Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Similar documents
Biography of S.L. Frank. Reasoning by S.L. Frank on being and divinity. Questions of social philosophy. True life and its essence. Searching for the meaning of life. The most important problem of the philosophy of S.L. Frank's problem of being. Philosophical foundations of psychology S.L. Frank.
test, added 10/01/2008
Lev Platonovich Karsavin is a historian of religious thought of the Middle Ages, a religious thinker who developed the Russian version of the philosophy of unity. Justification of the axiological moment in historiography, elimination of all subjectivism and relativism from it.
abstract, added 04/07/2009
Analysis life path and the views of the famous Russian philosopher Semyon Ludwigovich Frank. Ideas of the work "Philosophical preconditions of despotism." Metaphysical realism and the concept of the meaning of life. The doctrine of the original reality and society. Philosophy and religion.
abstract, added 03/20/2011
Biography of Semyon Ludvigovich Frank. Marxist circle and rapprochement with a group of revolutionary intelligentsia. Lifestyle change: Frank accepts Orthodox faith. The doctrine of the original reality and the Absolute. "Philosophical premises of despotism."
abstract, added 03/22/2009
The concept and emergence of the doctrine of conciliarity in Russian philosophy. The doctrine of conciliarity N.A. Berdyaev, Archpriest Sergius (Bulgakov), Priest Pavel (Florensky), Vyacheslav Ivanovich Ivanov. Comparative analysis of these teachings and their distinctive features.
course work, added 08/09/2010
The role of Russian religious philosophy of the 20th century. Formation of Russian religious philosophy of the 20th century. New religious consciousness. Religious and philosophical meetings. former. Spiritual renaissance of the early 20th century. Its essence and social meaning.
abstract, added 05/23/2003
The idea of a practical, life-building philosophy. Philosophical views, life and creative path Vladimir Solovyov. The idea of the priority of the spiritual over the material and biological. The philosophy of unity at the beginning of the 20th century: followers of V.S. Solovyova.
test, added 11/04/2015
Formation and development of Marxist philosophy, its character traits. Three groups of basic ideas of Marx's philosophy. Social existence and material life of society. The concept of productive forces and relations. The concept of man in Marxist philosophy.
Most people on earth are believers and belong to one of the religious movements. Some to a greater extent, some to a lesser extent, but people believe in the existence of a higher power and a great creator. There is no doubt that faith is very important for any person and allows a person not just to live, but to live with pleasure.
In turn, psychology, as a modern science, does not speak about the existence of a higher power, but it does not seem to deny it.
I'm afraid I was wrong in my previous sentence. Surely psychologists, as representatives of one of the psychological trends or simply from the position ordinary person, have their own point of view on this topic.
In general, this is what today’s round table will be about.
It seems to me that religion and science began to merge a long time ago, if we talk about the phenomenon faith, and not just about performing a series of rituals and following some moral standards. Psychology does not deal with rituals and morality, yes, but not because it is a science, but because it is designed to build a kind of therapeutic contact that would help the client through a non-judgmental look. These are simply different tasks. And a psychologist cannot and does not have the right to talk about, for example, whether it is good to have sex before marriage or whether homosexuality is a sin. His job is to accept a person as he is, help him form his goals and find his path, even if this path turns out to be the path of an atheist or skeptic.
But on the other hand, it is FAITH that can be a serious help to a psychologist. For example, scientists have conducted a number of studies of the prayerful state and found that it is fundamentally different from the 3 main ones: REM sleep, slow-wave sleep, and wakefulness. The state of a person during sincere prayer is not similar, according to the encephalogram, to any of those mentioned. And it can significantly change the situation inside the human body - for example, recovery occurs from diseases that doctors considered almost hopeless. Accordingly, a psychologist can use a person’s faith as an additional support in the person himself to achieve the goals of that person.
There are situations when a psychologist has to raise the question of faith himself. Not about religion (I share these concepts; a believer may not be religious at all, and faith and religion do not necessarily have to intersect). And about faith. Because a person sometimes faces questions in which the usual means of psychology are not enough. Another young spouse died. Why is that? How to survive? Simply accepting a seemingly “senseless” death is not something a psychologist can do to help. Because the client most often tries to find meaning both in this death and in his life after it. And these are questions that the science of psychology is not able to answer. And then we need to go further - help the client realize whether he can believe in something, what is his relationship with the universe, with the forces that surround him. And a psychologist can help a person form his faith (not to impose a religion! but to form faith and trust in higher powers, and the client himself will decide what form to choose for them). Or, for example, a sick child was born. How did this happen? You can work with the mother’s guilt and work it off, but she will continue to look for the reason and meaning of what happened, even if the guilt goes away. Why does she need this? What is it meant to teach parents? What can you rely on in yourself to try to cure your child? Without faith at least in the capabilities of the person himself, treating a complex illness is a heavy burden. And faith, again, needs to be helped to form, and often the clients themselves put their request this way.
I happened to graduate from the Faculty of Philosophy and study at theological college, and therefore I read almost all the religious “primary sources” - the Bible, the Koran, the Dhammapada, the Tao de Ching, the Vedas, Confucius, etc. And I am increasingly imbued with the idea that essentially the same knowledge is presented there, but with different accents inherent in different civilizations and cultures. And this knowledge helps a lot in psychology and complements psychology. Because the clients themselves often go beyond simple parsing everyday situations.
There is some line, a line beyond which psychology is powerless. For example, a client realizes as a result of therapy that certain of his life collisions and vicissitudes were caused by negative parental experience. He processes this experience and lets go of grievances. But he is tormented by the question: why did I end up in this particular family? Why did I get such parents? The person himself often wants to go beyond “that’s it and that’s it, nothing can be done.”
Viktor Frankl is for me one of the brilliant examples of the ability to combine science and religion. He argued (and wrote a book based on observations in a concentration camp) that it is faith that helps a person pass the most difficult psychological tests and survive even in the most inhuman conditions. The highest meaning is what keeps a person afloat when everything around promises a threat.
And religion - you can choose it partly according to your own taste. Or accept what we inherited from our ancestors. Religion is just a shell for faith, and if a religious person is not filled with faith, then he is simply someone who performs rituals out of fear that a higher power will be “offended” by him, trying to make ritual sacrifices “just in case.” But such a confession of God does not actually help; it does not provide those beneficial states for the psyche that can cure illnesses and give the will to live.
It seems to me (but this is only my personal opinion on this issue) that a psychologist cannot completely ignore this phenomenon of faith. Psychology, translated from Greek, is the science of the soul. And the soul is inclined to believe, it needs it. In addition, the soul cannot be fully studied by scientific means, quantitative methods and mathematical analysis. And therefore we have to go beyond the boundaries of scientific methods. If we are truly ready to deal with the soul, and not just with behavioral reflexes and biosocial instincts.
Colleagues have said above about a lot of important things! I won't repeat myself...
I collaborated with an organization that, in addition to a wide range of activities, also developed a helpline for Orthodox Christians.
I will tell you my opinion on this issue: the majority of people who turn to a psychologist (by phone) do not want to do anything for themselves, for their spiritual comfort - preferring to devote most of their time to prayers, in the expectation that everything will work out on its own. Only a few make it to an in-person consultation. There are a lot of people who talk about “demons” and other evil spirits (I never understood this!) and at the same time do not want to accept that it is important to start with yourself, and not blame others who, in their opinion, prevent them from being happy! Somehow the commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself” is forgotten. Or is it not understood...
It is also important to realize that one believer and another believer “believe” differently.
At the Orthodox exhibition in Manege, I spoke with a fairly high rank in the Church, who the day before visited... systemic family constellations! This, you see, is amazing! The method is extraordinary, although its founder is a priest (in the past). This person, who enthusiastically describes his impressions, is open to accepting new things, does not deny what he has not seen, not read, is not familiar with, he is flexible and wise!
Someone does not accept psychology, someone does not accept religion - everyone has their own path in this life! Many people go to the priest after a psychologist, and some rush to a psychologist after confession.
Religion and psychology are not that incompatible... They are like two roads that sometimes run parallel, sometimes intersect, sometimes merge into one wide one!
It seems to me that religion and psychology are incompatible. Take Christianity, it teaches humility, forgiveness of insults, giving away the caftan if they ask for a shirt, putting on the right cheek if they hit the left, teaches that problems are given for the good and for spiritual growth, that there is no need to hinder evil and adversity, but to humbly accept them. And psychology teaches us to strive to help people value themselves more, focus on their needs and desires, be confident and defend their boundaries, and even be aggressive towards the aggressor, i.e. Psychology teaches us not to resign ourselves to difficult situations and not to accept those who attack us, but to fight back and overcome difficulties. Religion is self-denial and humility, psychology is love yourself (I am the center) and overcoming.
« psychology, like modern science, does not speak about the existence of a higher power, but it does not seem to deny it.....»
Psychology, as a science, speaks about many things in its own language, including about a higher power, calling it collective unconscious - one of the forms of the unconscious, common to society as a whole and being a product of inherited brain structures. The main difference between the collective unconscious and the individual is that it is common to different people, does not depend on individual experience and the history of the individual’s development, and represents a certain “common denominator” for different people.” Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia.
There is no such thing as a person without faith; we are in a space where we simply would not survive if we did not perceive many things on the basis of faith.
Well, let's imagine lessons at school, where we are constantly trying to test all the formulas presented to us as studied experimentally.
Man is a social being and lives in close dependence with people.
Great saints, leaving people for a while and receiving certain signs and enlightenment of consciousness, still return to people or allow a huge number of people to their cells and caves!
We simply need each other to exist and perceive and receive some kind of CONSCIOUSNESS that develops us catharsis, we just need that OTHER person whom we certainly TRUST!
I really like this topic you raised and which has a more philosophical orientation. I agree with my favorite author A.V. Kurpatov that a psychologist must first of all be a philosopher. He has a very interesting book on this topic, “Philosophy of Psychology.” New methodology"The book examines religious, philosophical and scientific worldview systems, as well as a methodological analysis of the development of psychological knowledge. He is not the first and not the last to touch upon the topic of faith and global issues, what determines our consciousness?
I am writing this article and I believe, I really believe, that my colleagues and the author of the topic and readers will read these lines, and someone, perhaps, will write me their comments. Isn't this part of my consciousness?
I believe that people: mothers and fathers, reading our articles, talking to us or reading our answers, think and stop shouting and humiliating their children of different ages.
William Arntz succeeds in reconciling science and religion in “The Book of Great Questions. What do we even know?” and in the documentary film on which this book is based - The powers of thought: What do we know about it / What the Bleep Do We Know!?(William Arntz, Betsy Chase):
“Forty years ago, innovative thinkers led by Professor Abraham Maslow realized that psychology focused almost exclusively on problems and violations: neuroses, psychoses, dysfunctions. Why not study healthy or even “exceptionally healthy” individuals, they thought? Why not explore the highest and highest possibilities of man - to help everyone develop these powers ? ………….
Perhaps the greatest legacy of Maslow and his colleagues is that they conveyed a simple truth to people: each of us has enormous hidden potential! We all have powers and abilities that have never been fully realized before!
Some philosophers call psychology the religion of the future. And there is some truth in this. An appointment with a psychologist often reminds both clients and psychologists of confessing to a priest. For many millennia, conversations have relieved mental stress in humans. He comprehended the sin he had committed and sought to stop the torment of his conscience. It’s just that in modern confession, we pay more attention to explaining to a person how to overcome this very “ sin"Haunting a person.
And the role of a preacher, colleagues will agree, is also inherent in us, just read some of our answers. And you know, this doesn’t scare me at all. I often like to repeat that even before psychology, people lived with the help of religious ministers, they strived to be above animal reflexes and they succeeded. Psychology relies not only on the discoveries of Freud and Pavlov, Vygotsky and Ukhtomsky, Bekhterev and Sechenov, but also on those who came before them and relies, including on the research and philosophical heritage inherited from the great teachers and saints from the East and West.
Good luck to everyone and success.
In my opinion, faith in a higher power (and it has many types, including faith in God) is a way to support yourself in life. God is a support for man. He teaches life, gives commandments, watches you, judges and decides whether your soul will go to hell or heaven. This is an external support. It is necessary for many people who do not have internal support, if you like, an internal God. Those who have this internal support do not need external objects of influence and control over themselves, they do not need rituals and magical actions in order to make decisions and carry out their life activities. All this happens in a compressed form inside them, in the soul, in the psyche. But essentially the same thing happens as believers in the church. It’s just that, in my opinion, the difference is whether there is internal support in a particular person. If it is not there, he seeks support in God through religion.
It’s hard for me to describe this inner support; it’s a complex thing. But it seems to me that this is some kind of mechanism of self-regulation and decision-making, when we compare them with our internal standard, our inner God. It is precisely psychology, it seems to me, that teaches tools, methods and ways of forming this very inner support.
I would not like this thesis of mine to be perceived as a contrast between religion and psychology, or as the fact that internal support is better than external one. Not at all. This is simple different ways to receive the support necessary for life, but they are both necessary and important, because someone can create this support inside, and someone needs it externally. Both have been, are and will continue to be in our lives. This is a matter of choice, the personal choice of each person.
Religion and psychology...
Contact..., interpenetration..., disagreement(?)...
Speaking about psychology as a practitioner, I mean psychotherapy, psychological assistance, counseling, support.
What in religion is called counseling, mentoring.
In my opinion, all psychological teachings, all theories and practices came from religions and continue to be nourished by life-giving meanings and practices taken from there.
All theories are part of the teachings of the church fathers, translated into the professional language of theories by psychologists.
I say this without at all belittling such adaptations.
This topic is a topic for a large and, rather, theoretical conversation about religion and psychology.
For me, as a practitioner, the concept of FAITH is important, without which I cannot see the work of a practical psychologist or psychotherapist.
It’s hard not to quote the words of my friend, psychotherapist A.E. Alekseychik from his book “Psychotherapy with Life”:
“Very few patients, much less healthy ones, have any real idea of faith, even the simplest, not to mention faith in all its complexity, concreteness, dynamics, liveliness, vitality, effectiveness, development, personality. Most often, faith is understood consumeristly: it is better to believe than not to believe, you have to believe, I want to believe, show, prove... They don’t imagine that faith can be general, specific, fanatical, perverted, powerless, crafty... Even professionals do not recognize or recognize the “miraculous” faith: doctors - religious, priests - the faith of the sick. They do not know how to “use” faith, “serve faithfully.”
Faith is the main, one might say, “stem” essence” (of psychotherapy - my note - G.I.).
Confidence, distrust, little faith, trust are secondary, although you can work successfully with them.
How blessed is the life of those people who, from childhood, receive such concrete faith instead of knowledge. I believe that his father and mother are for him the most kind, best, smart... Exemplary. What kind of his most…. That he is the best for them, well, if not the best, then appropriate.
Unfortunately, in modern world, in our world this does not happen often. People do not receive such a “small”, warming, activating faith from childhood, with tradition, in the church, in the community, in their parish. And they will have to look for such faith belatedly, in trouble, in pain, in illness. Or - in oblivion. Or in psychotherapy."
The task of a psychotherapist - I think the main task - is to do so, to create such an “atmosphere” of work so that the patient trusts, believes, comes closer to faith - in himself, in his strengths and capabilities.
To see, hear, feel, understand - with faith - that his life can be more - different.
That his faith in himself, in another, can be healing.
I work with concepts such as soul, spirit.
The task is to help the patient - to open his soul. Towards myself, towards new experiences and understandings.
I work not with the unconscious, but with the soul. And then you work with your soul.
But at the same time I remember that religion is about saving the soul. Psychotherapy is a secular craft - healing the soul.
There is no Orthodox, Muslim, etc. psychotherapy.
But people do psychotherapy. And faith helps a believer who is engaged in our work to see more clearly, deeper and wider a person with his difficulties, helps to find ways out - to light, to life.
From delusions, from childhood - to youth, adulthood and maturity.
To a healthy childhood, to a healthy adulthood, maturity.
To wisdom.
To accept life and find meaning in it.
Page 5 of 49
4. Religious and philosophical psychology
In order to give a holistic idea of the palette of trends in psychological thought in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, it is necessary to dwell in more detail on the analysis of psychological teachings and views developed in line with the descriptive approach to the knowledge of mental reality.
This direction was quite powerful and influential; it was represented by a variety of concepts and theories, sometimes differing significantly in a number of their important provisions and being in a state of controversy among themselves. However, all works related to this direction were united by the fact that they were based on the ideas and provisions of Russian theological and religious-philosophical thought. And therefore, sometimes in historical and psychological research this direction is generally referred to as “idealistic psychology.” However, from the perspective of modernity and taking into account the key role of the concept of “soul” in the concepts of this direction, it would be more accurate to designate it as Russian spiritual or religious-philosophical psychology.
At the same time, it is advisable, in our opinion, within its framework to distinguish theological and religious-philosophical psychology itself as separate independent movements. Representatives of the first of them - theologians - in their psychological constructions relied, as a rule, on the canonical texts of dogmatic Orthodoxy and were mainly hierarchs or ministers of the church, teachers of courses, philosophy and psychology in Theological Academies and seminaries, and religious philosophers (as a rule, professors and teachers of philosophical or historical departments of universities), who made up the second trend - on individual provisions of the philosophical systems of European thinkers (Hegel, Kant, etc.) and original domestic philosophical constructs, expressed in a religious vein. Today, a serious study and analysis of the works that make up this direction is of particular relevance in connection with the search for ways to spiritually revive Russia, and also due to the fact that until recently, ideological-political and atheistic motives prevailed in the assessment and presentation of the essence of these teachings rather than scientific and educational. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of concepts in the mainstream of Russian religious-philosophical psychology were completely forgotten in Soviet times, as if erased from the history of Russian pre-revolutionary psychology, which, of course, significantly impoverished Russian psychological thought.
Traditions of religious and psychological teaching, dating back to the beginnings of ancient Russian writing and domestic philosophical thought, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. were presented by teachers and philosophers of theological seminaries and academies, scientists of religious orientation: Nikanor, Archbishop of Kherson, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), S.S. Gogotsky, V.S. Serebrennikov, N.O. Lossky, V.I. Nesmelov, V. .A. Snegirev, P.D. Yurkevich, V.V. Rozanov, I.I. Lapshin, S.F. Frank, L.M. Lopatin, S. Trubetskoy and E. Trubetskoy and others.
The flourishing of spiritual psychology at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. was associated with changes in the spiritual life of Russian society. The famous historian of Russian religious thought G. Florovsky wrote: “In those years, it suddenly became clear to many that man is a metaphysical being... The religious need is awakening again in Russian society... The religious theme is now becoming a theme of life, not only a theme of thought. .. The thirst for faith flares up. The need for “spiritual life” is born, the need to build your soul."
At the same time, we should recall the conclusion of N.A. Berdyaev that, in general, for the Russian consciousness of the 19th century. characterized by interest in combining theoretical and practical reason, achieving integrity in knowledge. And this presupposes “knowledge by the totality of spiritual forces, and not by one mind” 1. And from this point of view, the opinion that not only theological teachings themselves, but also “Russian irreligious ones - socialism, populism, anarchism, nihilism and our atheism itself had a religious theme and was experienced with religious pathos" [ibid., p. 183]. As noted, “all the deepest Russian thinkers and philosophers were at the same time religious philosophers and theologians.”
The initial basis of the religious-psychological direction was: 1) the original Russian philosophy, which is “always totalitarian in the formulation of problems, always connecting theoretical and practical reason, always religiously colored,” and 2) the features of the Russian worldview in general, implicitly contained in the main provisions of these teachings.
The features of the Russian worldview are considered in the works of S.L. Frank, V.F. Ern, S.N. Trubetskoy and other scientists, who highlighted the following features:
1. Intuition in search of truth, leading to a religious-emotional interpretation of life, the desire for speculativeness, rather than systematic and conceptual knowledge. It was this anti-rationalism of Russian thinking that led to the creation of an original theory of knowledge (ontological epistemology), which formed the basis of domestic religious and psychological constructions, the essence of which is recognition life experience as the basis for knowledge of truth.
2. Ontology, a craving for realism, which leads to the recognition of the primacy of the fact of life over thinking, when cognition is carried out through experience, for it is “life that is... the real connection between the “I” and being, while “thinking” is only a perfect connection between them." V.F. Ern noted that Russian philosophical thought, in contrast to rationalistic constructions of the meonistic type (with their abstraction from life, detachment from existence), is always “essentially concrete, that is, imbued with ontology, which naturally follows from the basic principle of Logos” 1.
3. The primacy of moral and social principles in Russian religious, worldview and philosophical constructs.
4. Deep religiosity, acting as a principle of philosophizing, opposing the rationalistic principle. In this regard, the well-known domestic specialist in the field of history of philosophy V.V. Zenkovsky notes that for the Russian people Christianity acted not only as a religion, but also as a worldview.
5. Personalism, understood as an inextricable connection between the Word and the Personality of a person (including a scientist or thinker). Therefore, it is not enough to know “what is said or written,” by whom and in what life context, but significant attention must be paid to “the silent thought of actions, movements of the heart, to the hidden thought hidden in the complex, moving pattern of an individual face.”
First of all, it is these features of the Russian worldview that form the basis of Russian spiritual psychology. In general terms, the key ideas of this psychology can be designated as psychological ontologism and are reduced to a number of key provisions:
1. Consideration of the soul as a sphere inner reality, but the inner world of a person - not in its superficial expression, from sensory-objective conditions and phenomenological manifestations, but in its internal content, from the inside, that is, through identifying how a mental experience or mental phenomenon is given to the person himself, his " I" and not to an outside observer.
2. Recognition of the human mental world as some independent entity that has its own laws that are not correlated with the laws of the material world.
3. Affirmation of the continuity of the process of consciousness. One of the representatives of spiritual psychology, V.A. Snegirev, emphasized that “the process of consciousness must be recognized as continuously continuing throughout life, therefore, in a dream, in the deepest fainting, etc., its interruption would be equal to the cessation of the life of the soul” ( quoted from ). And from here followed the denial of unconscious mental phenomena, and consequently the idea that the mental area is wider than the “special” area of the conscious. In this case, the following argument is used: “The absence of memory about the phenomena of consciousness cannot serve as proof of the absence of the phenomena themselves. Such proof would be no higher than the clearly incorrect statement of the hypnotist that during his hypnosis he did not live a conscious life at all” [ibid., p. . 18].
4. Recognition of the thesis about the identity of faith and knowledge both in their psychological nature and logical structure, and, accordingly, the idea that faith is possible as real knowledge, that not only external perception and observation, but also “self-revelation of the spirit” can serve as a source of his knowledge. Much attention has been paid to the substantiation of this position within the framework of spiritual psychology, as evidenced by the abundance of articles on this topic published in various philosophical, religious, theological and other publications. The main conclusion of these publications is quite accurately reflected by V. Serebrennikov, who noted that “based on the testimony of internal experience, we must admit that the self-conscious spirit opposes its states to itself and in this form is directly aware of them. Direct consciousness of mental phenomena, or internal perception, is the first and most important source of knowledge of the spirit."
Thus, the understanding of knowledge as “faith to the highest degree of its thoroughness” and, accordingly, self-revelation of the spirit as the only experimental source of obtaining direct knowledge about mental life, allows representatives of spiritual psychology to come to the conclusion about the possibility of accurate experimental knowledge of mental phenomena not only by so-called objective methods, but by methods of introspection.
5. Recognition of the presence of free will in humans with an original interpretation of the very concept of “free will”. As V.I. Nesmelov writes, “the real freedom of human will is revealed only to the extent that a person may not want to do what he wants.” And further: “The will can subordinate itself to a certain rule of life, and in this subordination of the will general rule life consists of all its freedom. To want something and to have the opportunity to fulfill your desire and yet not do what you want, in the name of a recognized rule of life, is the highest conceivable degree of development of free will" [ibid., p. 177].
In accordance with these initial provisions, which have certain variations in the views of different representatives of Russian religious-philosophical psychology, the theoretical, methodological and problemological space occupied by psychological teachings developing in line with the patristic traditions unfolds. As an example, let us characterize Frank’s system of psychological views, called “philosophical psychology” and incorporating the most typical features of Russian spiritual psychology.
Frank, who set himself the task of “promoting... the restoration of the rights of psychology in the old, literal and precise meaning of the word” [ibid., p. III], believed that contemporary psychology in most cases is not a doctrine of the soul, as a certain sphere of some internal reality, separated and opposed to the sensory-objective world of nature, but is physiology or a doctrine “about the laws of so-called “mental phenomena”, separated from their internal soil and considered as phenomena of the external objective world" [ibid., 3]. Because of this, “three quarters of the so-called empirical psychology and an even larger part of the so-called “experimental” psychology is not pure psychology, but either psychophysics and psychophysiology, or ... the study of phenomena, although not physical, but at the same time not mental "[ibid., Z].
According to Frank, true knowledge of the human soul is possible only through the combination of “religious intuition” (which allows one to “experience” the soul) and scientific or abstract knowledge (which is the only form of “publicly accessible and generally binding objectivity”). At the same time, the possibility of experimental knowledge of the soul as some integral, unified essence is especially emphasized, and not only as a multitude of individual mental phenomena (the Russian scientist calls this point of view psychic atomism) or only as manifestations of this soul, and not its essence. In the concept of “soul” he put only the idea of the “general nature of mental life”, regardless of how we think about it.
Accordingly, he builds the theoretical and methodological platform of “philosophical psychology.” Its tasks are: knowledge not of individual, isolated, isolated mental phenomena, but of the nature of the “soul”; determining the place of the "soul" in common system concepts, its relations to other areas of existence. The main method is the method of self-observation, which is understood as “immanent clarification of the self-conscious inner life subject in its generic... essence" [ibid., p. 29]. With such an interpretation of the basic foundations, philosophical psychology differs from concrete, including natural sciences, as well as from disciplines engaged in the knowledge of "the kingdom of Logos or the ideal of being" (logic, ethics, aesthetics, religious philosophy, etc. [ibid., p. 30], since the goal is not knowledge of God or knowledge of the world, but the knowledge of being, revealed in self-knowledge. The object of philosophical psychology is man as “a specific bearer of reality" [ibid., p. 29]. Elsewhere, Frank clarifies his own understanding of mental life, again emphasizing its integrity: “Our mental life is not a mechanical mosaic of some kind of spiritual stones called sensations, ideas, etc. .p., not a pile of mental grains of sand raked by someone, but some unity, something primary-continuous and whole, so that when we use the word “I”, this word corresponds not to some vague and arbitrary concept, but to a clearly conscious (although difficult to determine) fact [ibid., p. 17].
Frank recognizes mental life as a special world that cannot be reduced only to material-objective existence, delimited and independent from the objective world and having its own conditions of life, “meaningless and impossible on another plane of existence, but the only natural and real ones in itself” [ibid., With. 55-56]. The main features of mental life are recognized:
1. Its non-extension, or more precisely, non-spatiality, since for images as elements of mental life, extension is not the form of their existence, but only “a simple formless, immediate and indefinable internal quality” [ibid., p. 95].
2. Timelessness of mental life. Since the area of the psyche is “the area of experience, of directly subjective existence” [ibid., p. 90], then in its essence, the experience is devoid of measurable duration and is not localized in time. And only when a person begins to think about experience, replacing its “inexpressible immediate nature with its image in the objective world” [ibid., p. 96] we can talk about determining the time of experience.
Accordingly, these two features of mental life determine one of its main differences from the objective world - “immeasurability.”
3. “Continuity, unity, formlessness of unity” of mental life [ibid., p. 96]. Soul life is neither a definite plurality nor a definite unity. It is only “a material intended and capable of becoming both true unity and true multiplicity, but precisely only formless material for both” [ibid., p. 98].
4. Unlimitedness of mental life, the absence of a limited and definite volume: “it has no boundaries not because it embraces infinity, but because its positive content in its extreme parts in some elusive way “comes to naught” without having any or boundaries and outlines" [ibid., p. 102].
As for the description of a specific mental life realized in a specific “I,” Frank identifies three aspects of consideration of “the deep, primary agency in us, which we usually call primarily our “soul” [ibid., p. 134]:
The soul as a forming unity, i.e. “as the beginning of activity or life” [ibid., p. 165];
The soul as a bearer of knowledge emanating from the “incomprehensible depths of existence” and concentrating in the individual consciousness [ibid., p. 190] ;
The soul as the unity of spiritual life (i.e., the objective and subjective aspects of mental life), which acts as a form and stage of consciousness.
In other words, what is outlined here is, as it were, the evolution of the inner life of man, when from pure mental life as the lowest state (where there is neither subject nor object, there is no distinction between “I” and “not-I”, but there is only pure and universal potency , a formless community of the spiritual element), through the isolation of the contents of objective consciousness from mental life and the formation of the opposing world - “personal self-consciousness of the individual “I” (state of self-consciousness) [ibid., p. 218] there is an ascent to a higher state of spiritual life, where the opposition of subject and object, "I" and "not-I", internal and external being is significantly modified (compared to the previous state). In particular, the "I" recognizes itself as "only a partial radiation of the absolute unity of life and spirit, rising and over the opposition between subject and object, and over the opposition between different subjects" [ibid., p. 129]. Thus, at the last stage, there is, as it were, an actualization, the implementation of that "embryo state", the originality of which was in pure mental life " [ibid.].
In fact, in his “philosophical psychology,” generalizing many ideas of his time (James, Bergson) and relying on the starting points of Russian religious and philosophical thought, the scientist proposed a program of “new psychology,” which, in his opinion, was a way out of the opposition to materialistic and idealistically oriented psychological systems. And in this sense, the ultimate task of spiritual psychology is to create favorable soil for the “true direction of the science of the spirit,” implying a situation “when we will have, instead of the psychology of man-animal, the psychology of man-the-image of God” [ibid., p. 439], in our opinion, was realized by Frank, although he does not mention God in a single line of his work.
Speaking about spiritual psychology in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century as an independent direction of psychological thought, we meant not only the presence of original concepts or theoretical constructs, but also its organizational design. For example, the existing St. Petersburg Philosophical Society largely promoted the concerns of this direction, although its doors were open to representatives of other approaches. Moreover, the Theological Academies also served as a kind of school within which religious and psychological ideas were tested. Thus, many graduates of academies wrote papers for the degree of candidate or master of theology on psychological topics. For example, at the St. Petersburg Academy in 1894, out of 42 graduates, 10 wrote works on psychological and philosophical issues. Moreover, there was a student psychological society here, the chairman of which was V. Serebrennikov, an extraordinary professor in the psychology department of the academy. More than 70 people participated in its work and held 10-12 meetings a year. The great attention paid to the activities of the society is evidenced by the fact that the rector of the academy attended its meetings. The “useful activity” of the society attracted the attention of even the Most Reverend Bishop and, at the request of Serebrennikov, the society was awarded an archpastoral blessing for its continued existence. The resolution on the document on the activities of the psychological society read: “1903, January 4, Blessed. M.A.” . It should be noted that the clergy actively participated in scientific psychological events themselves. For example, members and guests of the 2nd All-Russian Congress on educational psychology There were teachers from theological seminaries in Kaluga, St. Petersburg, Tver, Saratov.
The list of journals publishing works by representatives of spiritual psychology also expanded. In line with spiritual psychology, a number of fruitful ideas and approaches have been developed. Moreover, constant communication at scientific meetings and meetings of the Moscow psychological society, Religious and Philosophical Assembly in St. Petersburg, etc., contributed to their correction, clarification, and critical re-evaluation. All this testified to this direction as progressively developing and promising.
However, after the victory October revolution Spiritual psychology in Russia officially ceases to exist. Thus, we can come to the conclusion that psychology in Russia by the beginning of the 20th century. was an intensively developing area of scientific knowledge, as evidenced by: the completion of its formalization into an independent scientific discipline, organizational strengthening, the formation of a comprehensive scientific structure psychological knowledge, represented by different directions and levels of its development, increasing the authority of psychology in the scientific community and strengthening its influence on all aspects of the cultural life of Russian society.
Of course, against the backdrop of such a positive picture, serious difficulties also appeared, which were the flip side of the achievements and successes of psychology in Russia in the 20th century. Intensive Deployment different approaches to the study of man (alternative in their methodological and theoretical foundations) acted as a manifestation of a natural and normal tendency in the development of knowledge of such a complex and multifaceted subject as mental reality. This made it possible to study psychic phenomena quite fully, covering various sides and aspects, and created favorable ground for scientific discussions. But at the same time, due to the diversity and methodological incompatibility of the movements discussed above, difficulties arose in combining and comparing the psychological facts accumulated in them, which became a serious obstacle to the creation of a unified psychological theory. This was realized by many famous Russian psychologists at the beginning of the 20th century. and stimulated them to find ways to overcome these difficulties.
Life took its own course. In 1917, a socialist revolution took place in Russia. A new stage in the development of Russian psychology, its new history, has begun.
1893-1947) - German philosopher and sociologist, student of M. Weber, one of the founders of the sociology of knowledge, author of numerous works on problems of education, upbringing and culture. In 1933 he emigrated to Great Britain. The center of scientific interests is the study of the essence of ideology and utopian consciousness. According to Mannheim, any ideology is a theorized reflection of the will of the ruling political elite. Ideology, in turn, is always opposed to “utopia” - unstable, emotionally charged “spiritual formations” generated by the consciousness of oppositional social groups. Mannheim connected hopes for the preservation of democracy in the era of “mass societies”, exposed to the danger of establishing a totalitarian regime of the fascist type, with the existence of a creative intelligentsia in every society. Main works: “Ideology and Utopia” (1929); "Man and Society in the Age of Transformation" (1935); "A Diagnosis of Our Time: Wartime Essays Written by a Sociologist" (1943).
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
Mannheim, Karl
Mannheim (1893-1947)
German philosopher and sociologist, one of the founders of the sociology of knowledge, since 1933 in Great Britain. Based on the Marxist doctrine of ideology, he considered it to be illusory views that justify the status quo and oppose utopia, the false consciousness of the opposition layers. He argued that only the creative intelligentsia, standing outside of classes, is capable of true social knowledge, with whom Mannheim pinned his hopes on preserving democracy in the face of the threat of fascism. Author of the works “Ideology and Utopia” (1929), “Man and Society in the Age of Transformation” (1935), “Diagnosis of Our Time: Wartime Essays Written by a Sociologist” (1943). In his work “Ideology and Utopia,” Mannheim emphasized that any ideology is an apology for the existing system, the theorized views of a class that has achieved dominance and is interested in maintaining the status quo. “Ideologies” are always opposed to “utopias” - as a rule, insufficiently theorized, emotionally charged “spiritual formations” generated by the consciousness of oppositional, oppressed classes, layers and groups striving for social revenge, and therefore just as subjectively biased as “ideologies” " In essence, “utopias” are no different from “ideologies”, since they also strive to “pass off a part as a whole”, their one-sided correctness as the absolute truth. With the coming to power of previously oppressed strata, “utopias” automatically turn into “ideologies.” Mannheim identifies and characterizes four ideal-typical forms of utopian consciousness: “orgiastic chiliasm of the Anabaptists,” “liberal-humanistic idea,” “conservative idea,” and “socialist-communist utopia.”
Mannheim, Karl) (1887-1947) - Hungarian sociologist who was forced to emigrate to England in 1933. His most important contributions were made to the sociology of knowledge and to current political problems, including education and planning. IN main job– “Ideology and Utopia” (1929) - he systematizes the differences between ideology and utopia, relating them to types of faith systems, the first of which performs the function of justifying and preserving the system, and the second focuses on its replacement. His approach to the sociology of knowledge was as follows: the main forms of knowledge are determined in various ways by the needs of social groups, and, contrary to Marx, not simply by class interests. He suggested one way in which knowledge could avoid relativism was for intellectuals to adopt a "free-floating" or non-aligned attitude. See also Intelligentsia.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
MANNHEIM KARL
1893-1947) - German sociologist and philosopher. He studied at the universities of Budapest, Freiburg, Heidelberg, and Paris. In 1919 he emigrated from Hungary to Germany. Since 1925 - privatdozent of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg. Since 1929 - professor of sociology and national economics at the University of Frankfurt am Main. In 1933 he emigrated to Great Britain, professor at the London School of Economics. From 1941 - at the Institute of Education at the University of London, where in 1945 he became a professor of pedagogy. Shortly before his death, he headed one of the UNESCO departments. Initiator and editor of the "International Library of Sociology and Social Reconstruction". Main works: "Historicism" (1924); "The Problem of the Sociology of Knowledge" (1925); "Ideology and Utopia. Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge" (1929); "Man and Society in the Age of Transformation" (1935); "Diagnosis of Our Time" (1943); "Freedom, Power and Democratic Planning" (1950); "System of Sociology" (1959); "Essay on Sociology and Culture" (1956), etc.
Focusing on the creation of a synthetic concept of knowledge, M. was an expert in contemporary philosophical and sociological ideas, many of which he organically used in his work (primarily this relates to neo-Kantianism, phenomenology and Marxism). There is a direct influence on M. from Lukács, E. Lask, G. Rickert, E. Husserl, M. Weber, and Scheler. M. was sharply opposed to the naturalistic attitude and methodological principles of positivism, and almost all epistemological concepts and orientations of socio-political thought (liberalism, conservatism, socialism, fascism, communism) were subjected to critical analysis by him. He was specially involved in the analysis of religious (Christian in general, Anabaptist in particular) consciousness. In general, M.’s work is quite integral in nature, but is marked by a (significant) change in emphasis that occurred during the emigrant period of his life. From the problems of the sociology of knowledge itself, his attention moves to the diagnosis of the European sociocultural situation. In addition, during this period M. was actively involved in problems of culture and education.
The concept of M. can be defined as a cultural methodology with an extremely wide range of possible applications. Cultural-historical eras are distinguished, according to M., among other things, by the presence of life dominants that determine their general style and the dominant “thinking styles” (“mental positions”) in them. In this regard, the modern era, according to M., is an era of crisis. In relation to it, we can talk about the disappearance of a single intellectual world with fixed and dominant values and norms. Moreover, behind rationally organized thinking, its underlying basis was revealed - the “collective unconscious”. The inconsistency of one of the main abstractions of European culture has been revealed - the presence of an ahistorical subject of knowledge, thinking “from the point of view of eternity,” i.e. an external impartial and objective observer who makes the final true assessments. The world, according to M., is a world of different private interests, different types and styles of thinking that require their expression in belief systems and claim to be the “only true” ones. Knowledge turns out to be contextual and social, and ultimately culturally determined. The history of thought in M. is the history of the clash of class, group and other worldviews, striving to formulate themselves rationally. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish different cognitive systems according to the mechanisms of their social conditioning. If natural science and mathematics can still be recognized as objective knowledge, then socio-humanitarian knowledge, according to M., cannot be adequately analyzed without taking into account its social determination. In the general cultural framework, the conditionality of any knowledge is revealed: its parameters depend on the position occupied in the sociocultural space, the given vision (“perspective”). Analysis of possible “perspectives” and their relationships with each other is the task of the sociology of knowledge. However, scientific knowledge, according to M., is not the only spiritual education produced in society. It is necessary to distinguish special systems of views, which are designated by the terms “ideology” and “utopia” (essentially a negative version of the same ideology). The initial criterion for their identification is the non-recognition of certain systems of views as impartial, assessment of them as biased and contrasting them with another system of ideas. They are not “diagnoses” of the situation, but, according to M., “launch” certain systems of activity. Ideology expresses such a state of consciousness when the ruling groups in their thinking can be so strongly tied through interests to a certain situation that they are simply unable to see those facts that could undermine their dominance." Utopia records that "certain oppressed groups are so strongly interested in the destruction and transformation of the given conditions of society that, against their will, they see only those elements in the situation that tend to deny it." Any ideology is an apology, it is focused on maintaining the existing status quo. This is precisely what it believes M.'s thought is opposed by a utopia, oriented toward the future, to occupy a dominant position in society by the group whose interests are represented in it (utopia). The arrival of such a group in power turns utopia into an ideology. M. distinguishes between two types of ideologies. Particular ideologies reflect the interests individual human communities with their specific interests.They represent conscious or unconscious falsifications of reality, based on the selection of the necessary information fragments. An adequate understanding of them requires knowledge psychological mechanisms collective actions and ideas. Total ideologies are predetermined by the existing social system, the naturally developing arrangement of social forces and are held within the general framework of culture. They synthesize and present a holistic vision of prospects and are provided with an appropriate conceptual apparatus, ways of thinking (analytical or mythological), models (schemes) of thinking, requirements for the degree of specification of the vision (universalism or empiricism), ontological justification ( possible ways existence and structuring). In this respect, they are the subject of the sociology of knowledge. The ultimate task of the latter is to realize a positive task through critical work to detect various ideological distortions of knowledge. The essence of the latter is to retain the diversity of equal and legitimate perspectives (their “relativity”) and to carry out cognitive synthesis. The only one capable of realizing it (and then only potentially) is one that is not tightly woven into the network of social interests and is provided with resources (information) to solve such a problem, social group- intelligentsia (“socially free-floating intellectuals”). The synthesis also presupposes the presence of real mechanisms in society that make it possible to find a balance of interests. However, the crisis of the system of traditional Western democratic values in the absence of a general cultural dominant destroyed, according to M., this emerging balance. To resist complete value disintegration (anarchy) and at the same time not to go to the other extreme - ensuring the integration of values through total regulation (dictatorship) - in modern society is possible, according to M., only on the basis of the introduction of social technologies aimed at maintaining a “sufficient level of "reflection (critical consciousness) and presupposing purposeful organizational efforts to realize this goal.
