The Monist, Vol. 1, 1890-1891 (part 4 of 4)
S. Hansen, taking our concepts and sensations as the data from which we have to start, discusses the problem of the reality of the outer world. He arrives at the conclusion, that "if there is a thing in itself, the phenomenon is only one side of it, viz, that side which it reveals. The thing in itself is the real world in which we live and of which we speak in daily life, although we know it only through phenomena, i. e. our concepts."
Max Dessoir presents a review of Experimental Patho-psychology as it has developed in the last decades through the extraordinary attention bestowed upon the phenomena of hypnotism and kindred subjects. He discusses experimental patho-psychology with special reference to the great problems of (1) consciousness, (2) the relation between feeling and motion, (3) memory, and (4) personality. The two former points are discussed in the first article, the two latter in the conclusion. Max Dessoir emphasises in this essay again his theory of the double ego which he proposed in his pamphlet, Das Doppel-Ich.
B. Kerry's article is the conclusion of a series of essays on intuition (i. e. apprehension or sensation) and its psychical transformation. The author distinguishes between subjective concepts and objective concepts. If I think for instance of all the grapes that will grow this year in Italy, I do not know in my subjective conception their definite number. It is a definite number nevertheless. This concept is the objective concept. He devotes much space to a discussion of the rigidity of Kant's aprioristic judgment 7+5=12. The most important point is ultimately how this judgment possesses necessity. The author observes that the theorems of arithmetic possess necessity while we cannot attribute necessity to the results of calculation. Our faculty of calculation, B. Kerry says, should be considered as aprioristic, or more correctly, it is a complex of primitive faculties, and these are: "our faculty to apprehend in some contents of our apprehension something else which is designated afterwards as a concept derived from that contents; that is our faculty of forming abstracts. Further our faculty of comparison and at last our faculty of combining and separating. These faculties are aprioristic in the psychological sense of the word, which to-day is not recognised, in the sense of being innate." The whole article is written in a heavy style and in extra-Teutonic constructions with innumerable dashes containing parenthetical sentences and other bewildering explanations. We have after all not been able to discover how the judgment 7+5=12 possesses necessity.
E. G. Husserl criticises the position of several modern logicians, Boole, Venn, Peirce, and especially E. Schroeder, who published in the Göttinger Gelehrten Anzeigen an article on the Logical Calculus. Husserl says that "the logic of the logical calculus is in a wretched condition still. Its advocates have attained to clearness neither concerning the limits of this discipline nor its relation to deductive logic and to arithmetic. The logical considerations upon which the technique is built, are as a rule of such a kind that they cannot bear the most superficial criticism. And this calculus pretends to be a thoroughly reformed and the truly exact logic. It is natural that among the logicians the more scientific upon the whole keep aloof here. However the logical foundation of arithmetic is just as weak, yet this does not suffice to discard it. I believe that logical algebra in spite of its limited practical applicability should not be underrated, and that it should be of high interest to the logician for the sake of its actual merits." In the struggle between the logic of circumference and the logic of contents, Husserl maintains that a calculus of pure deductions can be constructed upon the basis of operations which are strictly without any contents. (Leipsic: O. R. Reisland.)
Κ.
PHILOSOPHISCHE MONATSHEFTE. Vol. XXVII. Nos. 5 and 6.
CONTENTS:
WILHELM WUNDT'S "SYSTEM DER PHILOSOPHIE." By Johannes Volkelt.
DIE DAENISCHE PHILOSOPHIE DES LETZTEN JAHRZEHNTS. By Knud Ipsen.
RECENSIONEN.
LITTERATURBERICHT.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE. By Prof. Dr. F. Ascherson.
Johannes Volkelt criticises in a long article Wundt's System der Philosophie. We do not have the work under discussion at hand, but judging simply from the quotations made in the present article, we can confidently say that Volkelt has misunderstood Wundt's position. We shall here confine ourselves to one point only which is of paramount importance, and Johannes Volkelt fully appreciates its importance. This point is the problem, "Can we have any objective knowledge at all?" This is the way we should formulate the question. Volkelt, however, asks whether the trans-subjective can successfully be made object of our cognition. It is maintained that there is a trace of naïve Realism left in Wundt, because his trans-subjectivism remains unproven, and subject and object are treated as inseparably connected. Wundt says: "As soon as we make the erroneous proposition that the object of our perception is only a perception, we shall in vain try to get somehow out from our subjective perception and to regain in some way the lost object." This idea is objected to. Also the following passages are quoted from Wundt: "Reality once destroyed cannot be restored merely through pure thought," and "the theory of cognition has not to create reality from elements that do not as yet contain it." We agree perfectly with Wundt and have expressed similar ideas in the article "The Origin of Mind," No. 1 of The Monist. Perception is a relation between object and subject. It is an error of idealism to consider the subject alone as given. The data of experience are states of subject-object-ness. The idea of mere subjectivity is as much an abstraction as the idea of things in themselves. Accordingly the term "trans-subjective" is a misnomer. All perceptions being impressions of objects and serving as symbols for their correspondent objects contain an objective element. As soon as we disregard this truth, we shut ourselves up in the hollow globe of pure ideality; objectivity becomes an unwarrantable assumption and there is no way out of our own subjectivism.
Knud Ipsen sketches the history of the Danish philosophy during the last ten years. He mentions five philosophers, Höffding, Kroman, Wilkens, Lehmann, and Starcke, among whom Höffding is by far the most prominent. All the Danish philosophers have one feature in common. Kroman made a distinction between philosophy and world-conception; philosophy should make such propositions only as can be logically proven, not otherwise than theories have to be proven in the sciences. Yet a world-conception is the work mainly of our emotion and imagination. Accordingly philosophy and world-conception are two distinct things which have nothing in common. This position seems to be generally accepted by the Danish philosophers, and as a natural consequence Ipsen says, we can speak no more of "philosophy," but only of philosophical disciplines. The unity of philosophy, its ideal of system is lost. Metaphysics is dead in Denmark and the search for the universal laws of existence is also given up. Philosophy has ceased to be the science of the sciences and has become an aggregate of scientific disciplines. On this point there is a tacit agreement so that there is no "useless struggle about great and insolvable problems," and since Höffding wrote on the relation between faith and science, our Danish philosophers also shun all theological interference. A division of labor has taken place so that psychology has been treated by Höffding, Kroman, and Lehmann, Ethics by Höffding and Starcke, Logic by Höffding and Kroman, Sociology by Wilkens and Starcke, and Æsthetics by Wilkens.
Professor Höffding and Kroman in spite of their consensus in rejecting the unity of philosophy represent a very strong contrast, which is best characterised by their method of treating the law of causation. Kroman rejects all the former evidences employed to prove the law of cause and effect. Empiricism is wrong because it can at best show the temporal succession of two phenomena, and apriorism is wrong because a priori knowledge lies in the subject alone and not in the object. In causation, however, the objects play an important part, and we can never know whether the objects will always conform to the subjective and a priori laws. Kroman's view of the subject is that the causal law is the sole condition by which we can acquire any knowledge at all, accordingly for the sake of self-preservation we hope that this condition will be fulfilled. The causal law accordingly is not only the condition of all knowledge, it is also the postulate with which we have to start.
Höffding attacks the problem in a different way. He asks first: "How do we come at all to a reality supposed to be independent of the subject?" and "What is the import of this reality?" Reality according to Höffding is not yet given in sense-perception, we arrive at the idea of reality not until our sense-perceptions are arranged in a coherent system. If I see a picture at the wall, this may be an hallucination, but if my sense of touch corroborates the perception of sight, I consider it as a reality. Thus the idea of reality originates and this reality is not distinguishable from a coherent and self-consistent dream. To the dreamer his dream is reality. Now the question of causality is not legitimate, whether things conform to the law of causation, for indeed we know things only by their being causes or effects. The main function of our consciousness is to recognise similarities and dissimilarities, it searches for unity and this search is performed through the application of the causal law. Höffding accordingly considers both ideas, the causal nexus and reality, as being of the same value. His causal law is more than a postulate, it is in part a result. Our organ of cognition would die of atrophy if it were not constantly nourished, and we should share the fate of Tantalus were we condemned to investigate and always unable to discover.
Kroman looks upon the law of inertia as a special application of the causal law. To him the conservation of matter and energy is an hypothesis. Höffding looks upon the law of inertia as a material principle. Where Kroman speaks of energy, Höffding speaks of corporeal energy. (It may be that here the German translation körperliche Kraft is at fault.) As a material principle the law of inertia is something more than a mere corollary of the causal law, for in its present form it has made science possible. The conservation of matter and energy is conceived in an analogous manner, but considered as natural laws both propositions possess a mere hypothetical value.
It appears to us that the law of cause and effect lies deeper still, and there can be no doubt that the law of the conservation of matter and energy is the same thing only formulated for different purposes. Hume's merit was exceedingly great when he laid his finger on the sore spot of philosophical thought, pointing out the prevailing confusion about the law of causation. But when investigating the subject, he led us on a wrong track. Cause and effect are not two objects following one another, and not even two phenomena following one another. It is not a synthesis of two events. It is on the contrary an analysis of one event. Cause and effect is a change. In this change the same amount of matter and energy is preserved, yet the form is altered. Hume broke the process of cause and energy into pieces, he lost sight of their interconnection and was astonished that one piece was not exactly the same as the other. Hence his skepticism.
The law of cause and effect can be proved, except to him who would obstinately refuse to acknowledge the law of identity that A=A. There may be some one who thinks that something can come out of nothing, or that something can suddenly disappear into nothing. If there is, the weight of the argument rests with him, yet we shall not listen to him until he presents an unequivocal case in which we can observe a transition from being into not-being or vice versa. Until then we consider the law of identity and also its practical application and corollary, the conservation of matter and energy as unrefuted.
The law of cause and effect and its corollary the conservation of matter and energy rest ultimately upon our recognition of the Gesetzmässigkeit of formal laws. He who acknowledges the correctness of the statement "2×2=4" as universal and necessary, implicitly accepts also the law of causation and of the conservation of matter and energy. The law of the conservation of matter and energy contains no other proposition than this that 2×2 will always be 2×2 or its product, i. e. 4; it will never be less, it will never be more.
The ultimate basis of the law of causation lies in the laws of form. We may call causality and the law of inertia and the conservation of matter and energy hypotheses, but in that case the meaning of the term hypothesis would have to be changed, for if these laws are hypotheses, the statement 2×2=4 would be just as much an hypothesis.
* * * * *
In psychology Kroman and Höffding are more antagonistic than in any other subject. Both consider the soul as an x, but Kroman attributes to this x, unity and the faculty of feeling, willing and thinking; Höffding however looks upon feeling and motion as two sides of the same unknown object. Kroman in spite of his formal opposition to metaphysicism still believes in a subject underlying the acts of consciousness. After all, the name only of metaphysicism seems to be dead in Denmark, not metaphysicism itself. Höffding has shown how Kroman's psychological theory has led him into a highly mythical conception of the activity of the soul.
We may add that the proposition of non-interference with theological views may be excellent in preserving peace, but we cannot help considering this kind of peace as a mistaken policy. If there are conflicts between theology and philosophy, they should be settled, for there cannot be two contradictory truths, and it is wrong also to leave errors alone simply for the sake of peace. Yet it is objected that religion is a matter of the heart and philosophy a matter of the brain. Certainly, but the heart should have its emotion regulated by the brain. If our world-conception is the product mainly of our emotions and of our imagination, it would be simply foolish to let the heart build its world-conception just as it pleases without consulting the head. Wherever philosophy and religion or our world-conception (the latter considered as the product of our emotion) have nothing to say to each other, wherever they are kept distinct, it will lead to confusion in all the departments of our existence, it will put our philosophy, our scientific thought, and our ethics out of joint. A rent will go through the world of our life producing disharmony in every spot and the end will be a dreary pessimism. Our emotions are not a separate chamber of our being which should be kept private and unaffected by scientific knowledge, our emotions are springs of action, and it is of paramount importance to keep them in harmony with our knowledge of facts. The policy of theological non-interference may do for some time, but certainly not long. It is a mere armistice but no peace, and honest war is better than a sham-truce which is an ill-concealed state of intolerable hostility. (Heidelberg: G. Weiss.)
κρς.
VOPROSUI FILOSOFII I PSICHOLOGII. Vol. II. No. 3. March, 1891.
CONTENTS:
SCHILLER'S DOCTRINE OF BEAUTY AND ÆSTHETICAL ENJOYMENT. By P. Kalenov.
ON THE NATURE OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. (Conclusion.) By Prince C. N. Trubetzkoi.
IDEALS AND REALITY. By B. V. A. Golzev.
LETTERS ON COUNT L. N. TOLSTOI'S BOOK "OF LIFE." (Continuation.) By A. A. Kozlov.
RELIGIOUS METAPHYSICS OF THE MOSLEM ORIENT. A Sketch. By C. Umanetz.
THE MORALITY OF MENTALLY DISEASED PERSONS. Ethics Of Mental Diseases. By V. Tchij.
CRITICISM AND BIBLIOGRAPHY. 1) Introduction to the history of the new philosophy. Problems of history and of the history of philosophy. The significance of ancient and mediæval philosophy. By N. Grote.
2) The ideals of most recent Ethics. A review of W. Wundt's "Eine Untersuchung der Thatsachen und Gesetze des sittlichen Lebens." By A. Bao.
REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PERIODICALS.
BOOK REVIEWS. Russian and foreign books on Methodology, Logic, Psychology, Psycho-pathology and Philosophy of history.
POLEMICS ON N. N. LANGE'S ARTICLE. By E. Tchelpanov.
APPENDIX: 1) Materials for the history of philosophy in Russia. 1855-1888. (Continuation.) Y. Kohibovsky. 2) Bibligraphical Index. 3) Proceedings of The Psychological Society.
Schiller's Doctrine of Beauty and Æsthetical Enjoyment. The nations of western Europe have been long familiar with Schiller's doctrine of beauty and of æsthetical enjoyment; but one must agree with the writer, that it is still a subject that has not outlived, probably never will outlive, that unfading freshness and deep interest which it ever must possess to all cultured and thinking minds. The writer, moreover, calls attention to the fact, that as regards Russia, Schiller, although well-known as a poet, is too little known as a philosopher.
On the Nature of Consciousness. Concluding his series of articles on the nature of human consciousness with an internal analysis of consciousness, the writer remarks, that without having recourse to the testimony of hypnotic experiments or to the phenomenon of so-called "mental suggestion," which so conspicuously demonstrates the reciprocal compenetration of the individual sphere of consciousness, we find a constant, normal, and substantial bond between that which constitutes and conditions the whole accord or harmony of the spiritual life of individual man; because, if from our individual consciousness this vital bond is removed which unites us to other consciousnesses, to the preceding as well as the following ones; if there is removed from our individual consciousness the connection and partnership of all succession, of all that is suggested and suggestible, it will lose both form and contents, and be turned into nothing.... We know that man is the heir of the work of previous races, of their organisation and feeling. All human feelings,—the results of adaptation,—all the instincts and appetites are precisely just as our organs, they are our psycho-physical organisation. Feeling is the original basis of individual consciousness; and thus, in consciousness itself, in our feeling itself,—we are able to disclose several radical, universal elements. We, unaccountably, attribute every reality to particular feelings, and we cannot imagine that these peculiarities depend exclusively upon our subjective individual feeling, on our own eyes and ears. Light, warmth, hardness, sound, colors are naïvely conceived within our consciousness, irrespective of the objective properties of the things themselves. Usually we suppose that the sun shines, the sea roars, flowers are fragrant simply through our personal presumption. We do not understand that our own feelings experience certain sensations in the presence of the given phenomena.... If we now conceive that all sensation presupposes something that is sentient; it is clear that feeling, as conditioning the perception of the material world, cannot be merely subjective. Recognising the objective reality of the material world, we presuppose anthropomorphically a general feeling. The elements of which the external world consists correspond to the fundamental aspects of sensation and to the elements of sense. A sensual universe, in so far as we recognise its objectivity, presupposes a universal sense, with which our own individual sensation must be connected. In reference to the analysis of moral consciousness the writer refers the reader to the works of Kant. If there is a solidarity of myself with all things, then it is clear that I am bound to live up to it. As in a general way I am conscious of the existence and reality of other beings, so I likewise feel an ideal, moral necessity of a common altruism, of a common and perfect love toward all. This general love is distinguished from natural inclination, and is contrary to it; this constitutes my bounden duty in my relation to all, and is a general ethical law. One cannot maintain that man knew this law a priori, because he was moral before and he knew it not. Still, it is less possible, that man knew this general and unconditional verity a posteriori—that he knew good without goodness, morals without morality. But, when man attains to a certain degree of self-knowledge, when he has detached himself from the omnipotent tyranny of prejudices, and of all traditional principles of congenital morals, then he grows conscious of this law, and finds it in himself. This law is not anything external to us, but it is deposited within us. In just the same proportion as we recognise the law of causality, we shall also recognise the moral law. Reason itself is compelled to arouse in us conscience,—theoretical consciousness awakens ethical consciousness.
The law of causality is a formal law, that does not impart to us any real cognition; it is, precisely, the form of our knowledge. The ethical law, the law of the general solidarity of ethical aims, does not presuppose this form without contents, but presupposes an ideal content, the true essence of a common general consciousness, as something that unconditionally must be. Its sanction is not in the formal agreement of individual beings, but in their being in a necessary, ideal union.
Man is conscious of the fact that he cannot attain the ethical ideal through himself only. He must seek for it in perfect love. Only a perfect and all-comprehensive love can atone and justify man. But this love is not a natural instinct of man, but a grace, independent of man, which is acquired by faith. This faith itself is already a fact of love, and by those who believe, it is conceived as a manifestation of grace.
Letters on Tolstoï's book "Of Life." The writer of these letters on Count Tolstoï's book "Of Life" undertakes an analysis of the peculiar philosophical truths and errors which it contains. He points out the method employed by Tolstoï and the causes of his contradictions and errors. By so doing he hopes in conclusion to formulate the theory of the philosophical system to which belongs the work itself.
The writer first calls his correspondent's attention to Tolstoï's positive statement to the effect, that "the world is subordinated to the law of reason—in the heavenly bodies, in animals and plants. This law, without our own interference, prevails throughout all creation, and within ourselves we know this law, and are obliged to fulfil the same." Yet how does Count Tolstoï know that the whole world is subject to the law of reason? By virtue of the principle of cognition that was mooted in the writer's previous letter, we can know it with a degree of certitude only concerning ourselves. Tolstoï himself maintains, that "much less are we able to know anything about the external, material world which is subject to the laws of space and time." In other words, Tolstoï contradicts his own theory. As regards his other statement, his estimate of "true and false life," the two can only be reconciled by admitting certain other hypotheses that are manifestly contradictory to constant human experience, such as the gratuitous hypothesis that men who follow "the teaching of this world" and not that of wise men "do not live," they "exist" only. Tolstoï's theory, expressing a definition of life, would oblige us to turn our attention only to a few facts of immediate consciousness, but to ignore many others that are not subject to doubt. But, setting aside Tolstoï's peculiar theory of consciousness and cognition, the writer turns to the problem of the Ego, as the most important for the solution of the points involved in the present discussion.
In reply to this letter the writer regrets that he himself, having but little taste for deep philosophical discussion, finds it exceedingly difficult to defend Count Tolstoï's views against attacks such as those of Mr. Kozlov. Still, it seems to him that Mr. Kozlov in his whole analysis of Tolstoï's book seeks to evade the main question; namely, Can we call a human life a life so long as men tear each other to pieces like wild beasts?
Tolstoï's critic in conclusion asks, what, precisely, ought to be understood by life? In his reply, after investigating the nature of the Ego, Mr. Kozlov concludes: Man, according to Tolstoï, is only a collective term. It is no more than a name for groups of a few special objects, in their arbitrary relation to a totality. These collective objects are purely entia rationis, as the names forest, river, army, crowd, etc. This collective subject is called man. Matter, in Tolstoï's metaphysics, represents the only element, the reality and substantiality of which is not subject to the least doubt. Matter is uncreated and indestructible, it remains identical with itself, constantly through motion combining itself into different aggregates called bodies. In the formation of the living body, matter serves as the basis, on which exist other subjects, that also constitute man, by Tolstoï called "animal personalities." This subject, in its functions and manifestations answers to that which is usually called man, and with Tolstoï it has a doubtful substantiality. Thus, although man is indefinitely continued, preserved through reproduction, and constantly renewed in fresh specimens, still this subject might disappear, be destroyed, for example, by a catastrophe happening to the terrestrial globe. On the other hand, this subject arose in time. At all events, all that is individual, existing in the separate specimens of the human race, disappears, is destroyed at the physical death of the individual, animal body. Consciousness belongs to this animal personality; it exists in time, and is subject to the laws of time. On the soil and foundation of this animal individuality there arises a third existence that enters into the composition of man, namely—reason or rational consciousness. This element displays the character of substance in a much higher degree than animal personality. Like matter it is uncreated, indestructible, and eternal. But eternity of reason is distinguished from eternity of matter in this, that reason is not subject to the laws of time and space, to which matter is subject notwithstanding its eternity. Yet here we have an unavoidable combination of two conceptions of eternity,—the one as endless time, the other as absence of time, which means that the idea of time should not be attributed to it at all. Reason, according to Tolstoï, is not particular and individual, but purely universal and common. It does not possess a detached or transcendental being. (Moscow, March, 1891.)
γλν.
TRANSCRIBER'S CORRECTIONS
page original text correction 12 in correllation with in correlation with 27 one hundred cubic millemetres one hundred cubic millimetres 41 by the maintainance of by the maintenance of 67 by the concept of of the I by the concept of the I 82 often used as synomyms, often used as synonyms, 89 annointed with oil and soot, anointed with oil and soot, 133 and such mistatements as and such misstatements as 173 that of Arided (α Cycni), that of Arided (α Cygni), 208 in the seventeeth chapter in the seventeenth chapter 225 employd some decades ago employed some decades ago 265 dispute it acumen dispute its acumen 301 world-conception or are ligion world-conception or a religion 315 seats in both ears. seats in both ears." 425 border on imbecilty, border on imbecility, 467 ANALYSES ET COMTES RENDUS. ANALYSES ET COMPTES RENDUS. 477 There trenscendentalists There transcendentalists 559 her life ends in insaniyt. her life ends in insanity. 566 the German poets critiicise the German poets criticise 574 an historial point of view an historical point of view 585 (Sankrit) mânas (Sanskrit) mânas 590 Weil et Maurice, Pub. Weill et Maurice, Pub. 624 Nr. Nichols's final conclusion Mr. Nichols's final conclusion 631 affords some difficulty. affords some difficulty."