Does psychology need stars of Spinoza?

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


The article is a response to the article of E.E. Sokolova (bprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 6) which, on the one hand, states that approaches of N.I. Chuprikova (Ntoprosy psikhologii. 2016. N 6) and IA Mironenko (Voprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 1) have nothing to do with the ideas of B. Spinoza, and, on the other hand, considers spinozism as an underlying philosophical basis of A.N. Leontiev's school. It's stated that it's hardly possible to have a claim on the only authentic interpretation of B. Spinoza's doc-trine. Considering its vagueness and even contradictions it can be understood as a neutral monistic, dual-aspect, materialistic or even idealistic system. It's asserted that spinozism can't help in dealing with problems of psychology because there is no uniform understanding how to put its ideas into scientific practice. The article also criticizes E.E. Sokolova's opinion that T. Hobbes' theory is only a reduced version of cartesianism. It argues instead that it's B. Spinoza who has more in common with the doctrine of R. Descartes. It's also noticed that the birth of nonclassical psychology and nonclassical physics may be related with the "turn to Spinoza". But as M. Paty warns, we have to be very careful both while interpreting philosophical theory in terms of contemporary conceptions and while trying to find justification of a given philosophical idea in contemporary science.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)105-112
Number of pages8
JournalVoprosy Psikhologii
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2018


  • B. Spinoza
  • Classical psychology
  • Post-nonclassical psychology
  • R. Descartes



State classification of scientific and technological information

  • 15.21 General psychology


Dive into the research topics of 'Does psychology need stars of Spinoza?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this