The methods of abstraction and idealization are commonly viewed as basic to both the natural and the social sciences. Since the 1970s, they have also been a focus of attention in the philosophy and methodology of science. However, their nature as methods, i.e., sequences of instructions, has not been adequately explicated. The paper attempts to capture the core of these methods in the sense of simplified sequences of instructions. The proposal is illustrated in a reconstruction of the application of both methods in economics as a representative of the social sciences., Metody abstrakce a idealizace jsou běžně považovány za základní pro přírodní i společenské vědy. Od sedmdesátých let se pozornost věnuje také filozofii a metodologii vědy. Jejich povaha jako metody, tj. Sekvence instrukcí, nebyla dostatečně vysvětlena. Příspěvek se pokouší zachytit jádro těchto metod ve smyslu zjednodušených sekvencí instrukcí. Návrh je ilustrován rekonstrukcí aplikace obou metod v ekonomii jako zástupce společenských věd., and Juraj Halas
In this review essay, Juraj Halas discusses the book „Rehabilitovat Marxe!“ by Jan Mervart and Jiří Růžička, which represents a formidable attempt at mapping and systematizing the development of Marxist philosophy in Czechoslovakia from 1953 to 1969. In their efforts at an “analytical archaeology” of post-Stalinist thought, they identify a range of central tendencies among thinkers who aimed to rehabilitate Marxist philosophy in the postwar period. “Dialectical determinism” was associated with the likes of Josef Cibulka and Jindřich Zelený and focused on ontological or methodological issues. “Marxist humanism” was a current with a heavy philosophical-anthropological focus, represented, e.g., by Karel Kosík. Conversely, the “techno-optimism” of Radovan Richta and his associates was preoccupied with forces of production and the “scientific-technological revolution.” Finally, “legal philosophy,” as propounded by figures such as Zdeněk Mlynář, František Šamalík, and Miroslav Kusý, was set on providing a critical account of modern political institutions and their relation to civil society. Mervart and Růžička associate these four currents with distinct, if overlapping, clusters of philosophical categories. In addition to providing an in-depth analysis of these now largely forgotten contributions to Czechoslovak Marxism, the book offers useful insights into their limits – for example, in terms of their relation to state socialism, (inter)nationalism, and gender. In this review, Halas draws critical attention to a noteworthy omission: Ota Šik’s critique of the “political economy of socialism.” He shows that Šik’s approach satisfies Mervart and Růžička’s own criteria for inclusion. It was specifically post-Stalinist, it was to a large extent philosophical in nature, and it cannot be reduced to any of the other tendencies discussed in the book. Moreover, it was subject to the same kinds of limitations identified in the authors’ analysis of the other four currents. In this sense, Halas’s essay serves to confirm the heuristic import of their approach.