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?