‘Kiev Philosophy School’ in the Light of the Marxist Theory of Activity: History and Main
Ideas
Professor Elena V.Mareeva, Doctor of Science
The article deals with the intellectual phenomenon of the Kiev Philosophy School which was
formed in the 1960-s. If we speak about the history of Soviet Marxism, the trend flourished in
the 1970-80-s. But even today Kiev philosophers and first of all employees of the Philosophy
Institute under the Ukrainian National Academy of Science which got its name after the 18-th
century philosopher G.Skovoroda insist that the School is still alive though its form has been
changed. We should point out that the present standing of the Philosophy Institute and the
assessment the Kiev Philosophy School of the 1970-80-s gets in Ukraine now could help us
understand its real profile and its ideas that were developed in the School.
Philosophy schools in the USSR, as a rule were formed by bright personalities whose speeches
and written works were able to mould theoretical and methodological tradition. As for Kiev,
P.V.Kopnin (1922-1971) is considered a founder of the Kiev Philosophy School. He arrived in
Kiev from Moscow in 1958 and shortly after that he became the head of the Philosophy
Department of the Kiev Polytechnic Institute. But in 1962 he headed the Philosophy Institute
under the Ukrainian Academy of Science where he worked till 1968. Although later P.V.Kopnin
for three years headed the Philosophy Institute under the USSR Academy of Science, the most
productive period for him was the time he lived in Kiev, according to V.A.Lektorsky. It is wellknown that P.V.Kopnin developed a new trend in Soviet Philosophy called ‘logic of scientific
cognition’. We should point out that P.V.Kopnin thought that logic, theory of cognition and
methodology of science did not belong to different spheres of research, they coincided in the
light of Marxist view on thinking as creative reflection of the surrounding world. P.V.Kopnin is
notable not only for his ideas of identity between dialectics, logic and the theory of cognition, as
well as identity of reflection and creativity in thinking. Dealing with problems of dialectical logic
P.V.Kopnin supported the notion of the specific nature of philosophical knowledge, which ran
counter to the official Marxist theory. The subject of the Marxist philosophy, according to
P.V.Kopnin was individual and his attitude to the world in general. This humanistic variant of
Marxism started its development in Kiev when P.V.Kopnin worked there and even after his
departure. As for the problems of dialectical logic, M.L.Zlotina (1921-2000) dealt with them
successfully at the Philosophy Institute of Ukraine. Today she is also referred to as a founder of
the Kiev Philosophy School.
In 1968 when P.V.Kopnin left for Moscow V.I.Shinkaruk (1928-2001) became the head of the
Philosophy Institute under the Ukraine Academy of Science. It was he who, according to
V.G.Tabachkovsky conducted the ‘anthropological shift’ in the work of the Kiev Philosophy
School. We should underline that today Ukrainian philosophy historians consider V.I.Shinkaruk
but not P.V.Kopnin to be the real founder of the Kiev Philosophy School, which focused on the
problem of ‘man and world’ and took interest in individual as the personality, individuality with
all his feelings, worries, etc. Studying history of the Kiev Philosophy School today’s Ukrainian
philosophers try to prove that this School continued ‘humanistic traditions of Ukrainian
philosophizing’ but at the same time they ignore the fact that the School was mainly Russianspeaking. Moreover, that tradition in philosophy where the Kiev Philosophy School at present is
being built in was also Russian-speaking as it was developed at the time when Ukrainian and
Russian philosophic thought was united.
However, we can observe the urge to tear out certain prominent figures from the All-Russian
context and to call them ‘genuine Ukrainian philosophers’.1 First of all we mean P.D.Yurkevich
____________________
1 In this connection we should mention authors of Ukrainian reference books where Soviet philosopher P.V.Kopnin
who was born in the Moscow region was called not only Ukrainian but also Russian philosopher.
(1826-1874), who was born in the Poltava province, graduated from the Kiev Cleric Academy
and after a short period of teaching in Kiev he was invited as a Professor to the Moscow
University. He made a serious impact on V.S.Soloviev and B.P.Vysheslavtsev and in Russia he
was considered a Russian idealist – philosopher, who developed ‘philosophy of heart’ following
suit of Slavophils.
But in Ukraine P.D.Yurkevich is described as a humanistic philosopher, who took after poet
Taras Shevchenko. In the same way Russian-speaking N.A.Berdyaev (1874-1948) and Lev
Shestov (1866-1938) were announced Ukrainian humanistic philosophers. N.A.Berdyaev and
Lev Shestov who were born in Kiev are characterized by Ukrainian philosophy historians as a
certain stage in the development of the Ukrainian type of philosophizing (‘humanism of the late
19th and early 20th century’). Humanistic and existentialist tunes in works of these thinkers
according to this historic and philosophic interpretation heralded the Kiev Philosophy School of
the second half of the 20th century.2
We should underline the fact that today’s Ukrainian philosophers pay special attention to
P.Yurkevich’s understanding of human individuality, which to a certain extend forestalls
western existentialism. Nowadays in Ukraine dissertations are defended in the Ukrainian
language which compare views of P.Yurkevich and S.Kierkegaard, P.Yurkevich and E.Gusserl
and others. In this light the Kiev Philosophy School of the 1970-80-s assessed by criteria of the
early 21st century is called ‘world-outlook – anthropologic’ school whose core is ‘existentialist
anthropology’. According to V.Tabachkovsky (1944-2006) who headed the sector of philosophic
anthropology in the Philosophy Institute under the Ukrainian Academy of Science after the
downfall of the Soviet Union, the program of world-outlook – anthropologic reorientation of
philosophizing developed in the USSR by V.I.Shinkaruk initiated the study of world-outlook as a
way of self-determination of man in the structure of social being.3
But taking into account the fact that existentialist trend in the Kiev Philosophy School
corresponded to ideas of some of its representatives we should bear in mind that it came into
being within the frames of Marxist tradition. Thus it would be better to listen to those Ukrainian
philosophers who characterize the Kiev Philosophy School as a result of synthesis of Marxism
and existentialism. To be more precise we can say that the Kiev Philosophy School was an
attempt to renew Marxism under the influence of neo-classical philosophizing in general. Both
Marxism and neo-classical philosophy starting from A.Schopenhauer and S.Kierkegaard
opposed philosophic classics and Hegel in particular. But this criticism came from different
positions and reached different results. For example, Marxism was a stranger to irrationalism and
individualism, on the basis of which existentialists and philosophers of life began their
opposition to Hegel.
The majority of present Ukrainian philosophy historians would like to show the Kiev Philosophy
School as something genuinely Ukrainian but at the same time consonant with western
existentialism. But textual analysis of the School’s legacy testifies that its initial point was
Marxism. Bringing Marxism and neo-classic philosophy closer representatives of the Kiev
Philosophy School were inspired by K. Marx works and first of all ‘Philosophic Manuscripts of
1844’ which were published rather late and provided an opportunity to find new focuses in his
books.
_______________________________
2 See Yu.A.Melkov The Kiev Philosophy School, Main Ideas and Specific features.
3 After P.V.Kopnin and V.I. Shinkaruk the Philosophy Institute under the Ukrainian Academy of Science was
headed by Academician M.V.Popovich who still holds the position
The combined efforts of philosophers of the Philosophy Institute under the Ukrainian Academy
of Science were presented in monographs and collections of articles published by ‘Naukova
Dumka’ in 1970-80-s.4 The topics discussed in these books were typical of Marxist philosophy in
the USSR. They deal with the structure of world-outlook, the system of categories, cognition and
practice, personality shaping, etc. But changes in wording which allow us to speak about specific
features of the Kiev Philosophy School are very important.
Both representatives of neo-classic philosophy and some Kiev philosophers of the 1970-80-s
opposed Hegel’s ideas. V.G.Tabachkovsky who was mentioned repeatedly spoke about
‘hyperactivity’ inherited by Marxism from German classics and underestimation of ‘various
essence layers which could hardly be reduced only to social functions.’5 Of course,
V.G.Tabachkovsky’s works of the 1970-80-s could not advance such ideas, but even they
criticized such notions as ‘activity epistemology’ and ‘culture epistemologization’ that were
rooted in Hegel’s rationalism, according to the author. In the monograph ‘Criticism of Idealistic
Interpretations of Practice’ V.G.Tabachkovsky accused Hegel of calling science but not
everyday life the real sphere of human existence.6 Identifying idealism with rationalism he wrote
that relations of man and world in idealism were reduced to relations of subject and object.7 It is
only natural that K. Marx supported the positions of those who saw the initial point of
philosophy in studying ‘life stand of concrete individuals’.
Similar to Russian thinkers of the 19th century who were strongly attracted by neo-classic
philosophy V.G.Tabachkovsky sympathized with F. Schelling who could turn away from
‘epistemological distortion’ when all types of activity are described through cognitive attitude to
understanding of man as live integrity. F. Schelling of the later period was more convincing that
Hegel, according to V.G.Tabachkovsky, but even at earlier stages F. Schelling with his romantic
pan-aesthethicism forewarned of ‘existentialist shift’ when practice opposes intellect and we can
observe a return to the forgotten individual ‘Ego’.8
Viewpoints of V.G.Tabachkovsky are described so thoroughly as his arguments can illustrate the
stresses used in world philosophy and Marxism by the vanguard of the Kiev Philosophy School
of the 1970-80-s. This version of Marxism differed both from the official one and from
P.V.Kopnin’s. As F. Schelling’s irrationalism is higher here than Hegel’s rationalism the idea of
‘practice’ is filled with over-rational or to be more precise pre-rational content. Practice is
already understood as everyday individual activity corresponding to pre-reflexive forms of world
perception and emotions. However, this interpretation of practice through pre-reflexive forms fits
the context of the discourse about Marxism having been extracted from and supported by works
of Marx and Lenin.
Other categories of Marxism undergo similar restructuring. Knowledge is not enough to shape
personality, this is the main idea of the Kiev Philosophy School. While official Marxism spoke
about scientific world-outlook acquiring which individual becomes not only a personality but
also a citizen with socially important goals, the ‘Kiev’ interpretation of world-outlook focuses on
‘practical and spiritual mastering the world’ when world-outlook aims precede scientific and
theoretical awareness and world-outlook level seems to be in-built in real life process. 9
________________________________
4
5
6
7
8
9
See Bibliography to the article
World-outlook Landmarks of Intellectual Culture, Kiev, 1993, p.18-19
See V.G.Tabachkovsky. Criticism of Idealistic Interpretation of Practice, Kiev, 1976, p.32
ibid p.86
ibid p.131-134
Category Structure of Cognition and Practice, Kiev, 1986, p.17-18
According to Kiev philosophers, it is probably world - perception and world - experience which
have certain advantages to scientific world outlook. K. Marx is shown as a philosopher who
rejected the abstract theory in favour of practice with in-built world-outlook that possesses as
practice itself spontaneity, individuality, pre-reflection, etc.
The most highly-qualified Marxists of the Kiev Philosophy Institute of that period V.P.Ivanov,
M.A.Bulatov were forced or may be inclined to work within the frames of dichotomia adopted in
the Kiev Philosophy School, which means specific against general, direct against indirect,
irrational against rational, etc. According to V.P.Ivanov who in the early 1980-s held the position
of Deputy Director of the Philosophy Institute under the Ukrainian Academy of Science,
philosophy and science are not the only ways to develop world-outlook. Knowledge is universal,
he wrote, beliefs are personal, knowledge is descriptive, beliefs are imperative, knowledge is
objective, beliefs are subjective and individual thus world-outlook should first of all express
‘purpose-of-life stand’.10
It is clear that the general direction of these thoughts about practice, world-outlook, culture was
determined by the head of the Philosophy Institute V.I.Shinkaruk who wrote: ‘Faith, hope,
dream, spiritual emotions (the positive evidence of all these feelings is love in the wide meaning
of this word) are extremely important categories of spiritual life of man and society and
therefore, spiritual culture’. 11 We should pay special attention to the title of the collection of
articles where this quotation was taken from. The title deals with categories of materialistic
dialectics which in Marxism meant such categories initiated by Hegel as something and nothing,
quality, quality, measure and so on up to possibility and reality. But the head of the Philosophy
Institute of Ukraine does not analyze categories of dialectics but certain ‘categories of spiritual
culture’. The same shift can be observed with the majority of Kiev Philosophy School
representatives who consider it as ’humanization’ of dialectic materialism problems. In the same
collection of articles we can read about categories as forms of spiritual and practical mastering
the reality, about categories of everyday consciousness which runs counter to ‘abstractepistemological’ approach to categories. S.B.Krymsky formulates the idea about possibility to
categorize reality in language before the start of labour activity of individual.12 A.I.Yazenko
writes that categories are not only the forms of thinking but also the forms of ‘consciousness in
general’ and this gives us an opportunity to speak about categories as extra-logical forms. 13
Interest to categories as extra-logical forms of mastering reality prevailed in works by
representatives of the Kiev Philosophy School of 1970-80-s. Being an expert of philosophic
classics M.A.Bulatov in his monograph of 1984 ‘Dialectics and Culture’ paid attention to the
fact that analyzing categories in connection with the issues of life ‘made Hegel overcome limits
of pure logic and introduce other, illogical types of categories’ 14 In 1986 V.G.Tabachkovsky
wrote about certain ‘practical categories’ which in contrast to theoretical categories were forms
of thinking that did not free themselves from links with visual ideas. 15 But the most paradoxical
judgments were put forwards by S.B.Krymsky in 1978 who in his anti-epistemological struggle
said that even philosophic categories were ‘concrete forms of world-perception’.16
___________________________
10 World-outlook Culture of Individual, Kiev, 1986, p.11-12
11 World-outlook Content of Categories and Laws of Materialistic Dialectics, Kiev, 1981, p.23
12 ibid p.232
13 ibid p.191-193
14 M.A.Bulatov. Dialectics and Culture, Kiev, 1984, p.133
15 Category Structure of Cognition and Practice, Kiev, 1986, p.18
16 Social, Historic and World-outlook Aspects of Philosophic Categories, Kiev, 1978, p.16
The absurd nature of S.B.Krymsky’s ideas can be seen not only in the fact that he called the
result of philosophic reflection a form of sensible perception.17 Today S.B.Krymsky whose 75th
anniversary was celebrated in the Philosophy Institute under the Ukrainian Academy of Science
is a philosopher and culturologist, an expert in Ukrainian spiritual culture. But some 30-35 years
ago he dealt with scientific research trying to introduce the methodology of the Kiev Philosophy
School which gave him a chance to identify cultural, historic and extra-logical foundations of
world categorization in science.
Here I would like to return to the two principle founders of the Kiev Philosophy School. We
should bear in mind that P.V.Kopnin directed Kiev philosophers to studying of scientific
cognition logics and scientific world-outlook. As for V.I.Shinkaruk, on his initiative nonscientific forms of world-outlook became the key research subjects for employees of the
Philosophy Institute under the Ukrainian Academy of Science. It does not mean that in the Kiev
Philosophy Institute there are no divisions that deal with philosophic problems of natural science
and science in general and publish books in ‘Naukova Dumka’. We cannot say for sure whether
they are still loyal to P.V.Kopnin’s line. It is more important to underline that among employees
of the Philosophy Institute a certain group of V.I.Shinkaruk’ followers was formed in 1970-80-s.
These people can be called the Kiev Philosophy School which became widely known in the
USSR. We can say that A.S.Kanarsky, theorist of Soviet aesthetics who graduated from the
Philosophy Faculty of the Kiev University and was brought up by expert in dialectic materialism
and philosophic problems of pedagogics V.A.Bosenko also belonged to this School though he
died very early.
In the end we would like to define the word ’activity’ as ‘activity’, as well as ‘world-outlook’
and ‘culture’ formed the basic vocabulary of the mentioned-above Kiev philosophers. The Kiev
Philosophy School interpreted practical activity mainly not as a joint integrated labour
(production) activity of people as it was accepted in Marxism but as an everyday activity of an
individual. At the same time Kiev philosophers paid special attention to the so-called ‘socialrelations’ content of this activity. The use of this term, which is not quite literary can extend the
unique characteristics of the School.
Practice as it was understood by representatives of the School is not just instrumental activity.
Instrumental activity as V.P.Ivanov tried to show to the author of this article in 1983 when he
was the official opponent at her dissertation defence was always deep in the system of social
relations, thus individual reproduces in his work not only the external object but also the
organization of relations in which his life takes place. But what are the preconditions of
adequacy of the social communications system to the world? If communication of people is
aimless activity will put barriers to adequate attitude to the world, other people and to yourself.
We cannot find the answer to this question in the works of this School’s representatives.
So we can say that the Kiev Philosophy School was an original phenomenon in Soviet
philosophy. We really mean Soviet philosophy which now belongs to history. It was an attempt
to overcome the limits of Marxism in understanding of practical activity, world-outlook, culture.
But only one way -out was available, i.e. synthesis of Marxism with western neo-classic
philosophy. Today we can assess the results of this work. Unfortunately, the School did not
develop the concept of activity. It is a program of action, sometimes controversial.
__________________________
17 It is unlikely that in 1978 Soviet philosopher S.B.Krymsky could mean mystic perception
In order to answer the question whether this program was unique we need to compare the stand
of the Kiev School with concepts of E.V.Ilienkov, G.P.Schedrovitsky, G.S.Batischev or may be
the ‘Pracsis’ Group in general, as well as J.P.Sartre and others which are based on the principle
of activity. But it will be the task of another article.
Bibliography:
1. Bulatov M.A. Categories of Philosophy and Categories of Culture, Kiev, 1984
2. Dialectics of Activity and Culture, Kiev, 1983
3. Laws and Principles of Materialistic Dialects, Kiev, 1989
4. Ivanov V.P. Human Activity – Cognition – Art, Kiev, 1977
5. Kanarsky A.S. Dialectics of Aesthetic Process, Kiev 2008
6. Category Structures of Cognition and Practice, Kiev, 1986
7. Categories of Dialectics, their Functions and Development, Kiev, 1980
8. Krymsky S.B., Kuznetsov V.I. World-outlook Categories in Current Natural Science,
Kiev, 1983
9. Krymsky S.B. Philosophy as a Way of Humanity and Hope, Kiev, 2000
10. World-outlook Culture of Personality: Philosophic Problems of Shaping, Kiev, 1986
11. World-outlook Landmarks of Thinking Culture, Kiev, 1993
12. World-outlook Content of Categories and Laws of Materialistic Dialectics, Kiev, 1981
13. Practice – Cognition – World-outlook, Kiev, 1980
14. Social, Historic and World-outlook Aspects of Philosophic categories, Kiev, 11978
15. Tabachkovsky V.G. Criticism of Idealistic Interpretations of Practice, Kiev, 1976
16. Tabachkovsky V.G. Anthropological Shift of Philosophers of the 1960-s (V.Shinkaruk).
Philosophic and Anthropologic Reading, 98, Kiev, 1999
17. Tabachkovsky V.G. Human World-Relation: Predetermination or Problem, Kiev, 1997
18. Philosophic Anthropology, Existential Problems, Kiev, 2000
19. Philosophic and Anthropologic Studio 2003. The Late Marxism and Today. 70-s
Anniversary of V.Ivanov, Kiev, 2003
20. Individual and World of Individual (Categories of ‘individual’ and ‘world’ in the system
of scientific world-outlook), Kiev, 1977
21. Yazenko A.I. Goal-Setting and Ideals, Kiev, 1997