D.I. Pisarev on monism, materialism and partisanship of philosophy

An episode from the discussion of N.G. Chernyshevsky’s article The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy is considered. It is shown how D.I. Pisarev defended the materialistic worldview against his opponents’ criticism. The study sets out the following tasks: 1) to identify the relevant ontognoseo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Andrey A. Chernykh
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Samara National Research University 2025-07-01
Series:Семиотические исследования
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.ssau.ru/semiotic/article/viewFile/28741/11373
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849407006143676416
author Andrey A. Chernykh
author_facet Andrey A. Chernykh
author_sort Andrey A. Chernykh
collection DOAJ
description An episode from the discussion of N.G. Chernyshevsky’s article The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy is considered. It is shown how D.I. Pisarev defended the materialistic worldview against his opponents’ criticism. The study sets out the following tasks: 1) to identify the relevant ontognoseological ideas of D.I. Pisarev for contemporary ontology and theories of cognition; 2) to examine the principle of partisanship in philosophy using examples from Pisarev’s works. The aim of the study is to clarify the specific features of Pisarev’s philosophical views and to justify his relevance as a thinker. The methodology is based on the principle of partisanship, i.e. the classification of philosophical systems within the paradigms of idealism–materialism and dualism–monism, according to which the philosopher’s ontognoseological views serve as the foundation for his political, anthropological, ethical, aesthetic, and other ideas. The primary sources analyzed are texts by D.I. Pisarev in which he defended Chernyshevsky’s position in the discussion of the anthropological principle. Texts by other thinkers with whom Pisarev engaged in polemics, such as P.L. Lavrov, P.D. Yurkevich, and others, are also taken into account. The study’s novelty lies in showing that the principle of partisanship in philosophy does not vulgarize the understanding of ontological and gnoseological problems, but rather helps reveal the nature of ontognoseological questions. The study also highlights the anthropological turn in Russian philosophy in the 19th century. The conclusion emphasizes the high significance of D.I. Pisarev for both Russian and global philosophical thought, particularly in the fields of ontology and gnoseology
format Article
id doaj-art-b0afaa8cc91b45f5b92327f78cd44a9d
institution Kabale University
issn 2782-2966
2782-2958
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher Samara National Research University
record_format Article
series Семиотические исследования
spelling doaj-art-b0afaa8cc91b45f5b92327f78cd44a9d2025-08-20T03:36:13ZengSamara National Research UniversityСемиотические исследования2782-29662782-29582025-07-0152213210.18287/2782-2966-2025-5-2-21-328932D.I. Pisarev on monism, materialism and partisanship of philosophyAndrey A. Chernykh0https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9083-231XSt. Petersburg State University of EconomicsAn episode from the discussion of N.G. Chernyshevsky’s article The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy is considered. It is shown how D.I. Pisarev defended the materialistic worldview against his opponents’ criticism. The study sets out the following tasks: 1) to identify the relevant ontognoseological ideas of D.I. Pisarev for contemporary ontology and theories of cognition; 2) to examine the principle of partisanship in philosophy using examples from Pisarev’s works. The aim of the study is to clarify the specific features of Pisarev’s philosophical views and to justify his relevance as a thinker. The methodology is based on the principle of partisanship, i.e. the classification of philosophical systems within the paradigms of idealism–materialism and dualism–monism, according to which the philosopher’s ontognoseological views serve as the foundation for his political, anthropological, ethical, aesthetic, and other ideas. The primary sources analyzed are texts by D.I. Pisarev in which he defended Chernyshevsky’s position in the discussion of the anthropological principle. Texts by other thinkers with whom Pisarev engaged in polemics, such as P.L. Lavrov, P.D. Yurkevich, and others, are also taken into account. The study’s novelty lies in showing that the principle of partisanship in philosophy does not vulgarize the understanding of ontological and gnoseological problems, but rather helps reveal the nature of ontognoseological questions. The study also highlights the anthropological turn in Russian philosophy in the 19th century. The conclusion emphasizes the high significance of D.I. Pisarev for both Russian and global philosophical thought, particularly in the fields of ontology and gnoseologyhttps://journals.ssau.ru/semiotic/article/viewFile/28741/11373materialismidealismpositivismmonismdualismpartisanship of philosophyanthropological turnanthropological principlerussian philosophy
spellingShingle Andrey A. Chernykh
D.I. Pisarev on monism, materialism and partisanship of philosophy
Семиотические исследования
materialism
idealism
positivism
monism
dualism
partisanship of philosophy
anthropological turn
anthropological principle
russian philosophy
title D.I. Pisarev on monism, materialism and partisanship of philosophy
title_full D.I. Pisarev on monism, materialism and partisanship of philosophy
title_fullStr D.I. Pisarev on monism, materialism and partisanship of philosophy
title_full_unstemmed D.I. Pisarev on monism, materialism and partisanship of philosophy
title_short D.I. Pisarev on monism, materialism and partisanship of philosophy
title_sort d i pisarev on monism materialism and partisanship of philosophy
topic materialism
idealism
positivism
monism
dualism
partisanship of philosophy
anthropological turn
anthropological principle
russian philosophy
url https://journals.ssau.ru/semiotic/article/viewFile/28741/11373
work_keys_str_mv AT andreyachernykh dipisarevonmonismmaterialismandpartisanshipofphilosophy