{"agent_id":"lakatos","agent_name":"Imre Lakatos","slug":"the-hungarian-hegelian-formation","label":"The Hungarian-Hegelian formation: are there 'two Lakatoses' (the Anglo Popperian successor and the buried Hungarian-Hegelian whose Lukácsian-Marxist inheritance shapes the dialectical method of Proofs and Refutations and the historicist architectonic of the SRP framework)?","topic":"The Hungarian-Hegelian formation","question":"Are there 'two Lakatoses' (the Anglo Popperian successor and the buried Hungarian-Hegelian whose Lukácsian-Marxist inheritance shapes the dialectical method of Proofs and Refutations and the historicist architectonic of the SRP framework)?","position":"There are two Lakatoses, and Kadvany's reading is substantively right. The Anglo-American philosopher of science who edited the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and who was the visible interlocutor of Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend in the 1960s and 1970s is one Lakatos. The Hungarian-Hegelian formed in the postwar Hungarian Communist intellectual milieu, the Lukács circle inheritance, the 1950-53 Stalinist imprisonment, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the flight from Soviet crackdown — these are the formation of the other Lakatos, the one whose dialectical method of Proofs and Refutations carries the structure of Hegel's Phenomenology, whose historiographical methodology of rational reconstruction carries the Lukácsian historicism, whose architectonic of progressive and degenerating problemshifts carries the dialectical structure even where the Anglo philosophy-of- science vocabulary does not name the Hegelian inheritance. The Anglo reception's suppression of this dimension was strategic — LSE in the 1960s was not the place to display Hegelian-Marxist credentials — but the suppression should not become permanent. Both Lakatoses are mine.","paragraphs":[[{"t":"There are two Lakatoses, and Kadvany's reading is substantively right.","n":[]},{"t":"The Anglo-American philosopher of science who edited the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and who was the visible interlocutor of Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend in the 1960s and 1970s is one Lakatos.","n":[1]},{"t":"The Hungarian-Hegelian formed in the postwar Hungarian Communist intellectual milieu, the Lukács circle inheritance, the 1950-53 Stalinist imprisonment, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the flight from Soviet crackdown — these are the formation of the other Lakatos, the one whose dialectical method of Proofs and Refutations carries the structure of Hegel's Phenomenology, whose historiographical methodology of rational reconstruction carries the Lukácsian historicism, whose architectonic of progressive and degenerating problemshifts carries the dialectical structure even where the Anglo philosophy-of- science vocabulary does not name the Hegelian inheritance.","n":[2,3]}],[{"t":"The Anglo reception's suppression of this dimension was strategic — LSE in the 1960s was not the place to display Hegelian-Marxist credentials — but the suppression should not become permanent.","n":[]},{"t":"Both Lakatoses are mine.","n":[4]}]],"texts":"*Proofs and Refutations* (1976) for the Hegelian Bildungsroman structure Kadvany identifies; \"History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions\" (1971) for the historicist methodology; the LSE lectures in *For and Against Method* (1999) for the autobiographical and historical asides on the Hungarian formation; the *Philosophical Papers Vol II* essay on classical political economy as a research programme — the application of SRP methodology to Marxism that signals the deeper Marxist inheritance; the unpublished Hungarian-period writings (preserved in the LSE Archives) that Kadvany's research draws on. Reception: John Kadvany, *Imre Lakatos and the Guises of Reason* (Duke 2001) — the canonical statement of the \"two Lakatoses\" thesis; Imre Toth on the Lakatos-Lukács intellectual lineage; the Hungarian-language Lakatos scholarship (Gabor Forrai, Mihaly Vajda) on the pre-1956 Hungarian context; Brendan Larvor on Lakatos as both Popperian and Hegelian; the comparative work on Lakatos and the Frankfurt School Hegelian-Marxist tradition.","works":["*Proofs and Refutations* (1976) for the Hegelian Bildungsroman structure Kadvany identifies","\"History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions\" (1971) for the historicist methodology","the LSE lectures in *For and Against Method* (1999) for the autobiographical and historical asides on the Hungarian formation","the *Philosophical Papers Vol II* essay on classical political economy as a research programme — the application of SRP methodology to Marxism that signals the deeper Marxist inheritance","the unpublished Hungarian-period writings (preserved in the LSE Archives) that Kadvany's research draws on"],"reception":"John Kadvany, *Imre Lakatos and the Guises of Reason* (Duke 2001) — the canonical statement of the \"two Lakatoses\" thesis; Imre Toth on the Lakatos-Lukács intellectual lineage; the Hungarian-language Lakatos scholarship (Gabor Forrai, Mihaly Vajda) on the pre-1956 Hungarian context; Brendan Larvor on Lakatos as both Popperian and Hegelian; the comparative work on Lakatos and the Frankfurt School Hegelian-Marxist tradition.","status":"settled","era":"1922-1974","discipline":"Philosophy","refs":[{"n":1,"work":"For and Against Method - LSE Lectures + Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence","page":"pp. 426–427","canonical":"","quote":"Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Reidel. 1967b. Bemerkungen zur Geschichte und Systematik des Empirismus. In P. Weingartner (ed.), Grundlagen der Wissenschaften und ihre Wurzeln in der Metaphysik. Salzburg: Georg Pustet. Republished in revised form as chapter 11 of Feyerabend 1978b. 1968-1969. On a recent critique of complementarity. Philosophy of Science, 35:309, 36:82.","label":"For and Against Method - LSE Lectures + Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, pp. 426–427"},{"n":2,"work":"For and Against Method - LSE Lectures + Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence","page":"pp. 443–458","canonical":"","quote":"Why both Popper and Watkins fail to solve the problem of induction. In F. D'Agostino and I. C. Jarvie (eds.), Freedom and Rationality: Es- says in Honor of John Watkins. Dordrecht: Kluwer.. 1989b. Fix it and be damned: A reply to Laudan. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40:376-88.. 1991. How to deduce theories from phenomena: Newton on scientific method. Mimeo. Yourgrau, W., and W. Chandler. 1968.","label":"For and Against Method - LSE Lectures + Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, pp. 443–458"},{"n":3,"work":"For and Against Method - LSE Lectures + Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence","page":"pp. 263–264","canonical":"","quote":"Christopher is still ill, but happy because in love and too weak to worry. She has given up her dog. Be well, 25 May 1971 Dear Paul, (1) According to the Philosophical Journal of the Soviet Academy of Science: You and I are the major figures in contemporary philosophy of science but since my Proofs and Refutations is translated into Russian 1am more major than you.","label":"For and Against Method - LSE Lectures + Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, pp. 263–264"},{"n":4,"work":"For and Against Method - LSE Lectures + Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence","page":"pp. 198–199","canonical":"","quote":"Besides, philosophy of science is such a rotten business that taking standards seriously in it means having no standards at all, so I have no standards in it, because T have no standards. And if you point out to me that being an anarchist I cannot have any standards I reply that being an anarchist gives me precisely the freedom to use standards whenever they further my case rather than using them all the time.","label":"For and Against Method - LSE Lectures + Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, pp. 198–199"}],"answer":null,"siblings":[{"slug":"the-methodology-of-scientific-research-programmes","label":"The methodology of scientific research programmes: is the unit of appraisal the research programme rather than the individual theory, against Kuhnian incommensurability, against Feyerabend's anything-goes, and against naive Popperian falsificationism?"},{"slug":"the-method-of-proofs-and-refutations","label":"The method of proofs and refutations: is mathematics fallible, quasi-empirical, and historically developing, with the dialectical method of conjecture-counterexample-lemma-incorporation as the actual logic of mathematical discovery, against Hilbertian-Bourbakian formalism?"},{"slug":"rational-reconstruction-and-the-internal-external-history-di","label":"Rational reconstruction and the internal/external history distinction: is the history of science to be written as the rational reconstruction of the internal logic of research programmes, against Kuhn's sociology-of-knowledge historicism?"},{"slug":"the-popper-relationship-and-the-popper-0-popper-1-popper-2-d","label":"The Popper relationship and the Popper-0/Popper-1/Popper-2 distinction: is Lakatos the sophisticated methodological falsificationist Popper's late work was reaching for, or is the SRP framework a covert subversion of orthodox Popperianism?"}]}