual philosophy of science. Big focus on Gramsci despite the recognition that he didn't really have a philosophy of science and a lot of time spent on Coulsdon (who I've never heard of). Nice to hear about figures you haven't heard of before but it doesn't really add up to anything.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews