CC BY
15УДК 1(091)
ИВЛЕВА М.И.
ФОРМИРОВАНИЕ СПИРИТУАЛИСТИЧЕСКОЙ ФИЛОСОФСКОЙ СИСТЕМЫ В
ТРУДАХ Г.ТЕЙХМЮЛЛЕРА
Ключевые слова: история философии, спиритуализм, бытие, Юрьевский университет, «Я», самосознание, университетская философия.
Статья исследует этапы развития философских воззрений Г. Тейхмюллера - представителя русской спиритуалистической университетской философии второй половины XIX в. Рассмотрена концепция трех видов бытия - реального, идеального и самосознания Я, как онтологического основания философской системы Тейхмюллера, изучены его выводы о существования души. На основании проведенного анализа содержания философских воззрений Тейхмюллера, делается вывод о его вкладе в становление русской университетской философии.
IVLEVA M.I
THE FORMATION OF SPIRITUALIST PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM IN THE WORKS OF G. TEICHMÜLLER
Keywords: history of philosophy, spiritualism, being, Yuriev University, "I", self-consciousness, university philosophy.
The article studies the stages of development of philosophical views of G. Teichmüller - a representative of the Russian spiritualist university philosophy in the second half of the XIX century. It investigates the concept of three kinds of being - the real, the ideal and the self-consciousness "I" as an ontological foundation of Teichmüller philosophical system. It also studies its conclusions about the existence of the soul. On the basis of the conducted analysis of the content of G. Teichmüller philosophical views it concludes his contribution to the formation of the Russian University spiritualist philosophy.
Currently, there is a steady interest in the development of Russian philosophy, its approaches and directions [1, 2], not only in non-professional, but also in professional, university philosophy. Philosophical views of Gustav Teichmüller had a significant impact on the formation of the Russian University philosophy spiritualist school in the late XIX - early XX centuries. Among his followers there were well-known professional philosophers such as Professor of Kazan state University of E. A. Bobrov, Professor of the Kiev University A.A. Kozlov, Professor of the University of Tartu, J. F. Ohse.
Gustav Teichmüller was born in Germany, in Braunschweig in 1832. He received a philosophical education at the University of Berlin under the guidance of the well-known philosopher Trendelenburg, the famous author of "Logical studies". In 1860 Teichmüller became a private associate Professor at the University of Göttingen, where he became acquainted with the views of G.Lotze, became his friend and later a follower. In 1867 he became an extraordinary Professor, and in 1868 an ordinary Professor in Basel. In 1870 Teichmüller was invited to Russia to work as a Professor at the University of Dorpat (Yuriev). The philosopher dies in 1888.
There are three periods in the philosophical development of G. Teichmüller. Before arriving in Russia his main philosophical interests were focused on the works of Aristotle, and he interprets the past in the tradition of Trendelenburg. On arrival in Yuriev Teichmüller continues research in the field of history of philosophy, but, besides of Aristotle, he investigates Pre-Socratics and Plato. At the same time he begins his research in theoretical philosophy and puts forth his own philosophical system in the work "The immortality of the soul" ("Unsterblichkeit der Seele") (1874). Then he continues to develop his views in the works of "Darwinism and philosophy" ("Darwinismus und Philosophie") (1876) and "The Essence of love" ("Das's Wesen der Liebe") (1880). The last period in Teichmüller's work begins after the publication of his program work "The Real and Apparent world. The new Foundation of metaphysics" ("Die Wirkliche und die Scheinbare Welt. Neue Grundlegung der Metaphysik") (1882), in which his philosophical system is formulated in a complete form. The last work of Teichmüller, "New principles of psychology and logic" ("Neue Grundlegung der Psychologie und Logik") was published after his death in 1889.
The influence of the philosophical views of Gustav Teichmuller on some part of the University professors was so great that E. A. Bobrov wrote in 1898: "G. Teichmuller is almost the only metaphysician of modern thinkers, who was aware of the Supreme importance of the problem of being, which with all its inherent energy turned to its resolution and largely, as we think, to the extent solved the problem of the origin, genesis and properties of the concept of being" [3, p. 4].
The first work of Teichmüller in the field of spiritualist philosophy, "Immortality of the soul", is an attempt to substantiate the doctrine of the origin and essence of the soul as a spiritual phenomenon,
as well as the systematization of the main philosophical approaches to the study of this concept. The soul, according to Teichmüller, is such a complex phenomenon that philosophers for a long time could not correctly assess either its nature or its capabilities and functions. Based on his understanding of the trends in the historical development of philosophy, he identifies several areas in the science of the soul.
The first approach is materialism, which, according to Teichmüller, considers matter only as a substance that affects our senses: "Material is all that we see, hear, taste, smell and touch... it is subject to extension, space and available movement" [8, p. 26]. The second direction is idealist philosophy, in which the primary is considered eternal intelligent existence, which can be known only by reason, as it does not affect the senses. It is always something in common - a form, an idea, a concept. Material objects, on the other hand, are only phenomena of real existence.
Teichmüller defines the third approach as spinozism. In his opinion, it states that "both worlds, ideal and material, go parallel to each other and are different expressions of the same substance" [7, p. 59]. However, all of the above approaches, according to Teichmüller, cannot correctly answer the question of what is the soul and what is its role in the world. Materialist philosophy is mistaken initially accepting the real existence of matter as substance. Teichmüller is inclined to the understanding of matter, developed in the philosophy of Leibniz, where it is believed that the material is only a phenomenon peculiar to human feelings, which, in turn, belong to the sphere of spirit. Idealism ignores the individuality of existence, linking all of reality for the sole principle, a principle which is known to the representative of the spiritualist tradition in Russia A. A. Kozlov subsequently called panlogism [4]. However, all the real has the property of individuality, being a plurality of real individuals. Finally, dualistic philosophy, as Teichmüller calls it, spinozism, absolutely separates the two substances, spiritual and material, and since thinking, and therefore knowledge, belong to the spiritual substance, it is not clear how a person can gain knowledge about matter and about the body.
Thus, Teichmüller is sure that it is necessary to formulate another, fourth worldview, which could correctly answer the questions about the soul. This worldview should be based on the ideas formulated in Leibniz philosophy. Its main postulates can be summarized as follows.
The soul is a substance homogeneous with other substances similar to itself. The real world is the coexistence of many spiritual substances, each of which imagines the world as if it were composed of different material objects. Matter, therefore, exists "as a way of representation... as a necessary, universal and natural form, under which we acquire in experience knowledge about other objects, that is, about other substances" [7, p. 80].
The soul is a unity of two forms: first, it is conscious processes, when the subject is aware that he perceives, feels, thinks, and secondly, it is unconscious processes. These include thoughts about past perceptions, feelings that are stored in the memory and at the moment the subject does not use them consciously, as well as creative processes. Inherent property, attribute of the soul is a continuous self-consciousness, which are primarily the consciousness of their individuality. Following Lotze, Teichmüller uses the concept of well-being as an important moment in the Self, although he does not give it such a comprehensive meaning as Lotze. Like Leibniz, Teichmuller talks about the hierarchy of substances, that different spiritual substances are at different stages of development. The souls of men are more developed than the souls of animals, but the latter are at a higher stage of development than the spiritual substances acting in organic processes, which, in turn, are higher than the spiritual substances of elementary nature.
Despite the fact that Teichmüller postulates the idea that matter exists only as our representation and imagination, in the "Immortality of the soul" he is not yet fully consistent. Denying matter as a substance, he leaves the body as a completely material object, entering into the same bodily metabolism with the outside world, where, it would seem, there is nothing but spiritual substances. But since the essence of man is a spiritual substance, Teichmüller comes to an unexpected conclusion: "Our body is not ours. It is the outer world that flows through us, from which we are constantly appropriating some particles" [7, p. 111]. These particles include the air we breathe, the foods we eat, and the ever-renewing hair and skin. The body obediently serves the soul, which controls all its parts by the will.
Finally, Teichmüller answers the question whether the soul is immortal. From the point of view of philosophy, the soul as a spiritual substance is immortal, because things can not come to a state of non-existence. But personal immortality cannot be proven as undeniable.
Gustav Teichmuller believes that the basis of his original spiritualistic philosophical system is the doctrine of being, which he outlined in the basic work "The true and the apparent world. New Foundation of metaphysics" printed in 1882 in German. The study of being, Teichmuller begins with an analysis of the verb "to be" and distinguishes three different meanings. The first value is logical and performs the function of "bundles" in the language when answering the question "what is it"? The second meaning of being characterizes the "existence" of something, which corresponds in the language to the conjunction "what" (Dass) and is grammatically expressed in the temporary forms of the verb. Finally, the third meaning of being is associated by Teichmuller with the "subject" or being, this meaning of being finds its expression in the pronoun "I".
His research begins with the fact that by analyzing our everyday consciousness, we find that we think about different subjects, that is, the content of our thoughts is constantly changing. Moreover, we constantly compare the contents of various mental acts. The idea that arises in this case is not any content itself, but the relation of some content in General to the ever-changing acts of the soul. In the language it is expressed by the question: "what is it?". The thought act is always directed to some "what?", that is, the thought activity is always correlated with some content. In other words, thought cannot be meaningless. Responsible for such an informative thinking "Being", which, Teichmuller calls "the ideological Being" (ideeles Sein) that is derived from the Greek "si5oc;". In fact, ordinary consciousness shows that our activity consists of many different operations - we think, feel, do one thing, then another, but in our activity it manifests the same thought, the same feeling, the same thing. This means that in our consciousness the ideological content of the activity and the activity itself are separated. It turns out that the content of thought is the same, and the acts of thought (feelings, etc.) are always different. We have to recognize the difference between the multiplicity of changing acts of activity, on the one hand, and the identity of ideological existence, on the other hand.
A necessary condition for the fulfillment of this requirement is also the correlation of all activities in accordance with their relationship to ideological existence. In this case, a new category appears in thinking, Teichmuller calls "real being" or "existence" (Existenz), cash being (Dasein), reality. This term is called not one any activity and not the totality of them, and the relationship in which they are to ideological existence. Therefore, according to Teichmuller, the concept of real existence is not formed by abstraction, by deducing the General concept on the basis of the analysis of a number of specific activities, and is not enclosed in the activity itself, it arises due to the relationship with another kind of being, just as a person becomes the son of another person due to his attitude to this latter - his father, and not because as a son he performs some functions or possesses some moral or physical qualities. Because of the ideological identity between existence and real existence can not be -the above three fundamental differences - to the extent we are compelled to recognize that certain ideological elements are found in consciousness and connection and separately. Consequently, we come to the recognition of a single representative being, which, without being limited by its content, represents the ideological elements both separately and together. This, according to Teichmuller, is the "unity in which there is no separation of content and difference of activities." [8, p. 57] After all, if this being were separate, all consciousness and all reason would disappear. Thus, only assuming this is the third of Being, it becomes possible to thinking itself, which correlate with each other separate and leads him to unity. Comparing the results of his study of ideological existence with the results of linguistic analysis, G.Teichmuller comes to the conclusion that to refer to this third kind of existence, he can use the same term "I". When we recognize by analogy with our "I" the existence of other "I" "("you", "he", etc.), this category gets a more General expression in the concept of "substance".
For a definition of the concept of "real being" (Dass), it is necessary to pay attention to another correlative point - the self-consciousness of one's "Self'. After all, only in the correlation of any content with the "I" is the activity: "I see the table." For the content we assume only simple consciousness and leave aside self-consciousness. When we consider activity, however, we pay attention to self-consciousness and are distracted from the content of consciousness, and the content of individual acts serves only to distinguish some acts of self-consciousness from others. That is why Teichmuller defines Das Dass as "the Union of all acts of self-consciousness in relation to their content" [8, p. 64].
Indeed, whenever we speak about establishment of any fact or activity, we are talking about the "I" and its regulations, united in relation to any particular content. For example, when talking about the
appearance of a comet, it is assumed that someone (some I) saw (committed an act) it, when, how many times and so on. Thus the concept of reality is defined.
The concept of reality is, therefore, the general content of activity in general (das Was des Dass). Next, Teichmuller proceeds to the definition of the ontological basis of "I". In fact, in the definition of "I" we have, first, in itself this relation to the previous two kinds of existence - das Was and das Dass. Secondly, we note the fact that these kinds of being we believed (setzten) and correlated with each other. So, if now one area of existence is divided into another, then one will be divided into the other without a trace. As a result, we get the concept of "unity", which includes countless and content and activities. This unity is possible because we could not think of one without a relation to the other. Unity exists because we actually observe in consciousness and different content, and change it, and connect it in thinking. So, everything exists in unity, which is not a "subject-object", or in Teichmuller's terminology Dass-Was [8, p. 68].
Based on the above, "I" can be defined as "the point of consciousness given in numerical unity (numerische Einheit), in relation to himself becoming conscious and serving as the basis for the correlation with him all given in the consciousness of ideological and real life." "I" is always a unity, indifferent to the change of activities, the diversity of their content and the fact that this content is multiple: "I" is always equal to itself, and therefore is one in everything and, accordingly, relates everything to itself.
Teichmuller 's concept of being formed the basis for the subsequent development of spiritualism in Russia. His students studied the philosophical meaning of self-consciousness, ontological and epistemological aspects of human subjectivity, building a logical structure of spiritualist philosophy [5]. This philosophical approach traditionally for Russia had a humanistic anthropological orientation [6], and within its framework the first Russian philosophical school is formed [9].
Литература и источники
1. Баркова Э.В. Экофилософия в поисках оснований теории природно-культурного наследия // Вестник Российского экономического университета им. Г.В. Плеханова. Вступление. Путь в науку. 2013. № 4 (8). С. 3-8.
2. Безвесельная З.В. Роль философии в формировании личности предпринимателя // Вестник Академии. 2010. № 3. С. 120123.
3. Бобров Е.А. О понятии бытия. Казань, 1898.
4. Ивлева М.И. История философии как наука: концепция А.А.Козлова // Право и практика. 2018. № 1. С. 276-281.
5. Ивлева М.И., Костин П.А. Павел Иванович Новгородцев - первый директор Московского коммерческого института // Вестник Российского экономического университета им. Г.В. Плеханова. 2013. № 1 (55). С. 5-10.
6. Козьмин В.С. Феномен человека в условиях глобальных кризисов современной техногенной цивилизации // VI Найденовские чтения. Инновационные процессы и культура предпринимательства на потребительском рынке товаров и услуг Международная научно-практическая конференция. Сборник научных статей преподавателей, аспирантов и студентов: в 2-х частях. Под редакцией Ю.В.Рагулиной. М., 2014. С. 156-158.
7. Тейхмюллер Г. Бессмертие души. Юрьев, 1895.
8. Teichmuller G., Die Wirkliche und die Scheinbare Welt. Neue Grundlegung der Metaphysik. Breslau, 1882.
9. Barkova E.V., Ivleva M.I., Buzskaya O.M., Buzsky M.P., Aghabekyan K.B. Ecology of socio-cultural communications: worldview and methodological foundations // Man in India. 2017. Т. 97. № 21. С. 241-256.
References and Sources
1. Barkova Eh.V. EHkofilosofiya v poiskah osnovanij teorii prirodno-kul'turnogo naslediya // Vestnik Rossijskogo ehkonomicheskogo universiteta im. G.V. Plekhanova. Vstuplenie. Put' v nauku. 2013. № 4 (8). S. 3-8.
2. Bezvesel'naya Z.V. Rol' filosofii v formirovanii lichnosti predprinimatelya // Vestnik Akademii. 2010. № 3. S. 120-123.
3. Bobrov E.A. O ponyatii bytiya. Kazan', 1898.
4. Ivleva M.I. Istoriya filosofii kak nauka: koncepciya A.A.Kozlova // Pravo i praktika. 2018. № 1. S. 276-281.
5. Ivleva M.I., Kostin P.A. Pavel Ivanovich Novgorodcev - pervyj direktor Moskovskogo kommercheskogo instituta // Vestnik Rossijskogo ehkonomicheskogo universiteta im. G.V. Plekhanova. 2013. № 1 (55). S. 5-10.
6. Koz'min V.S. Fenomen cheloveka v usloviyah global'nyh krizisov sovremennoj tekhnogennoj civilizacii // VI Najdenovskie chteniya. Innovacionnye processy i kul'tura predprinimatel'stva na potrebitel'skom rynke tovarov i uslug Mezhdunarodnaya nauchno-prakticheskaya konferenciya. Sbornik nauchnyh statej prepodavatelej, aspirantov i studentov: v 2-h chastyah. Pod redakciej YU.V.Ragulinoj. M., 2014. S. 156-158.
7. Tejhmyuller G. Bessmertie dushi. YUr'ev, 1895.
8. Teichmuller G., Die Wirkliche und die Scheinbare Welt. Neue Grundlegung der Metaphysik. Breslau, 1882.
9. Barkova E.V., Ivleva M.I., Buzskaya O.M., Buzsky M.P., Aghabekyan K.B. Ecology of socio-cultural communications: worldview and methodological foundations // Man in India. 2017. T. 97. № 21. S. 241-256.
ИВЛЕВА МАРИНА ИВАНОВНА - доцент кафедры истории и философии РЭУ имени Г.В. Плеханова (stm602@yandex.ru ) IVLEVA, MARINA I. - Associate Professor, of the Department of History and Philosophy of the Russian University of Economics named after G.V. Plekhanov
