The ideas about the soul existed already in the most ancient times and preceded the first scientific views on its nature. They arose in the system of primitive beliefs of people, in mythology and religion. And in form, and in content, the submission data was dadar and inseparable.
For the first time, scientific ideas about the soul arose in ancient philosophy and amounted to the doctrine of the soul. This teaching is the first form of knowledge, in the system of which psychological performances began to develop. Psychological problems were part of philosophy, they arose inevitably, since the subject of philosophical reflections aimed at a rational explanation of the reasonable reality was the world as a whole, including questions about a person and his soul.
Studies have shown that the philosophy of ancient Greece, especially such outstanding representatives, as Socrates (470-399 BC), Plato (427-347 BC) was provided to the decisive impact on the subsequent development of the European Culture and Aristotle (384-322 BC).
The most consistently and reasonably formulated the first psychological concepts of Socrates. In the teachings about the soul, he first pointed to the delimitation between the soul and the body and proclaimed the intangibleness and soul uniformity. He defined the soul negatively, as something other from the body.
The central philosophical problem of Plato was the doctrine of ideas. Ideas are truly significant being, immutable, eternal, not having an occurrence that is not implemented in any substance. They are invisible, exist independently of sensual things. Unlike ideas, Matter is non-existence, shapeless, invisible. This is nothing who can become any thing, that is, everyone, when connected with a certain idea. In such a context of the soul, it acts as a start by interflight between the world of ideas and sensory things.
The soul exists before it comes into connection with any body. In his primitive state, it constitutes part of the world spirit. "The individual soul has nothing but the image and expiration of the universal world soul" (waiting, 1999). According to Platon, there are three starts of the human soul. The first is the desired unreasonable principle. They have any living creature, including animals and plants. It makes up most of the soul of each person and is aimed at satisfying bodily needs. Another reason is a reasonable principle that counteracts the desires of the proprietary principle. The third is a fierce spirit. This part of the man will boil, annoyed, becomes an ally of what it seems fair, and for the sake of this is ready to endure hunger, stepmaking "(waiting, 1999).
Footman in the frame
Plato (Platon) (born 427 - mind. 347 BC. Er) - Greek philosopher. Born in Athens. The real name of Plato was an aristocal. The nickname Plato (broadcaster) was given to him in his youth for a powerful physique. It came from a noble family and received a wonderful education. Perhaps herakliticism was listened to the lectures of Heraklita, he knew the compositions of Anaksagora popular in Athens, was a listener of the protagodore and other sophists. In 407, he became a student of Socrates, which determined all his life and creativity. According to the legend, after the first conversation with him, Plato burned his tragic tetragium prepared for the nearest Dionysius. For an hour for eight years, he did not leave the beloved teacher, the image of which he painted with such a pitue afterwards in his dialogues. In 399, Socrates sentenced to death, graduated from life in Athenian rally. Plato, present on the process, was not with Socrates in his last minutes. Perhaps afraid of his own life, he left Athens and left megaard with several friends. From there to Egypt and Kiren and South Italy. Upon returning to Athens, he founded the first philosophical school in the Gardens of Academy, the famous Academy, where he also taught until death.
We have reached us, apparently, all works of Plato. The full assembly has 36 works divided into 9 tetralogy, which clearly demonstrate the development of Plato's philosophy. The authorship and chronology of the Works of Plato for a long time and carefully studied, starting from the era of Hellenism.
Plato began his philosophical surveys from the statement that the Greek philosophical theories that existed until then may not be true because they contradict each other. For example, Heraclit, based on the evidence of feelings, proclaimed the global principle a change, and Parmenid argued that being consistently, forever and still and that it is possible to know it only by reason, and not feelings, for they are deceptive. To teaching about the ideas of Plato, the road indicated by Socrates, who taught that it is necessary to understand what each thing is that it is said is to be determined. In Socratic ethical definitions, according to Platon, the eternal truth was. They are "samples" for the world of things.
The same is the case with all the concepts. They correspond to the eternal and unchanged exisions that Plato called ideas. Since all things are higher or lower, then in the world of ideas, too, there is a hierarchy - from the lowest to increasingly inclusive and higher ideas - with the idea of \u200b\u200bpre-beauty at the chapter. There are also two worlds: familiar with feelings, mortal and changeable, or hygnetic (Gignomai - I am), and the world, known to mind, eternal and unchanged - ontological (on, ontos - the day), things and ideas.
IN Parmenide He reflects on how unchanged and eternal ideas can be embodied in mortal and volatile things and how these things are present in so understood ideas. These problems he is trying to resolveTimee and File where there are 4 types of importance: 1) infinite (apeiron) - matter; 2) the limit (peras) - ideas; 3) mixed (SymmisGomenon) - the world of phenomena; and 4) the reason (Aitia) of this mixing is the mind living in the shower. The world, like a person, has not only a body, but also soul. The world soul is, according to Platon, thereby connecting the link between the world of ideas and the world of phenomena. MindTimee Plato calls Demiurge, in the image of the idea forms the world of phenomena from passive matter, which is only a reflection of the world of ideas.
Just as he distinguished two worlds, Plato distinguished two kinds of knowledge: knowledge of feelings and knowledge of the mind. With the help of feelings, we know the actual world around us, the ideas are perceived by the mind, which Plato also calls "Ok Soul." The sensual and discursive knowledge of Plato opposed knowledge intuitive, with culmination in ecstasy (letter VII). He paid a lot of attention to the problem of the soul and the rationale for her immortality (the famous anamnesis theory).
Plato's works are distinguished by a beautiful style, a weathered composition, alive, full of unexpected turns and tension dialogue, as well as a poetic imagination and a flight of thought. They became a model of philosophical dialogue, found numerous imitators and had a huge influence, both European philosophy and literature.
Antique writers: dictionary. St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Lan", 1999.
The vertex of ancient psychology is the doctrine of the soul of Aristotle. He is the author of the treatise "about the soul", the first in world literature of a systematic study on the problem of the soul.
Footman in the frame
Aristotel (ARISTETELES) from Stagira (384-322 BC) - Greek philosopher. Son Nikomakh, Macedonian Tsar Aminte II. At the place of birth, it was sometimes called stabit. For 20 years (367-347) was a student and a collector of Plato. In 342, Philip II, King of Macedonia, entrusted him the upbringing of his thirteen-year-old son Alexander. After the accession of Alexander on the throne, he returned to Athens and founded his own philosophical school, famous Liqukey (Lykeion). The ego was an exemplary scientific institution, equipped with a rich library and attracted outstanding scientists, specialists in various fields. The studies were led by Aristotle, and their results processed synthetically, creating a system that covered all the knowledge of the world of the world.
Under the name of Aristotle, a few fragments of the works of literary character were preserved, written mostly in the form of a dialogue, as well as an extensive meeting of philosophical treatises - Corpus Aristotelicum. In Rome, these texts ordered, supplied the catalog and published the Rhodes andronician.
According to the tradition, the writings of Aristotle usually divide into seven groups:
Aristotle (384-322 BC).
Aristotle - the author of the treatise "About the Soul", the first in world literature of a systematic study on the problem of the soul.In treaty the historical review of opinions about the soul of predecessors is given for the first time., Critical analysis has been performed.
Aristotle's teachings about the soul
Aristotle revised Plato's approach to the soul. From his point of view, the separation of the soul and body is an impossible and meaningless act, since the "idea", "concept" can not be a real physical subject, which is a person. Based inseparable soul from the body , Aristotle and gave his interpretation of the soul - the soul is the form of realization of the body capable of life, cannot exist without a body and is not a body. Explaining this approach, Aristotle says that if we wanted to find a soul of your eyes, I would have a vision, that is, the soul is the essence of this subject, expressing the purpose of its existence.The soul cannot exist without a body, since the form is always a form of something. D. the eared is the goal to which the thing seeks.Therefore, based on the soul, it can be understood to which class this object refers is why it is needed.
Soul - Form of Living Organic Body. This provision is explained by the following metaphors:
"Just as if a natural body had some instrument, for example, an ax, namely the essence of it would be an ax, and it would be his soul. And if it is separated, the ax would have ceased to be an ax ... said it is necessary to consider and in relation to parts of the body. If the eyes were a living being, then his soul would have vision. After all vision and there is essence of the eye as its formsbut; With the loss of sight an eye is no longer an eye, unless by name, as well as the eye from stone or drawn. The said about the part of the body should be attached to the whole living body ... But living in opportunities is not something that is deprived of the soul, but what it has it.
By aristotle, each thing is the unity of matter and shape. All nature is a set of molds associated with matter. For example, in relation to the house of matter, bricks are bricks, the logs of which it is made, and the form - the appointment of the house is to be shelter from the rain and heat. However, Aristotle permits the existence of forms without matter is an intangible energy mind, the Supreme Mind. It is a form of forms.
The soul makes the body alive. Without soul it would be a corpse. In the shower, the reason is the basis - all manifestations of the living body; Growth, breathing, as well as feeling, thinking is due to it. In the soul laid the goal of the activity of the living body, all of it according to working vitality. The soul under the influence of the external cause is powerful forces the body to carry out the activity of a certain type, laid down in the body as a goal of its development: the plant seeks to be a plant, an animal to be animal. The body and all of its organs and parts are a tool in the service of the soul.
Soul as a form of a body means that it is the essence of the body, the reason and the goal of all his actions. All these characteristics of the soul Aristotle combines and summarizes in a special concept. entelechy which means the full validity of the body, what makes it alive, the constant possibility of its life functions, i.e. the existing and then when the soul does not show itself actively (for example, during sleep). The soul is inextricably linked with the body: after all, it is the state of body activity.
All mental states are accompanied by corporal manifestations. Therefore, the study of the soul is the case of two researchers - natural resource and dialectic. For example, " dialectic would define anger as a desire to take revenge on insult or something like that; arguing about nature - how blood boiling or heat near the heart».
Although the soul of disembodied, its carrier is a special organic matter - pneuma which in animals is produced in the blood. Soul body - heart . The brain performs an auxiliary function, it is cooled in it to the desired norm. Aristotle criticized Plato for dividing the soul into parts, separately on their localization in the body, and, proving the unity of the soul, said not about parts, but about individual abilities, the powers of the soul, which only in a figurative sense called parts. At the same time, Aristotle recognized independence and a separateness of at least two starts - the souls like entelechs of the body destroying in its destruction, and the soul as a manifestation of the Divine Essence, which comes into the body and coming out of it at the time of death:
Aristotle wrote that there are three types of soul - vegetable, animal and reasonable. Each of them has certain functions.
So, vegetable soul
Capable to breeding and nutrition.
Animal soul
In addition to them, four more functions - the desire (feelings), movement, sensation and memory.
The plant and animal soul were understood in materialistically, they are mortal, i.e. they appear and disappear simultaneously with the body.
BUT reasonable soul which is only a person, has also an ability to think. The reasonable soul is ideal, separable from the body, its essence of Divine. After the death of the body, it is not destroyed, but returns to the disembodied air space. Aristotle, rightly feeling the qualitative difference of a person from animals and especially from plants, idealistically explains his source.
Each higher form of the soul is awaited over the previous one, acquiring those functions that it has been inherent. Therefore, if the vegetable soul has only two functions, then the animal is six, and the intelligent - seven.
The teachings of Aristotle on the processes of knowledge
The studies of Aristotle led him to the creation of the first in the psychology of the expanded theory of knowledge, in which not only the specificity of each stage is revealed, but also analyzes the process of transition from a single knowledge, knowledge is not even about the subject, but about some of its property, to a generalized judgment and Concept. To explain this transition, Aristotle introduced the concept of general sensitivity and associations, which, in his opinion, are an important mechanism for processing knowledge.
The first stage of knowledge becomes the feeling which Aristotle understood as an active the process of interaction between senses with the outside world. At the same time, the soul is likened to the form of that body that perceives, although it is not a passive cast from this body.
At the next stage - Memory - The psyche retains those primary knowledge they received in the perception of the outside world. Saving and playing sensations is the result of memory. At the same time, Aristotle, highlighting several types of memory, emphasized that the primary processing of experience begins at this stage. This processing is possible because traces of impressions are stored in a common sensory. In general, the first comparison and the correlation among themselves received in sensory experience occurs. He wrote that in order to distinguish bitterly from blue, it is necessary to have the standards of the other, and in addition, the standards of color and taste as such. That is, at the stage of the processing of knowledge, in the general sensoryness, the modalities of sensations (colors, taste, odor, etc.) are allocated, and then their storage and association in the objects of objects and their primary schemes.
Three types of memory varies:
lost - consists in the preservation of the sensations gained in the form of ideas as copies of objects, all animals possess;
memory in his own sense- it differs in that the image is joined by the time characteristic, i.e. the attitude towards him as something former in the past, it is not all, but only in animals with the ability of time perception;
higher Memory As the process of memories in which the judgment is involved. The latter is only in humans.
The memory is some syllogism: if anyone remembers something or seen, or heard, or tested before, he concerns - and it is some kind of knowledge. This ability is only in those who are inherent in the ability of an arbitrary wantness, for the want (free choice) is some kind of conclusion. The memory is an active search for the past and occurs by establishing any relationship (in similarity, in contrast, etc.) of the present with the desired past. Essentially, we are talking about the mechanism of associations, although Aristotle does not give this term.
From the memories there is an experience, the beginning of art and science originate from the experience.
Dumping and processing are carried out in a sensor with associations . So for the first time in psychology, the concept of associations as mechanisms of mental life, knowledge mechanisms appears.
Aristotle allocated several types of associations - by similarity, contrast and adjacency in space and time. Thanks to associations, the first summary images of the surrounding - submissions and scheme appear in the overall sensor. These images people can subjected to further processing, using, for example, imagination and fantasy. Aristotle divided these two processes, indicating that in the imagination, real representations are used as the source material. As a result, imaginary images arise in which the things unseeled in the life are connected. Fantasy is not directly related to realityIt is not only the results, but also the original products are imaginary.
If the associations are the mechanisms of processing knowledge at the lowest levels of knowledge, then logic is on the highest. Logical operations are the operations of thinking. , they help the formation of concepts, ending the process of climbing private to the common one.
Having highlighting two types of thinking (in modern classification - logical and intuitive), Aristotle actually revealed two ways to obtain knowledge. Logical thinking completes the sensual path of knowledge, while intuitive helps the actualization of knowledge from the congenital, reasonable part of the soul.
Intuitive thinking Aristotle reduces mainly to reproduction, actualization of those knowledge that
already exist in humanity. And creative thinking, obtaining a fundamentally new knowledge is based on his own experience, recycled man
Analysis of external impressions, data in sensations, can lead to discovery, to the emergence of absolutely new knowledge, which is no analogues in any people's souls, nor in the universal mind - Nus. Finding after death into the universal mind, this new knowledge connects to him, causing its content and becoming the property of new generations.
Aristotle also emphasized the innovative and author's nature of scientific and artistic creativity. Proving that the imprint of the person of the Creator lies on his works, Aristotle brought examples of how different artists interpret the same plots in different ways. Since the emergence of a new knowledge is based on their own experience and human activity, it is important from an early age to teach children creativity, the ability to observe and understand the surrounding people, their experiences. He wrote about the need to develop independence, activity and individuality in humansSince these qualities are necessarily present in the personality of an outstanding scientist and artist. Aristotle also spoke of the need to develop knowledge about the craft, skills to certain creative activities since childhood (for example, learning to draw, sculpt), as the children are most susceptible to learning, and the earlier their training begins, those who are skillful.
Thinking is characterized by the preparation of judgments. Proceeds in concepts, comprehends the general.
The body of thinking is nUS (universal mind)- Part of the soul, peculiar only by a person and not attached to any bodily organ.
Nus serves as a repository of a reasonable part of a man's soul after his death. At the birth of a child, part of this mind, forming a new reasonable part of the soul, aligning the body of a newborn, connecting with vegetable and animal parts. Thus, there is a transfer of experience, since the reasonable part of the soul keeps all the knowledge existing in Nus, that is, the entire culture accumulated by mankind by the time of the birth of this child. These knowledge is not aware of the person, but are updated in the learning or reasoning process.
Nus is not a constant idea, but an eternally changing culture, in which every new generation of people adds something to something, i.e. nus is always changing, its content is not permanently.Each person who learned something new, who made some kind of discovery, wears him in his soul. After his death, the reasonable part of the soul, together with those knowledge that were accumulated by this person, merges with the world reason, changing and enriching it. Therefore, the next generation is transmitted a reasonable soul with another content. Aristotle emphasized the variability and development of the universal mind.
Aristotle distinguishes lower and higher thinking.
Low thinking is an opinion or assumption; does not contain categorical statement about something, nothing examines; There is no internal necessity in it, does not answer the question "Why? " However, in certain situations it is necessary.
Unlike the lower higher thinking always contains necessity, i.e., the opening of the last reason for truth. Its object are the foundations of things, the highest principles of science.
Exist three types of higher thinking: reasoning, logical, discursive thinking, i.e. the ability to make an opinion from available parcels; Intuitive - the ability to find grounds (parcels) and wisdom, the highest type of highest thinking.
Depending on what the thinking is sent to, differ two types of mind: theoretical and practical.
Theoretical mind knows what it is. This is science. Its object is necessary and universal. There are no practical questions here - for what, for what purpose. His task is to create truth about things.
Practical mind aims to activities. With it, it is familiar with the norms and principles of action, as well as the means of their implementation. The practical mind determines the decision-making in specific conditions, on the basis of which actions are performed. He always concerns private. In the delimitation of two types of thinking - theoretical and practical - the opposition of theoretical knowledge is manifested - practical activity.
Cognitive abilities do not exist separately from each other and are not due to any higher abilities: they lead their origin from the sensation: "... the creature, which does not have sensations, does not learn anything and will not understand anything.". The soul of the newborn presents as it were, as it were, a pure plate for a letter on which nothing has not yet been written. All the teachings of Aristotle about knowledge is permeated with faith in the possibility of knowledge of the man of nature.
The important parts of the psychological system of Aristotle applies to them differentiation of theoretical and practical mind. The principle of such a distinction was the difference between the functions of thinking. If the result of theoretical thinking is the accumulation of knowledge, then practical thinking is aimed at leading behavior. Studying the development of theoretical thinking, Aristotle explored the genesis of the formation of concepts in children, arguing that they first form general concepts, and only then single. For example, children first say "Father" or "Mother", implying all men or women, and only then differentiate these concepts.
At the same time he emphasized that knowledge as such in itself does not make a man moral. From his point of view, virtues do not depend on either theoretical knowledge, nor of nature, which only potentially gives individuals with deposits, and of them may further develop its quality. Moral behavior is formed in the real deeds that give a person a certain chasing. Therefore, it is so important from early childhood to direct the behavior of the child, forming not only his actions, but also the attitude towards them. An individual, and not averaged approach to learning and education, taking into account the entire complex of individual characteristics of a person, and not only its destination for a particular public role, as Plato considered it.
Speaking about the need to take into account individual features, Aristotle wrote that no quality given to us by nature could not change under the influence of the habit, just like a stone, "having the nature of the movement down", can hardly "get used to" move up, Even if someone wants to teach it to this. Consequently, virtues are not given to us from nature and do not arise in addition to nature, but we have the opportunity to purchase them from nature, by the same habits get them perfectly. In general, all that we have from nature, we initially get only in the form of opportunities and subsequently transform them into action. Aristotle considered the usual behavior of the same volition, as well as consciously adjustable, motivating his approach to the fact that habits, as well as samples for imitation, a person deliberately chooses and therefore may be responsible for their own actions.
Aristotle's teachings about feelings
Exploring the problem of regulating behavior, Aristotle concluded that double regulation is possible - both emotions and mind. He, just like Plato, was convinced that only reasonable regulation and responsibility can give responsibility, but his experience (both theoretical and medical and pedagogical) showed that it was useless to deal with emotions. Aristotle first allocated several types of emotions, separating the feelings and affects by the degree of their influence on behavior.
Feelings From his point of view, they can be recognized by mind and therefore do not necessarily affect the behavior, giving our reasonable actions only some emotional context. At the same time, positive feelings help to make certain actions, while negative, on the contrary, interfere. The fact that associations are associated with feelings of pleasure and displeasure, allows them to use them in the formation of socially approved forms of behavior.
The feelings and works of art that they cause them, according to Aristotle, are like steps in the process of knowledge, they make it possible to move from private to a common, forming the basis of pure mind. It is thanks to the cognitive component available in each emotion, a person and enjoys the works of art, from contemplating paintings and sculptures, from performances or poems. At the same time, it is not necessary to be afraid to show and bad samples, considered a scientist, as a person should know about them, and it is better to experience them in imagination, how to strive for them in real life, as often happens when hiding evolving from children. Therefore, unlike Plato, which he considered hard to regulate reading and listening to music, Aristotle was convinced of the need for a variety of genres, and not only marches or hymns inspiring people to work.
He also talked about the need to improve the technical side of art, the importance of learning from the early years of painting and music, as it believed that the works are important not only the meaningful side, but also the quality of their implementation. It is the technical side that is associated with emotions, he emphasized, and therefore the perfect work is easier perceived and penetrate into the soul of man.
Therefore, especially if we want a person to better understand a certain concept, it is necessary to file it in perfect form, in the form of, for example, well-written and played play, after which there is a desire to be the same moral and kind, as its positive heroes, or born Resentment and desire not to be similar to negative heroes. Art is especially important to educating morality, as the concepts of good and evil, being abstract and purely reasonable, may not cause desire to follow the moral standards in the child, but, having received a positive or negative color, will cause the desire to behave accordingly.
In contrast to feelings Affects As the most powerful and pronounced types of emotions, few are amenable to rational understanding, and therefore it is very difficult to fight with them. Affect, according to Aristotle, always leads to spontaneous behavior or to a change in the previously planned action, so the effects of affect can be the most devastating for humans. Thus, developing the provisions of Socrates and Plato, Aristotle also said that true freedom could not have an emotion person. Freedom is possible only with reasonable regulation of behavior.
Aristotle calls affects of attraction, anger, fear, courage, malice, joy, love, hatred, longing, envy, pity - In general, everything is accompanied by pleasure or suffering. Affect is a persistent state caused in a person with some impact, arises without intent and thinking, the previous decisions are changing under its influence. Affect is accompanied by corporal changes. The psychological characteristic reveals, in what condition this affect arises, to whom he is heading, for which.
Aristotle made insightful descriptions of individual affects. For example, fear is described like this.
"Fear (FOBOS) is some kind of unpleasant feeling or embarrassment arising from the idea of \u200b\u200bthe upcoming evil that can destroy us or cause us a nuisance: people are not afraid of all angry; For example, they are not afraid of being unfair or lazy, but only those who may suffer, to upset or destroy, and moreover, in cases where these disasters do not threaten from published, but are so close that they seem to be inevitable. "
The description of the components of the psychological aspects of affects is the rationalism of Aristotle: its decisive component is the presentation.
Affects, by Aristotle, in itself there are no virtues, no vices. The man is judged by his affairs, and in Affect, they evaluate the manner of behavior:
"... And after all, we are not praised and do not blame for our affects; After all, it is not praised by a person who has fear, and cannot certainly blame angry, but only a known manner angry, and for virtues we will praise or blame. "
Aristotle did not consider it possible nor normal, nor desirable in terms of morality suppression of affects. Without them, heroic actions are impossible, enjoying art. In the lower bodily pleasures you need to observe moderation, middle. In all other cases, there must be proportionality of the affect of their reason.
Exploring the problem of fighting the affect (which is necessary to gain freedom and intelligence of behavior), Aristotle came to a very important for psychology Conclusion about the role of catharsis (cleansing) . He wrote that the affect could not be defeated if he had already arrived, but it would be possible to prevent it, to be cleaned from the affect, that is, from the accumulated emotional stress. This cleansing, discharge can be caused specifically, and the role of art is just lies in such as Qatarsis. When reading a book or especially when perceiving the play, the audience identify themselves with her heroes, surviving their problems with them, suffering and rejoicing along with them. This is catharsis, since its own experiences merge with the experiences of the heroes and are transferred to them.
So, the emotional tension of a person is reduced while tearing joy or sorrow caused by a play. The role of dramatic art at the same time, according to Aristotle, is especially high, as the actors playing the scene cause additional (to the very fabul of the play and the words) of experience, helping the appearance of emotional contact. In fact, in these studies, Aristotle was first sounded thoughts about the psychotherapeutic role of artAs well as about the special role of the theater as the most synthetic art that affects the emotional state of the audience.
This concept of Qatarsis is borrowed by Aristotle from medicine. Hippocrat introduced it: the disease was understood as the accumulation of harmful juices, and treatment - how to bring them to a moderate amount allowed for health - cleansing, catharsis - by issuing them.
As applied to the affects, catharsis means the essence of an emotionally painted aesthetic experience under the influence of art.
"The tragedy with the help of compassion and fear achieves purification (katharsis) affects."
The affects of fear and compassion are caused by the spectators in the perception of the tragedy, unlike those in ordinary life, they are cleared - they are cleared - from the whole heavy, gone, vague, the logic of events and action in certain circumstances is revealed, some kind of wisdom of life. Aristotle approaches the problem of the public role of art, its moral impact on a person. Modern authors call it the impact of the theater on the viewer of social therapy.
In the works of Aristotle, emotions, experiences associated with a specific situation, were first correlated with the motivation of human behavior. He believed that the deed was always associated with an affect, and each situation corresponds to an optimal affective response to it. When it is redundant or insufficient, people do bad. Correcting motivation with a moral assessment of the act, Aristotle wrote that everyone could be angry or spending money, but it does not always correspond to the situation. For example, if the affect (emotional state) and the action are adequate to the situation, then the cost of money is customary to be called generosity, if not adequate (bad, vicious), then either wastefulness or misfortune. The correct response method must be developed by experience, the study of others and itself, hard work. At the same time, the scientist again returns to the idea that reasonable regulation, practical thinking makes it possible to realize their own feelings, develop certain rules of behavior in themselves, to educate themselves with their own actions.
Aristotle describes feelings of pleasure and displeasure as indicators of prosperity or delay In the functions of spiritual or bodily: pleasure means unhindered their flow, displeasure - their violation.
Feelings are treated in close connection with activities.: They accompany the activity and are a source of activity. Despite the restrained assessment of bodily pleasures, Aristotle did not call for the pleasures of only the highest order and generally appreciated the role of feeling in human life.
"The pleasure attaches perfection and completeness of activity, which means that life itself."
Will's problem in Aristotle
The doctrine of the will is developing Aristotle in connection with the characteristic of the action.
"All people make one involuntarily, more arbitrarily. And from what they do involuntarily, the one they do by chance, the other - if necessary; From the same thing they do as needed, the one they do under coercion, the other is according to the requirements of nature. Thus, everything that is performed by them involuntarily is committed or by chance, or by virtue of the requirements of nature, or forced. And what is done by people arbitrarily and the reason why lies in themselves, one is done by one in the habit, the other is influenced by the desire, and at the same time one influenced by the desire of reasonable, the other is unreasonable. "
All human actions are divided into involuntary and arbitrary depending on where the basis of action is: outside the subject or in it itself. Actions arbitrary and the action of volitional - not identical concepts. Willows are only actions on a reasonable desire. It is called intention and is the result of careful weighing motifs - deisibration. Volosses are aimed at the future. They have a reasonable calculation. Therefore, Aristotle says:
"Move at least two abilities - the desire and mind."
The mind reflects about the goal - it is reaches for a person or not, and about the consequences in the case of an action. Therefore, where there is no mind, there is no will (in animals, small children, insane). Will action, so carefully calculated, is free and responsible. Therefore, in our power, both excellent actions and shameful: vice and virtue are equally free, their psychological mechanism is the same.
Essentially, the will is characterized by Aristotle as a process that has a public nature: making a decision is connected with the understanding of the person of its public duties.
Aristotle about character
Passions (affects) How strong movements of the soul Aristotle opposes the stability of nature. The nature expresses the essence of man.Aristotle gave a description of mental qualities - morals - people in accordance with their age, social status, profession. Character is not a natural property, its features are folded as a result of experiment. Described with the characteristic features characteristic of people of noble origin, as well as adolescent, old age, mature age, are described with the specific aristotle. This teaching was developed by the student of the Aristotle Theofrast (370 - 288. BC).
In his treatise "Characteristics" he allocated 30 characters: hypocrite, lestings, boltun, rustic, low-stream, moral freak, tickle, spotter news, fuck, miser, naked, holy simplicity, obsessive, notice, superstitious, grind, incredulous, sludge, bored, vain, soutaig, bouncer, pride, coward , Aristocrat, a young old man, malleable, altynnik - and gave their description, based on observing the actions of people.
Aristotle attached importance to upbringing. Education should not be a private matter, but the care of the state. It should influence the moral warehouse of man, developing in it what lacks nature. Aristotle outlined his ideas on specific issues of training and education (on the subjects of training, the ratio of physical and mental education, on the role of music in the upbringing, etc.).
The teachings of Aristotle about the shower, based on the analysis of a huge empirical material, the characteristic of the sensation, thinking, feelings, affects, will indicated the qualitative difference between a person from animals - the man Aristotle defined as a "public creature". This teaching overcomed the limit of the Democritian interpretation of the soul as a spatial value, which moves the body, and put forward a new understanding according to which "... soul ... drives a living being not so, but some solution and thought."
With some changes, the teachings of Aristotle about the soul dominated the XVII century.
Aristotle corrected development of a separate organism with the development of the whole living world. At the same time, in a separate person, they are repeated when it turns out of the baby into a mature creature, those steps that the entire organic world passed during its history.
from the scholarship report of Archimandrite Pimenov "Christian doctrine about the spirit, soul and body for the works of EP. Fefan and Ep. Ignatia Bryanchaninova" (1957)
The essence of the Christian teaching about the spirit, soul and body or, as it is customary, the teachings on trichotomy in the composition of human nature is to recognize in the nature of a person not only two main substances - souls and bodies - but also the third, high-thief - spirit ...
In the Holy Scripture, we do not find a special and sufficiently detailed interpretation of the question of the three-parties of human nature. In the holy books there are only as if "random" (of course, not in the literal meaning of this word) indications of trichotomy, because in the Holy Scripture, direct coverage is aimed at the moral side of one or another psychological subject, which has certainly paramount importance in salvation. Nevertheless, the instructions of the Word of God on trichotomy, which are still found, are quite sufficient to see that the Holy Scripture is not only not in contradiction with the teaching on trichotomy, but informs the last well-foundation and persuasiveness (see for example, Prem .15: 11; 20:24; 1SOL.5: 23; EU 4: 12; 1 Cor.15: 44; 2: 14-15; Juda.19; Lux 1: 46-47, etc.).
In the creations of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church, the doctrine of the spirit, the soul and the body receives wider coverage, however, most of the church authors are limited to a more or less brief mention, speaking about the composition of a person from the spirit, soul and body, as something like that of a gap . Since the trichotomies of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church most often did not carry the nature of the designed teachings, this circumstance made it possible for some of the church writers to perform against trichotomy and insist on strict duality in the device of a human being, and therefore, they were interpreted in The side of the simple terminological instability, believing that in the word of God, the concept of "spirit", the "soul" is unequivocal. These disputes, in turn, did not follow these simple comments or brief objections, and therefore truth was not born in such disputes, "there was no detailed, deep study on the issue of man's anthropology from the point of view of trichotomy ... Nevertheless, I must say that Some Holy Fathers of the Church in some individual cases were bright and convincingly argued the three-part of the person, so if this teaching did not receive a detailed development, then it was not rejected, it was not forgotten, on the contrary, it often happened supported and was widely used in the teaching on Christian moral Improving.
In the first centuries of Christianity, trichotomous appearance on human nature was dominant, and the view is dichotomous (i.e. recognizing only the soul and body in the composition of the human being) found very rarely. More or less trichotomic views adhered to Saint Ignatius Godhead, Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Irina Lyon, Clement Alexandria, Rev. Efrem Sirin, St. Gregory Nissky, Rev. Nile Sinai, Rev. John Cassian, Reverend Isychi Jerusalem, Rev. John Distiller, Rev. Isaac Sirin, Saint Dimitri Rostov, Rev. Seraphim Sarovsky and others ...
Such views expressed in their writings Aristotle, Plato, Plotin, Filon, Fichte, Schubert, Shelling, Du - Prel, Yakov Bem, prof. Lopatin, famous Russian doctor N.I. Pies and DR ...
Very interesting, the statement of Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret (Drozdov) about the teachings on the three-parties of the composition of human nature. That's what he writes to the Archbishop Tver Alexy, who asked Metropolitan Filaret to prove the failure of trichotomy: "I can not, the father of the rector, suck you in your battle with the thought of the tricky composition of a person. It is quite necessary to fight enemies, with the doctrines, other dogmats, what a need to fight against opinions, not hostile to any true dogmat? In a month. Mainly June 25, in the canon you will find the following words: Omoe body, clean the Spirit, and my soul to consecutive. Do you want to fight with sow church book? for the word spirit is supplied here so It is impossible to understand him in the sense of fertile dating to avoid the concept of the composition of a person. I think that this dispute solution lies in depth, to which they do not penetrate the arguing. February 26. 1848. Philaret M.M. "...
It is usually necessary to deal with two main most pronounced theories. The first theory is that the man's soul is completely intangible, absolutely spiritual and is as if the lower manifestation of the Spirit, and therefore only the body of a person is definitely recognized as material. The second theory recognizes the soul of a person or directly material, or "involved" to materiality, and therefore the body and soul are united to some extent to something one, one - the material (sometimes denoted by the biblical term "flesh"), the spirit is considered exclusively intangible and unique The spiritual part of the nature of man. We will agree to call the first theory of intangible - spiritual, and we will call the second theory of materially - spiritual theory ...
Due to the importance of both the nature of the human nature, the works of our comprehensive church writers - devotees of the Bishop of Ignatius (Bryanchaninova) and especially Bishop of Fefan (Gotovov) are greatly attracted to themselves, in whose creations a great place was given to the consideration of life, soul and human body. Pre-Secretary Bishop Feofan was a supporter of the theory of an intangible - spiritual, Bishop of Ignatius was a supporter of the theory of financially manifold, and, moreover, he was close to the opinion of the "fine" materiality not only the soul, but also the Spirit of Human. Both the other authors (especially the Bishop of Feofan) worked a lot in the study of this complex problem. They in the abundance attracted their opinions into confirmation of their opinions as a place from the Holy Scriptures and places from the works of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church and from the writings of other thinkers. In addition, they themselves witnessed the truth of many of their theoretical provisions themselves. Research the statements of these two authors and the real work will be devoted to ...
It is necessary immediately to clarify that Bishop of Ignatius, like many trichotomists, does not consider the mind a completely independent "third" substance of human nature. In his opinion, the mind - the Spirit represents only the highest manifestation of the soul, the highest "part", which remains the soul in its essence. Therefore, Bishop of Ignatius often speaks in their writings about the body and soul, as just about the two main components of a person. For example: "The death is painfully disseminated and a person is smasted for two parts, its constituents, and there is no man by death: there is a separate soul and there is a body separately."
Only in one place in the EP. Ignatius can be found more or less clear answer on his look at trichotomy. So, in the "adding to the word about death" Bishop Ignatius says: "The doctrine that a person has a soul and spirit is also in the Holy Scripture (Heb.4: 12), and in the Holy Foods. For the most part both of these words They are used to designate the entire invisible part of the creature of the human, then both words are identical (Lux. 23: 46; In 10: 15,18). The soul differs from the Spirit when it is required to explain the invisible, deep, mysterious ascetic feat. Spirit Called the verbal power of the human soul, in which the image of God, and which human soul differs from the soul of animals ... " In reinforcement of this thought, the Bikeop Ignatius immediately leads the words of Rev. Makaria Great, which is on the question: "Is there a different mind (spirit), and a different soul?" Replies: "Jacques members of the body, many of the essence, a single person, and the members of the soul, the essence of many, mind, will, conscience, thinking, however, the whole of the literature, and members of the essence of spiritual, are the soul - internal man ... ".
Based on the above above, it is possible to make a completely defined conclusion: Bishop of Ignatius (Bryanchaninov) cannot be called trikhotomist in the literal sense. He only agrees with some views on trichotomy, common with "trichotomists in the literal". Hence, all the works of the Bishop of Ignatia, the present composition will be considered only from the point of view of those places that or common with his bishop of Feofan, or, on the contrary, are explicitly contradiction with the concept of pre-grade Feofan.
But even if Ignatia's bishop can be found in trichotomists, it should be noted that his trichotomy is special. If the Bishop Feofan considers the spirit of the Higher manifestation of the soul, or the "soul of the soul" than quite definitely as the spirit, and the soul refers to the field of spiritual, intangible, then Bishop of Ignatius (Bryanchaninov) is quite definitely and firmly adheres to the opinion that man's soul is material , Bodyna, real.
This appeal and creates the basic disagreement between the two historical authors. Therefore, if the bishop of Ignatia to trichotomists is classified, then to the trichotomists "mentally material", as opposed to "sincere - intangible" trichotomist Bishop Faofhan. Moreover, in the writings of the Bishop of Ignatius, there is a look at which the spirit of the spirit (human and angel) is in some extent ...
In his well-known essay, the "Word of Death" (published in 1863 a special book, and then entering his writings) Bishop Ignatius (Bryanchaninov) unexpectedly for the Russian Orthodox world expressed very bold thoughts on the being of the human and angel spiritual nature.
"Soul," said Bishop Ignatius, - Essential, very thin, flying body, having the whole view of our coarse body, all his members, even hair, his character of a person, the word complete resemblance to him ... ". Referring to places from biblical narratives and places from the creations of the Holy Fathers, Bishop Ignatius also argued that human souls, like angels, although very thin in their essence, but they are material, bodies, real, despite the fact that "substance There are incomparably thinner of the substance of terrestrial items, we visible ... ". Regarding the appearance of the angel creature, Bishop Ignatius argued the same as relatively human souls: "Angels are like a soul: they have members, chapter, eyes, mouth, peses, hands, legs, valissions, in a word, a complete similarity of a visible person in his body ..." .
According to the bishop of Ignatia, the spiritual and is loved by God alone; Still, be it soul or an angel - real, rude. If the soul or angel is called obsolete, then only because they do not have a rough, visible all "our" flesh. And these last reasoning bishop of Ignatius also supported abundant references to places from the holy fathers.
Naturally, many readers' words about death were surprised by the courage and originality of a new teaching. In print, various articles began to appear, drawn attention to the danger of such views. For example, in the September issue of the magazine "Wanderer" for 1863, a bibliographic article of Holy Bibliograph appeared. P. Matveyevsky on "teachings of Ignatius, Bishop of the former Caucasian and Black Sea", where the author about the "word about death" wrote the following: "Despite the fact that the Dissertation was drawn up on the basis of ascetic legends, there is a lot of things in it, why we are not different We can treat from theological point of view, as negative. To the opinions that the author in vain hurried to build a degree of positiveness, we refer: 1) the teaching about the physicity of the soul and spirits ... ". "We can not not recognize," the author continues, "that there is not one eschatology ... not included in such a detailed decision of these issues ... Theology, as a science, did not accept the duties to solve these issues as they allowed their compiler" Words about death ", Because, relating such and similar questions to the field of human inquisite wishing to shove out even outside human limitations, always reported on the soul, paradise, hell and evil spirits information is indisputable, based on the Holy Scripture and the consonant of the universal church ...".
And the year, as the bishop of Ignatius (Bryanchaninov), apparently the text of the appeared articles, wrote his new essay of "adding to the word about death". In this work, Bishop Ignatius tried to bring new arguments in defense of his opinion on the bodyality of the nature of the angel and the soul.
A few years later, both the above compositions of Bishop of Ignatius were crushing the criticism of the reprehensive bishop of Feofan (GOOD) in his book "Soul and Angel is not a body, and the Spirit." In this small, but deep theological labor, Bishop Feofan disassembled in detail the main provisions of the "new" teaching, examined for this testimony of the Word of God and Holy Fathers, as well as the disunity and considerations of the mind on the nature of the soul and angels. Based on all the certificates taken by the testimony, the Bishop Feofan tried to prove the noncunition, the falsity and harm of the teaching about the physicity of the nature of the soul and an angel. The bishop of Feofan finished his work so that the new teaching, defeated by many weighty evidence of his insolvency, "disappeared", as wandering lights disappear, without leaving a noticeable track ... ".
Bishop of Ignatius (Bryanchaninov), as can be seen from his various creations, not only "adhered to" his special, private opinion to the essence of the soul, like things material, bodily, but he persistently tried to refute the opposite opinion (ie, the opinion of the unconditional spirituality of the soul ), Which he calls almost the heretical, who appeared from the "Western" Christians. In "adding to the Word of Death", he writes: "Western, who have recently adopted a lot of teachings, alien and other Orthodox Church, recently accepted alien and nasty doctrine of the perfect love of the created spirits, attributed to them spirituality to the extent that Her God. They put God, the Creator of all and everything, in one discharge of creatures with the created spirits, recognize their independence from space, deny such bodies in them the ability to move ... ". Then the Bishop of Ignatius, unfortunately, notes that the "Western" thinks to establish their teachings on the Holy Scripture, and promises to present a "satisfactory refutation" of this teaching. Next, Bishop of Ignatius cites several testimonies from the Holy Scriptures, which, in his opinion, should prove the materiality, the materiality of the human soul and the creatures of Angelic.
For example, by quoting the words of Jesus Christ "Spirit of the flesh and the bones, I can not imagine, I can see a day" (LK.24: 39), Bishop of Ignatius displays this idea that the spirit here is called only in comparison with our earthly flesh or in comparison with The earthly flesh of the Godsman himself. But in this case, Bishop Ignatius forgets that Jesus Christ pronounced these words after his glorious resurrection, that is, being not in the usual human flesh, and having a flesh glorified, degenidated, modified, radically distinguished by its properties from things of the visible world. So, if the Lord spoke about the spirit that the Spirit does not even have such a "special" flesh, then it was the complete intangibleness of the spirit (in this case "the" soul ", because the apostles thought they would see the spirit of Jesus, i.e. The side of his human being, which is not amenable to sensory perception).
The thought of the materiality of the spirit - the soul Bishop of Ignatius in the same essay is trying to confirm with the consideration that in many biblical books the phenomena of angels or who have had people who have lived people, and in all cases the appearance was like a person. Examples of the phenomenon of angels by the Mironosians who came to the coffin of the Lord are given (MK.16: 5; MF.28: 2-6), the phenomena of Angela Cornilius (Acts 10: 3). However, there is absolutely no reason to derive the depthity of the essence, which is under one or another type. Any spiritual entity can, by the will of God, or remain bothered or temporarily clothe apparently. God himself, an invisible, absolutely spiritual, intangible and innocent, was Abraham and other biblical persons. However, it is impossible to conclude any involvement of the Divine Being for something material, real.
In the "Word of the Death" Bishop of Ignatius on the basis of the words of the Gospel "God Nick Spring Niggy" (John 1: 18) concludes that only God, as a creature endless, does not obey any form, there can be no species. It is quite agreed with the lack of any kind or form in God, absolutely not necessarily following the bishop Ignatimi to assume that therefore everything that outside God should have the form and shape. Here is a logical error of conclusions that coincide in some other parts of their volume, but not coinciding in other parts. And consequently, the church may think of existence besides God and other creatures, invisible, shapeless and intangible, because intangibleness and invisibility do not necessarily have to be the exceptional properties of one deity.
Consider that the Holy Bishop of Feofan speaks about the evidence of the Word of God about the nature of the soul and spirits. First of all, he, half ancient with the "new" teaching, emphasizes that it, leading some of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, is completely bypassed by the silence of the places that are usually given by supporters of the intangibleness of shower and angels. These places Bishop Feofan calls "sedes doctrinae".
The first place, says the Bishop Feofan, is the image of creating a person in the image of God: "This image is not in the body, but in the shower, for God is not a telenisha. In the shower, what exactly is the image of God? Or in the nature of the soul, or in her aspirations , or both in that and the other. But what is not stopped from this, must recognize the soul to recognize the spiritual. If the image of God in the nature of the soul, then she is spiritual, because God is spirit. If the image of God in higher spiritual aspirations, how spiritual phenomena is And the actions cannot occur from corporal creature, but must occur from the creature of the spiritual, the soul should again recognize the spirituality so that spiritual actions can be made from it ... ". The Bishop Feofan adds that this thought was generally and in the way of human, the expression of what the words of Ecckelesiast: "Returns to the Earth, I will return to God, and the Spirit will return to God, the same and Dada it" (Eccles.12: 7). Given the words from the New Testament, the Bishop of Feofan's soul uniformity sees in the commandments of the Lord not to be afraid of "killing the body, the souls who cannot kill the same" (MF.10: 28) and in the instruction of Jesus Christ to worship the Spirit - God "Spirit and Truth" (Ying. 4:24). Remarkably the following argument of the bishop of Feofan.
"Last place pays little attention, meanwhile it is very strongly in the dispute engaged in us. In order to bow to God, it is necessary to be a spirit. If, even under the spirit, there is only one spiritual appeal to God here, i.e. indication not on the nature of the soul, and on spiritual actions from it outgoing, like the truth; then and in this case the conclusion will be the same thing that the soul should be a spirit, for spiritual actions, so necessarily the Lord of the lord they are on the soul, cannot come out of the body, no matter how it It is fine. To interpret this word to others how it does not allow a combination, in which it is here. It is applied here and to God and to the soul. If in relation to God it means the spirit of clean, inventical and disembodied, then at what right, in relation to God To the soul, give him another meaning? " ...
The above argument of the bishop of Feofan, imbued with the spirit of the patristic understanding and interpretation of the Word of God, much clearer and easier explains his thought about the accuracy of the spirit, than also the above evidence of the Bishop of Ignatia in favor of his opinion on the physician of the soul.
It should be noted that the bishop of Ignatius (Bryanchaninov) repeatedly says that the term "spirit, soul" and in the Holy Scripture itself, and in the sacred creations, it seems more often in the sense of "wind, breathing, couples, air, gas. According to a fair remark of the Bishop of Feofan, such an explanation is unsuccessful. If the words of the spirit or soul are used in such or similar to it (sometimes in portable), then such values \u200b\u200bare side, not own. The direct value of these words in the Holy Scripture is "Spirit, the creature is reasonable, inventical and disembodied." The strongest example of this Bishop Feofan considers words from the Book of Genesis: "And he pleaded in his face his breath of life, and became a man with a soul," (Gen..2: 7). Bishop Feofan leads the corresponding explanation of this text on the interpretation of St. Gregory Theologian: "For what minute the soul has become known." Saint Grigory Theologian says that "the soul is the breath of life" (T.4, p.240) and that the life invested by God is known for the name of the soul "(ibid., P.158). Here is the true Christian production of the word soul and for her spirit! "...
Indeed, if you deeply insert into the text and the meaning of all those sacred Scriptures, which speak of the nature of the soul, then it is much easier to adopt the concept of Bishop Feofan on the perfect intangibleness of the soul than the opposite Wiring of Bishop Ignatia about her "fine" materiality. It is enough to recall such evidence in which the soul immortality is said. All material has the end, the limit of its being. If the Word of God teaches about the immortality of the soul - it means that this essence is neither degree none in any part in any part. No matter how thinner may have been "sophisticated", "easy", etc., it will always remain a matter, and therefore there can be no question about her immortality. And this consideration also speaks rather in favor of the teachings of the Bishop of Feofan than Bishop Ignatia (Bryanchaninova).
The teachings of Bishop Ignatia are not deprived of other places and strong tensiones when he presents the meaning of places from the Holy Scriptures in a wider value than it really is. For example, in the "Word of Death", the author says: "The Sacred Scripture and the Holy Fathers constantly call them (created spirits) with an obsolete and loved ones; but they only call them relatively: relative to the coarse bodies of human and to the rude world of real ...". In this case, the Bishop of Ignatius as it would recognize that the Bible everywhere constantly talks about the spirit of spirits, however, the faithful concept of his peculiar concept, he tries to convince his readers in the fact that all the places from the Word of God speak just the opposite thing that is perceived by reason Reading the sacred lines. Such a statement is at least shortly. According to the criticism of the sacred. P. Matveyevsky, it is dangerous, because leading to an arbitrary interpretation of the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, which resembles examples of ancient heretics, which in their delusions to be based on the Holy Scriptures with the help of peculiar interpretation techniques. Perfectly holy. P. Matveesky says: "Allowed such an arbitrariness in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, we could evade any evidence taken from the Bible ... And to confirm any thoughts of the provisions of the Word of God, according to their own pushed ...".
Indeed, if we give a few texts of the Holy Scriptures, where it is said about the soul - the spirit in opposition to the body - the flesh, we will see that the Word of God did not allow any "relativity", but directly taught that the spiritual world is the full opposite of matter, substance, The flesh, and therefore did not contain any hint of the need to understand all such places "relatively". This is what the New Testament Scriptures say: "... do not be afraid of killing the body, the souls who cannot kill the same ..." (Mf.10: 28) ... "... the Spirit of Bodr, the flesh is dismissed ..." (MK.14: 38) "... for the Spirit of the flesh And the bones do not have ... "(Lux.24: 39) ..." There is flesh born from the flesh, and there is a spirit born from the Spirit ... "(In.3: 6) ..." The spirit will live, the flesh does not use Nimalo ... "(in. 6:63) ... "His soul is not left in Herde, and did not see the flesh of him ..." (Acts 2: 31) ... "For how the body is dead dead ..." (James.2: 26) ... "So that they, Understanding a man in a man in the flesh, lived in God's spirit ... "(1Pet.4: 6) ..." The body is dead for sin, but the spirit is alive for righteousness ... "(Rom.8: 10) ..." Throwing the carnal essence of death, and spiritual disturbances - Life and world ... "(Rome.8: 6) ..." And I, absent body, but attending you with the Spirit ... "(1 Cor.5: 3). "... unmarried cares about the Lord, how to please the Lord to be sacred and body and spirit ..." (1 Cor .7: 34) ... "The flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God, and the damage does not inherit the nonsense ..." (1 Cor.15: 50) ... "Enter the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the root lusts, because the flesh wishes the opposite spirit, and the spirit is the opposite flesh ..." (Gal.5: 16-17) ... "Singing his flesh will reach his flesh, and Sing in the Spirit from the Spirit will get back the life of the eternal ... "(Gal.6: 8) ..." Our brand is not against blood and flesh, but against ... spirits ... "(Ef.6: 12) ... etc.
So the meaning of all the places of Holy Scripture, which refers to the soul - the Spirit, this is that no degree of materiality can think in the concept of the created spirit, no involvement in the matter, and, consequently, it is necessary to recognize that, in terms of the Word of God, in the dispute Two saint, the truth was on the side of the Epos Bishop of Feofan.
This truth was captured by the general workers. The seventh Ecumenical Cathedral at its fourth meeting, on the basis of evidence of the Word of God and the Bogomdrian reasoning of the saints of the Holy Fathers, proclaimed ananity of the angels, and hence the soul, indicating that they are "alien to every bodily shell." In the "Orthodox confession of the Catolytic and Apostolic Church of the Eastern" says: "Finally, God created a man who is composed of an innumerable and reasonable soul and real body, in order to ... It was seen that he is the Creator and both worlds, and an innumerable and real ...". "... The human body comes from the seed of Adamov, and the soul is given from God, as Scripture says:" Lord, simple sky, and founding the land, and create a person in him ... "(ZA.2: 1).
Both reprehensive author in proof of their views abundantly leads numerous extracts from the creations of the Holy Fathers. One - in favor of the physician of the soul, spirit, angels; The other is in favor of their universality, intangibleness. This is a lot of quotations. Let us dwell first in those places that are the most "sharp", the cornerstone of both views.
Bishop of Ignatius in the "Word of Death" cites the following words of St. Macaria of the Great: "As angels have an image and a zark (view), and both an external person has an image and the inner has an image similar to an angel, and a zrax like an external person ..." . It is provided in some peripherals and a different place: "All the creature - and an angel, and the soul, and the demon in their own nature there is a body; because, although they are sophisticated, however, they are essential, according to its distinctive features and in the image, respectively the sophistication of your nature, the essence of the body is thin, whereas our body is essential for its deble. So the soul, being sophisticated, enjoyed the eye, which looks, and the ear hears, but like this language that he says, and hand; and one In a word, with all the body and members of him, the soul will fight with the body, as a result of which all life departures are performed ... ".
Several paraphrases these places, Bishop Ignatius writes in the same "Word of death": "A rude human body serves clothes for a thin body - souls. On the eyes, ears, hands, legs belonging to the soul, there are similar members of the body ..." and then bishop Ignatius leads her own thought: "When the soul can be separated from the body through death, it is accomplished by his clothes ...".
Bishop of Ignatius also refers to the following words of St. John Damaskina: "Angel is a creature of a disembodied ... the angel is inexplicable and the Angel is called compared to us. For everything, in comparison with God, a single incomparable, turns out to be rude and real. One deity is in a strict sense Eventlessly and disembodied ... "
Bishop Ignatius adds: "According to the nature," says the same saint, "only God is unless; the angels, demons and souls are inappropriate by grace and in comparison with the gross substance." (Ibid, chapter 12; about man ...).
The analysis of the testimony of St. Scriptures will be more convenient to start with St. John Damascina, and then disassemble the teachings of the Great Makaria and then the rest of the Holy Fathers of the Church. And the Bishop of Feofan in his polemical work "Soul and Angel is not a body, and the Spirit" writes in this way: "Of all the departments, which wants to protect, the new teaching is only the testimony of St. John Damaskin and Makaria Great and maybe it is at least somehow pull on His hand. Certificates of other holy fathers given to them, they say not at all what it wants ... "
The teachings of St. John Damaskin about souls and angels (in the volume of interest to us) is mainly in chapters III and the XII of his second book and in the XII chapter of the first book of exact presentation of the Orthodox faith. At the beginning of the III chapter of the second book, Saint John Damaskin says: "He himself - the creator and Creator of Angels, who led them to being not existing, in the image of their own, the nature of the insensitive, as if the spiritual David says: "Create angels your spirits and servants of their own fire scoring ..." "So, an angel is the essence of a mental, always moving, who has free will (self-instep), disembodied, serving God, by grace, who received immortality in his nature, what the view and the limit know only One Creator. It is unbelievable and the same thing is called compared to us; For everything compared with God, a single incomparable, turns out to be coarse and real, because only the deity is really lovely and disembodied "... Angels are the second lights, mental (conceivable, comprehended only by the mind), having enlightenment from the first and original light; We need languages \u200b\u200band hearing, but without the words pronounced (language) transmitting their thoughts and desires ... ". "As the minds, they are in mental places, not being described like bodies, for according to their nature, they do not have a species (image) like bodies, do not have three dimensions, but mentally there are inherent in and acting where they are commanded, and You can not act at the same time and there and there ... "(so far from chapter III of the second book) ..." ... So, the soul is the essence of the living, simple and disembodied, in nature is invisible for corporal eyes, immortal , gifted and mind, and the mind that does not have a form using the body equipped with the organs ... ". "The disembodied and invisible and shameless understand the two ways. One thing is in essence, and the other - by grace; and one - by nature, the other - compared to the rudeness of the substance. In relation to God - by nature, in relation to the angels , demons and souls - by grace and according to the rudeness of matter ... "(still from the head of the XII of the second book). "... There is also a mental place where (mentally) is contemplated and where there is a mental and disembodied nature, where it is inherent in and acts and does not boldly, but mentally. For it does not have (external) species to be an absorbing bodily ..." (Until now, from the XIII chapter of the first book).
Having before the eyes of the context of those thoughts of St. John Damaskina, on the basis of which the bishop of Ignatius developed his peculiar teachings, it can be seen that the Holy Father did not intend to say and did not really say what "read" Bishop Ignatius. Based on the proposed places from the "accurate presentation of faith", you can understand the following idea of \u200b\u200bSt. John Damaskina:
Almighty God, possessing an innumerable nature, created in his own image, that is, the most innocent, and created spirits. The most essence of the spirit can not be seen or feel. It can only think. How to think? As a certain spirit, like an imperceptible fire, as an essence of the essence, which is moving along its free will, but with the aim of serving the Creator. By the grace of God, the Spirit becomes immortal. The spirit does not need it in a hearing, nor in the language, it does not have three dimensions, dwells in a special "thought" place, has no species, no form, no limit. True, if you compare the created spirit with the Spirit of God, then between them is an immeasurable abyss: even the most perfect of the created spirits is very far from perfects of the Spirit of God, and therefore you can speak about the created spirit almost as a non-good, almost as a real essence. And yet the Spirit, by the grace of God, the Balfrene and is loved. How to understand it? The view and limit of this entity knows only one Creator, who is only truly intenseless and is invenient. Man is not given such knowledge. A variety of spirit - human soul - on earthly conditions enjoys a real body equipped with special perception authorities.
Nowhere in St. John Damascina does not have the shadow of thought about the "fine" material, about the materiality of the spirit or soul.
But how to be with the testimony of the Great Makaria? At first glance, it contains a very clear teaching about the physicity of spiritual entities (except God), about the appearance of shower and angels, attributing them the presence of hands, feet, souls, mouth, etc. In the "Word of Death", the Bishop of Ignatius leads such a testimony of Rev. Makariya: "Below the wisdom of the hospitality, below the reason for the mind of His might understand the subtlety of the soul, or say how it exists, except for those who are open through the Holy Spirit, comprehension and exact soul knowledge. But you are doing here, judge and hurt, and hear what it is? That is God, but she is not God; that Lord, and she is a slave; he is a creator, but this creator; that creator, and she is no creature; there is no Similarities between the nature of that and sow ... "(conversation 49, chapter 4). Is it possible to assume that the Rev. Macarius the Great in reality contained such a kind of creed of spiritual beings?
To clarify the meaning of the statements of the design-like Macaria, we give the entire 9 chapter from its 4 conversations. This is what the sayses:
"I mean, as you strengthened my own, a kind of delicate and deep word will hang out. Therefore, listen to reasonably. Infinitely, impregnable and incomparable God, in the infinite and uncomfortable good goodness, fertilized himself and, so to speak, as if silent in impregnable glory He was to enter into unity with his visible creatures, I understand the souls of the saints and angels, and they might be involved in the life of the Divine. And every creature is an angel, and the soul, and the demon, according to his own nature, there is a body; because, though and they are sophisticated, however, in the essence of their own, according to their distinctive features and in the image, respectively, the sophistication of their nature, the essence of the body is thin, whereas this is our body in the essence of its deble. So the soul, being sophisticated, enjoyed the eye, which looks, And the ear who hears, but like this, the language that he says, and handle; and in one word, with all the body and members of him, the soul will fight with the body, as a result of which all life departures are performed ... " .
First of all, you need to pay attention to the initial words in which the Rev. Macarius warns that he wants to mess up a "subtle, deep word", and invites readers to listen to him "reasonable". This warning suggests that the teaching will be set out, unusual for the whole church, and therefore, it is possible and optional to take it into faith by all members of the Church. On the other hand, this warning speaks of emergency complexity, "subtlety" of the question in which many provisions can cause the readers perplexity. Rev. Macarius as it would say that: "It seems to me that you can think about the spirits. But you, readers, do not rush to object, listen to me to the end. Maybe you will agree with my opinion." What is the opinion? Apparently, with the opinion of the physicity of the Spirit and Angel. But what's here "subtle" in this teaching? This teaching rather can be called "rude", almost materialistic. What is the "deepness" here? Obviously, the subtlety of the exercise consists not that this, at first glance, a simple saying should be given a somewhat different meaning, and, in all likelihood, the same meaning we have seen from St. John Damaskina, namely, that created perfume, although And they are unprepared, albeit, but in comparison with the Spirit of God, they turn out to be rude and "almost bodily", or they have a "lower degree of spirituality", while God has the highest and incomparably clean spirituality.
But even let's say that Saint Makariya wanted to show his conviction in the bodies of spirits and angels. In this case, the opinion of the pretended can be considered only a private opinion, and not beliefing the entire Christ Church. Rev. Macarius and did not claim it, did not make it takes all his readers at his opinion, as Bishop Ignatius.
What is the opinion of the church in this case? This question will give us the answer a small note of the publishing house in the collections of the conversations of Rev. Makariya, placed under the 9th chapter of the 4th conversation after the words: "... And the angel, and the soul, and the demon, in their own nature, there is a body." This is the note of the Moscow Spiritual Academy:
"This, mean to intelligent, in the sense of not unrefined, but relative. John Damaskin (see the exact presentation of the Orthodox faith of KN.2, Chapter 3) says:" Angel is a creature of a disembodied ... The angel is unrelatively called an angel compared to us ... "and So below. The already mentioned is the saying of St. John Damaskina. Here is the voice of the church! Here is the theological indication on how to read these words: "Severe not in the sense of the unreleased, but relative"! Yes, and the very testimony of St. John players the role of proving That bodyability of the spirits can not be understood in a literal sense! We should not forget that such a note is made in all decisively editions of the works of Rev. Makariya, and all these publications were censored by the sacred synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.
But maybe, Rev. Macarius in other places of their creations deeper develops its teaching? No, this is not found. On the contrary, this is how it speaks in other places about the nature of the soul: "The soul is not from the God of God and not from the nature of the sly darkness, but there is a smart creature, filled with a great and wonderful, beautiful similarity and the image of God ...". Or that is what Saint Makarary says in his 46th conversation: "... when the soul flies to the Lord, and the Lord, Milua and Loving Her, comes and flies towards her, and its intention is increasingly already in grace of the Lord, then the soul and the Lord are made Single Spirit, a single fighting, a single mind "(Chapter 3) ...
"... So, truly soul - the big thing, God and wonderful. When creating it, her God created her that in the nature there was no vice, on the contrary, created her in the image of the virtue of the spirit ...". "In a word, I created it with such that to make it a bride and tell him to be in uniform with her, and she was to be with him in a single spirit, as it was said:" Just the Lord, one of the spirit is with the Lord "(1 Cor .6: 17) ... ".
How can bodily, real, at least and very thin soul be "one spirit" with the Lord? This is possible only for smart creatures, created as "a wonderful similarity and image of God." So Saint Makariya, if it was assumed to state some special idea of \u200b\u200bcreating spirits, then this thought remained his personal private opinion, although very "thin." And, consequently, no one in the Church of God should be kept, having grabbed for such an opinion, to establish mandatory doctrine on it.
Provides the bishop of Ignatius and the saying of St. John Cassiana Roman: "Although we call many creatures of spiritual, what angels, archangels and other forces, also our soul, or what is this thin air, but they should not be admitted by disembodied. They have a corresponding body, In which there are, although incomparably the thinner of our body. They are the essence of the body, according to the apostle, who said: "... and Telavl Heaven, and Earth's Teles ...", and again: "Singing the body of spiritual, rebels the spiritual body" (1 Cor.15: 40.44) than it clearly indicates that God only God only. (Interview 7, Ch.13 ...) ".
As the Bishop of Feofan notes in his book "Soul and Angel is not a body, and the Spirit", the presented saying of St. John Cassian does not touch the essence of angels and spirits at all. Rev. John believes that the angels and spirits have "the corresponding body in which they exist." Therefore, it is understood that the one who exists in such a body himself is not a body, but spirit. This is also a kind of opinion that is not recognized by the Church, but it is impossible to bring the idea of \u200b\u200bthe physicity of the nature of the created spirits.
You can disagree with such a remark of the historic Faofan, given the further expressions of the St. John Cassiana, where the human bodycance is directly approved: "They are the essence of the body ..." And "the only God alone ..." However, the opinion and this saint speaks only that The nature of the creature of the spirits is the insecited region of theological wisdom, in which you can work and think, but you can not make the desired conclusions about the real physical soul material and other spirits created by God.
This is what Saint Gregory Theologians say, inlets in his 28th words about theology of the word of the Psalmopevts: "Craft Angels have their own spirits and servants of their fire fire": "... The spirit and fire is called the nature of this, a part as mental, and part of how cleaner; because And the first essence will take the same name. However, it will not be possible with us, or how much you can, close to that ... ". The great theologians, as we see, does not share the "new" teaching. He believes that it is better to believe in "Non-Owlism" than in the bodyality of the spirits, the nature of which is "mental" and "cleansing", and not real, not material.
Compare a new teaching about the physicity of spirits with the sayings of some other holy fathers.
This is what Saint John Zlatoust writes in his conversation to the Book of Being: "When you hear that God" blown in his face His breath of life, "the intelligence that he made inaccurate forces, so fagored, so that the human body created from the Persi had A reasonable soul that could use bodily members ... Before the body is created from the front, and then the life force is given to him, which is the essence of the soul. Therefore, relatively short-sized Moses said that "the soul ... Body is his blood" (Lion.17: 14). And in man there is a disemedior and immortal essence, having a great advantage over the body, and this is what is decent (to have) in front of the body ... ".
St. John Zlatoust does not speak a word about the "fine" physicity of the soul. He directly calls the implicit and immortal life force, which he can "use bodily members, but herself remains unbelievable, like other disembodied forces. And nowhere in the creations of the Holy Father there is no hint of the involvement of the soul to the material world. On the contrary, St. John Zlatoust often With admiration describes the high spiritual properties of the soul, exclaiming at the same time: "What can be compared with the soul? Name the whole universe, and then you can not say anything ... ".
Saint John Zlatoust and wonderful words about the unrecognizability of the essence of the human soul: "We do not know with the accuracy of the creatures of the angels and cannot recognize him, no matter how much we ponder about it. But what am I talking about angels when we don't know well, or Rather, I don't even know the essence of our soul at all? .. But why I say: what is the soul on the merits? Even or that one cannot say how it is in our body ... ".
If it is impossible to know the essence of the spiritual nature of the soul and the image of its connection with the human body, then the more impossible to attribute the soul something new, to attribute to it materiality, physicality; And even more so it is impossible to insist on the truth of this, and not a different look (that is, the look of the bishop of Ignatius). This is the conclusion from all the words of St. John of Zlatoust.
Saint Grigory Theologian in his 38 Word on the Epiphany in such words describes the creation by the man of man, composed of the nature of body and nature of the spiritual: "The artistic word creates a living being, in which they are in unity, that is, invisible and visible nature; creates, I say , man, and from the created already substance, taking the body, and by putting life from ourselves (which in the Word of God is known under the name of the rational soul and the image of God), as it were, as it were for some second world, in small the Great; supplies another angel, from Of the different nature of the composed fan, the viewer of the visible creature, the Tyannik of the creature of the creative, the king on the fact that on Earth, subordinate to the city kingdom, earthly and heavenly, temporary and immortal, visible and inspired ... Create a living being, here is pre-prepared and prevented in other peace and ( What makes the end of the mystery) through the desire to God reaching anybody ... ".
He writes in the Word 40 to the Holy Baptism: "They are stolen from two natives, that is, from the soul and body, from the nature of the visible and invisible, then the purification is double; it is: the water and spirit; and one is apparently visible and bodily And the other at the same time is performed nenet and invisible ... ".
Again, St. Gregory Theologian does not contain thoughts about the physicity of the soul. Like him and many holy fathers, the expression "of two nature" is often used. If a person consists of two natures, and in addition to the spiritual and physical nature of the third nature, there is no third nature, then, in him, in addition to the body, of course, the second nature - the soul presents a natural essence. Otherwise, if the soul was involved in the materiality, constituting the "thin flesh", why would we talk about two nature? Then the body, and the soul would be attributed to one nature, only with some kind of variety.
Symeon New Theologian, as well as St. Gregory Great, clearly distinguishes two nature in man, calling the soul completely inventive: "In fact, I am aware of, - how the soul, being all the most innocent and having a smart eye of light, however Sensual ways and bodily eyes ... "
In another place, Rev. Simeon, the New Theologian says: "The soul, as a smart strength, is one and simple and not complicated from different parts ...". In his 13th word, he calls the soul "of an innumerable, simple and simple ...", and in the 34 song of the divine hymns, says: "Truly in the image (his) soul of every person - a verbal image of a word ..." than it is clearly implies the soul as a completely intangible essence. . That's what he writes in her 27th word: "While she (soul) is in the body of this, through the body sees and knows real; but since it will be separated from the body, it is at that very an hour she is separated from intercourse with all real, ceases see something and think about, and comes into relations with invisible and mental ... ".
All the above places of the Creatures of the St. Simeon of the New Theologian eloquently testify to a completely clear understanding of the human soul to them, as the essence of the unknown, absolutely disembodied, without any signs of "fine" materiality.
The result of the review of the statements of the Holy Father on the issue of the nature of the spirits will be the final conclusion that all St. Fathers unanimously recognized the intangibleness of shower and angels. If some of them adhered to a special opinion about the "secondaryness" of the spiritual essence of the soul, then these most of them never put the soul in the category of objects involved. And, consequently, comparing both exercises about the nature of the created spirits, we conclude that the teachings of the Bishop of Feofan on the unconditional of their spirituality closer to the general patristic opinion, closer to the generally extension understanding of this subject than the peculiar statements of Hour Security (Bryanchaninov) ...
Combining everything above, we come to the following conclusions.
Bishop Ignatius believes that the creature spirits (souls) are material, real, although their materiality and very subtle, unlike other items of material world, which have a coarse material. The soul of man, for example, has the entire appearance of a person: eyes, ears, face, head, hands, legs, etc. Soul can be measured, weighing. In short, the soul is some thin, ethereal, tender copy of the human body.
Bishop Feofan claims that the Spirit, the soul, an angel is unconditionally invenient, do not consist of any material particles. The soul of man, for example, does not have any parts of the body, nor organs like the organs of a living person. The soul cannot be measured, weighing, feeling.
As mentioned above, neither the sacred writing, nor the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church, nor the data of the humanitarian and natural sciences do not represent enough evidence of the justice of the teachings of the Bishop of Ignatius, while representing a lot of data in favor of the teachings of the Bishop of Feofan ...
How much does the doctrine of the spirit, the soul and the body be promoting the salvation of a person?
At this question, the very helpful Bishop of Fauofan himself answers in this way: "We have gotten up with you that the person has three tiers of life: spiritual, mental and physical, that each of them gives its amount of needs, natural and peculiar to person, but alone, above Others are lower, and that commensurate satisfaction gives them a man peace. Spiritual needs above all, and when they are satisfied, then others will not be satisfied, peace happens, and when they are not satisfied, then be all the other satisfying richly, peace is not It happens. Why is their satisfaction and is called "one on the need" ... ".
All writings of the Bishop of Feofan, which speak about the spirit, soul and body, are imbued with this desire: how to teach people to achieve this "one on the need." The great deceive love, care for salvation, care about spiritual life, itifies from the instructions of the historic Fefan, which is consistently dividing the inner life of a person for three spheres: spirit, soul, body. If all the writings of the Bishop of Feofan could be gathered into a single big book and it would be necessary to give it an independent name, then it would be rightly named after two names: "What is a spiritual life and how to tune in", or "way to salvation ". And if it were necessary to briefly answer the question: what is a spiritual life, the answer would be such - this is the way to salvation. And if the question was asked: what is the path to salvation? - The answer would follow: in spiritual life, in an increase in man in the spirit, in the domination of the spirit over the soul and body.
Saint Feofan says: "When spiritual needs are satisfied, then they learn a person to give satisfaction with them and other needs, so that neither the soul is satisfied, nor something that the body is satisfied, does not contradict spiritual life, but it will be born, - And in man, there is a complete harmony of all movements and detections of his life, - harmony of thoughts, feelings, desires, enterprises, relationships, pleasures. And se Paradise! " ... This is what the pre-secrecy of Feofan leads to the achievement of Paradise on Earth through the right development of spiritual life.
Notes
1. From the Greek Words: TRICWZ - Troyakimo - and H Tomh - section, distinction, separation.
2. Letters of the Moscow Metropolitan Filaret to the late Archbishop Tver Alexy. (1843-1867). Letter 26.- M., 1883.- p.27.
3. Word about death // Op. Bishop Ignatia (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T.II. - S.585.
4. Composition of Bishop Ignatia (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T.II. - S.745-746.
5. Conversations and words prep. Makaria Great: Talk 7, Chapter 8, Translation Mosk. Spirit. Acad. - 1820.
6. EP. Feofan. What is spiritual life and how to tune in to her? - M., 1904. - p.49.
7. Word of death // Writing EP. Ignatius (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T.II, - S.591-596.
8. See the introduction of this work. - p.7.
9. Writing EP. Ignatius (Bryanchaninova). - SPb., 1865. T.II. - S.592.
10. ibid. - S.591-593.
11. Ibid. - S.592.
12. Matveyevsky P. Education of Ignatia, Bishop of the former Caucasian and Black Sea // Wanderer. - 1863. - Saint. - p.28.
13. EP. Feofan. The soul and an angel is not a body, but the Spirit. - M., 1913. - C.210.
14. Writings EP. Ignatius (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T.II. - P.749.
15. Ibid. - S.595.
16. EP. Feofan. The soul and an angel is not a body, but the Spirit. - M., 1913. - C.120.
17. Ibid. - p.121.
18. Ibid. - p.122.
19. Word about death // Op. EP. Ignatius (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T.II. - S.593.
20. EP. Feofan. The soul and an angel is not a body, but the Spirit. - M., 1913. - P.127.
21. Ibid. - p.129.
22. Word of death // Op. EP. Ignatius (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T.II. - S.595.
23. Matveyevsky P. Education of Ignatia, Bishop of the former Caucasian and Black Sea // Wanderer. - 1863. - Saint. - P.30.
24. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. - Kazan, 1873. - T.VII. - p.347.
25. Orthodox confession of the Colic and Apostolic Church of Eastern. - St. Petersburg., 1842. - p.15. - Question 18.
26. Ibid. - p.26. - Question 28.
27. Conversations and words prep. Makaria Great: Talk 7. - Tr.-Sergieva Lavra, 1904. - P.67.
28. ibid. Conversation 4. - p.28.
29. Writing EP. Ignatius (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T.II. - S.591.
30. St. I. Damaskin. Accurate presentation of the Orthodox faith. KN.2. Chronicles.
31. Writings EP. Ignatius (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T.II. - S.594.
32. EP. Feofan. The soul and an angel is not a body, but the Spirit. - M., 1913. - p.21.
33. Translation of Archimandrite Pimen from Mina Patrology. Patrologiae Cursus Complectus. Series Graca. Accurante J.-P. Migne. Tomus XCIV. 1860. S. JOANNES DAMASCENUS.
34. Writing EP. Ignatius (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T. II. - S.594.
35. Conversations and words prep. Makaria Great: Conversation 4, Chapter 9. - Tr.-Sergiyev Lava, 1904. - C.27-28.
36. ibid. - p.27.
37. ibid. Conversation 1, Chapter 7. - P.9.
38. Ibid. Conversation 4. - C.295-296.
39. Writing EP. Ignatius (Bryanchaninova). - St. Petersburg., 1865. - T.II. - S.594.
40. Creations. - M., 1889. - Part 3. - P.40.
41. John Zlatoust. - T.IV. - p.104.
42. ibid. - p.336.
43. John Zlatoust. Against anomeys. - TI. - S.528.
44. Creations. - M., 1889. - Part III. - C.200.
45. Ibid. - p.228.
46. \u200b\u200bPub. Simeon is a new theologian. Divine hymns. Song 44. - Sergiev Posad, 1917.
47. Pub. Simeon is a new theologian. The words. Word 24. - M., 1892. - IET.I. - p.220.
48. ibid. Word 13. - p.127.
49. Pub. Simeon is a new theologian. Divine hymns. Song 34. - Sergiev Posad, 1917. - P.146.
50. Pub. Simeon is a new theologian. The words. Word 27. - M., 1892. - IET.I. - p.242.
51. EP. Feofan. What is spiritual life and how to tune in to her? - M., 1914. - P.65.
52. ibid. - p.65.
(394 - 322 BC)
First of all, Aristotle revised Plato's approach to the soul. From his point of view, the separation of the soul and body is an impossible and meaningless act, since the "idea", "concept" can not be a real physical subject, which is a person. Based on the inseparalness of the soul from the body, Aristotle and gave his interpretation of the soul - the soul there is a form of realization of the body capable of life, it cannot exist without a body and is not a body. Explaining this approach, Aristotle says that if we wanted to find a soul of your eyes, I would have a vision, that is, the soul is the essence of this subject, expressing the purpose of its existence. Matter without a soul is a clean potency, it can also be all like a molten metal that has not yet accepted a certain form. But if you cast it in the form of a sword, or a knife, or a hammer, then he will immediately gain a goal that can be determined based on its form. Thus, the soul really cannot exist without a body, as the form is always a form of something.
He wrote that there are three types of soul - vegetable, animal and reasonable. Each of them has certain functions. So, the vegetable soul is capable of breeding and nutrition. Animal soul has other functions in addition to them - the desire (feelings), movement, feeling and memory. And a reasonable soul, which is only a person, has also an ability to think. Each higher form of the soul is awaited over the previous one, acquiring those functions that it has been inherent. Therefore, if the vegetable soul has only two functions, then the animal is six, and the intelligent - seven. Thus, the idea appeared in psychology for the first time genesis,development, although this is not yet a development in the process of human or humanity, but the development of the psyche during the transition from one form of life to the other - from plants to the animal world and to a person.
The initial formation of Aristotle affected not only in his thoughts about the connection of higher forms of life with elementary, but also that he corrected the development of a separate organism with the development of the entire living world. At the same time, in a separate person, they are repeated when it turns out of the baby into a mature creature, those steps that the entire organic world passed during its history. In this generalization, the idea named afterwards was laid in its infancy biogeneticlaw.
Considering the relationship between the types and abilities of the soul, Aristotle emphasized that all these functions cannot be carried out without a body. Indeed, it is impossible to feel, move or strive for something, not possessing the material shell. From here, Aristotle did conclusion that the vegetable, and the animal soul are mortal, i.e. Appear and disappear simultaneously with the body.
It would seem, on the basis of these reasoning, Aristotle was to come to the idea of \u200b\u200bmortality of a wise soul. But then he would have to conclude that all the knowledge that was in the soul was formed only in the process of human life, dying with him. However, not only the pedagogical experience, but also the scientific research activities he did, arranged that a person cannot exist in the world without using those knowledge that were accumulated before him. If people could not transmit to each other knowledge, they would have to be invented, to open the laws already open by someone. The man at the same time not only could not come up with something substantially new, but just could not live in a difficult world. Thus, for Aristotle and the psychology of that time it was clear that a person not only lives in the space of culture, but is its carrier in his soul.
Then there was a legitimate question about how the knowledge opened by others becomes the property of a particular person. Plato and Socrates found an answer to this question, based on the assumption that these knowledge is from the very birth in the soul of a person, and training, reading books only help their updates. The same point of view was divided by Aristotle, since from the position of science of that time he could not explain the fact of the interiorization of external knowledge towards a person. On the contrary, his observations showed that someone else's experience, hoped by reading, lectures even a respected teacher, does not become his own, does not convince him, but at best helps to cope with a certain problem or forms behavior that remains only in the presence of control. The possibility of interiorization, emotional mediation in the process of assigning a culture at that time was not yet open, and therefore Aristotle came to the natural conclusion about the existence of congenital knowledge, that is, about the immortality and intangibleness of a reasonable soul.
Questions of philosophy and psychology. - M., 1900. - Year XI, KN. II (52). - P. 287-333.
The breakdown of the pages of this electronic article corresponds to the original.
Chelvan. G. I.
Essay of modern teachings about the soul *).
In this article, I suppose to introduce our readers with modern philosophically about the soul. I will begin with considering the teaching, which is called usually psychophysical monism or parallelism.
In order for the teaching to do this is quite clear, I will consider the historical conditions under which it originated. This will give us the opportunity to understand the logical necessity, thanks to which this teaching should have arisen. It exactly arises in close connection with the teachings of Descartes.
Descartes in order to explain all the existing: spirit and nature, recognized the existence of two substances, spiritual and material, radically different from each other. The substance of the spiritual has only the ability of thinking, but does not have a length; Substance material has a length, but does not have the ability to think. The body never happens without stretching the spirit without thinking. For the activities of one and another substance there are completely peculiar laws. Substance material obeys only mechanical laws, so. It can come into motion, can report to another body; the spiritual substance can only
*) From public lectures, chinful in Kiev in the spring half of the year 1899.
think. Therefore, Descartes thought that there could be no interaction between the material and spiritual substance, i.e. The body can not have any impact on the soul, just as the soul cannot have any impact on the body. The movement of any body can occur only from the movement of another body. In addition, Descartes assumed that if, for example, one body moves and on his way it meets another body and leads it to the last in motion, then it loses exactly so much of its movement as the movement of another body. In this sense the number of movement in the world is invariably.Therefore, it would be quite unclear if the soul was able to produce body movement. In this case, it would have to change the total amount of movement. But this is unreal.
Thus, according to Descartes, all the movements of the human body should be explained without the intervention of the spiritual principle; The human body is like a car whose actions are made exclusively under mechanical laws, and in this sense, Descartes is one of the genericants of the mechanical interpretation of life phenomena.
But denying interaction, Descartes could not conduct his point of view to the end. Along with the denial of interaction, we find the actual recognition of interaction in its writings. So, for example, he says that the soul has the ability to move in motion of the sishkovoid gland. In a word, Descartes could not be freed from those contradictions in which he had to go, denying the possibility of interaction between the Spirit and matter.
In the same position we find this teaching at his school. His followers, like him, proceeded from that recognition that the body and spirit would be found to differ from each other, which there can be no interaction between them, since the soul can only think, and all
body can only move. But they could not not see that there were facts that argue their interaction. For example, in my soul is the "desire" to produce "movement" by hand, and the hand comes into motion. Something mental, desire, has an impact on my body. If the light beam acts on my eye, then I get a feeling of light, therefore, something physically produces a feeling in my soul. How to explain these facts of interaction from the basic principles of Cartesian philosophy?
Since this interaction it seemed impossible, it was impossible to them, while the actual interaction between mental and physical processes existed, then the followers of Descartes assumed that it was necessary to allow him to allow the intervention of God. They represented themselves: when I have a desire to move your hand, I could not do this, since my soul is not able to move the body, but God provides me with the fact that at this moment my hand makes me. Similarly, when any excitement of light, sound, etc., acts on my senses, the feeling appears as a result of the intervention of God. According to the representation of Cartesians, the impact of the soul on the body and body per soul, or that the same thing, the correspondence between physical and mental processes is possible only due to the intervention of God.
This theory wears the name in the history of philosophy okkazionalism *), and with some change it appears later at Leibnia (1046-1716) under the name of the pre-installed harmony. Leibnizers as well as Descartes did not consider it possible to allow the interaction between
*) According to this theory, the body and soul are not the essence of the cause in your own sense, but they are random or seeming causes (causae Per Occasionem. ) For changes performed in a particular. They are only a reason, the case for the action of the true cause is God.
hom and matter, but did not agree with Okkazionalists, as it was thinking that if they were right, that God for each of our action interferes in the natural course of phenomena, then every our act would be miracle.
To understand his own theory of pre-installed harmony, we will pay attention to the comparisons that he offers about the exercises about the soul. In his opinion, we can imagine two wall clocks, which quite according to each other show constantly the same time. Such an agreement between two hours can be imagined by what is happening due to the following three reasons. First, you can imagine that the mechanism of one hours is connected to the mechanism of others, so the course of one hour has impact on the course of others. Secondly, you can imagine that some kind of skillful worker, which is between two hours, with the help of the movement of the hand establishes consent between them. Thirdly, you can imagine that a skillful master made a watch in advance so that some hours can show the same as others.
At the same time, you can imagine the existing between the body and the soul. The first case is the interaction recognized in everyday life; The second case is the assistance of God recognized by the Cartesian school and, finally, the third case is the pre-installed harmony of the leibness. Leibniz thought that God does not interfere with each time it is necessary to establish the consent between corporal processes and mental, and that it sets it all forever, that such a particular mental process must be complied with such a material; This material process is such a spiritual. This explains why there is constant compliance between the material and spiritual processes.
The same question about the consent between mental and physical phenomena Spinoza (1632 -1077) decided completely peculiar. He also proceeded from the Cartesian basic principles on the radical difference between mental and physical. He also, like Descarte, thought that for the mental and physical sphere there are special laws that there is no interaction between the soul and body that the soul cannot interfere with the actions of the body *), that all material phenomena committed in our body are explained exclusively by mechanical laws. Our body can perform a number of expedient movements without any interfering of the soul; So, for example, Lunatic, a person who is in a state of Somnambulism makes a number of quite appropriate movements, and it is undoubted that in such actions committed unconscious, the soul does not take any participation. You also need to say about instinctive movements, which are not particularly appropriate, not from the impact of the soul, but solely on the body.
Spinoza thought that something amazing consent that exists between the actions of mental and physical, can only be explained by only one assumption, it was the assumption that the soul and the body is same,but only considered from two different points of view.
Spinosa, agreeing with Descartes, that there is a fundamental difference between physical and mental, did not agree, however, so that it is necessary to apply two substances, spiritual and material, and thought it is enough to recognize one Substance. In his opinion, this substance, directly inaccessible to human knowledge, opens
*) See Ethica III. Prop. 2. Scholium.
human mind in the form of attributes, of which two are available for human knowledge, it is: thinking and length. Therefore, we note, according to Spinoza, there is one substance that is found in the form of two attributes; But thinking and length is detection one and the same substances. In essence, they represent the same thing that we know in a different way, so to speak, from two points of view. With this assumption, the question of compliance between the physical and mental is very easily permitted. They are actually the same thing, and therefore it is clear why there is a complete compliance between them, which the spinosa formulated in the expression: "The order and connection of the presentations are the same as the order and connection of things."
Only under the assumption of the youth between the mental and physical could be understandable between them. When he says that spirit and matter has the same thing, but only being considered from different points of view, then this explanation of spinosis is not entirely clear, and only when considering modern teachings, it can become understandable.
Let us turn to the views of modern philosopherson the same question.
In the current century, experienced sciences: anatomy, physiology,chemistry, etc., delivered a huge material proving conformity between physical and mental phenomena. It is known that in the animal kingdom, the nervous system is arranged, the higher mental abilities correspond to it. Mental activity is accompanied by a change in blood circulation in the brain; The activity of the brain decreases mental activity. With the destruction of those or other parts of the brain, the corresponding parts in the mental sphere fall out. There are still many different facts indicating that together with
changes in the physical sphere are made in the mental sphere, and, on the contrary,, together with the change in the field of mental, changes are made in the field of physical.
Protesters of materialism tried to interpret this fact in such a way that the mental is a physical product that physical is cause mental processes that it gives rise to them. They prove mainly by the consideration that physical without mental thinking - for example, blood circulation, digestion, breath of thought without relevant mental processes, meanwhile as mental without Physical is unthinkable.
The fallacy of this look is that materialists misunderstand the word causality·.usually, there is a creative, creative, creative, meanwhile, as with a strictly empirical point of view, such an understanding of causality is incorrect. If we say that there is a reason in, then we do not mean this in mind that we have suffered an internal connection between A and V. The only thing that we can argue, comes down to recognizing that whenit appears and, then, together with it, it appears in when there is no, then there is no, etc. We wish nothing more to express when we argue that between a and in there is a causal connection.
It got a reason for modern empirical philosophosses attempted to eliminate the most concept of causality and instead to introduce the concept functional relationship,which is used in mathematics.
What is a functional relationship is very easy to clarify using the following example. We have an expression for a circle area TO\u003d π R 2. There is a functional relationship between these two values. It is necessary to understand this: the amount TO and the amount r. may vary, that is. increase or decrease, but
one size and other are connected with each other, and in such a way that if it increases TOThus. Circle area, then increases and R.Thus. radius of a circle if decreased TO, it decreases I. R.. In other words, the essence of a functional relationship is that a certain change and another value is associated with a change in one value.
Avenairius and Makh assumed that it would be quite advisable if instead of the concept of causality to introduce into science the concept of a functional relationship. According to Avenarius, for example, in relations between physical and mental, it is more expedient to introduce the concept of a functional relationship, and then many difficulties would be eliminated. Just as in the mathematical function is indifferent, which we will call from two quantities independent variable and which dependent variable and here: We can physically consider independently variable, then the mental will depend on the variable, and, on the contrary, we can mentally consider independently variable, then the physical will depend on the variable. This is thus expressed as the dependence of the physical and psychic and psychic. Then we could say that the phenomena physical and the corresponding phenomena of mental are committed At the same time. We do not say that the mental processes are built by physical, or vice versa, and we will only say that when we have on or other mental processes in our heart, then at this time in our body are committed by those or other material processes; We can say that when we in our brain are committed by those or other physiological processes, then in the soul they are committed by those or other mental processes. We will say that the mental processes and their corresponding physical are performed at the same time, next to each other, or, as some are expressed,in parallel with each other. Using it
the case is the term "in parallel", the philosophers want to tolkify that, just like two parallel lines go around with each other, without meeting and physical, and mental processes are accomplished next to each other, without connecting themselves, without entering In cooperation.
It is easy to see that modern advocates of the teachings about the parallelism of mental and physical phenomena are at the same point of view, what the Descartes stood, Okkazionalists, leibies, when they allowed the existence of two worlds who do not enter into cooperation with each other. And modern parallelists recognize two different laws for physical and mental physical presents a separate, vicious circle of phenomena. It is explained only by physical. There are exclusively the laws of mechanics. Everything is explained here by the movements of material particles. Motion of material gets the beginning of the material movement, mental is explained from mental, gets the beginning of only mental. Here reigns its own causality, which is the so-called psychic causality. For example, if for some "representation" and follows the "feeling" in, then we can say that and something mental, there is cause B. The causality in the mental sphere is also something closed. Thus, and on the representation of modern parallelists, there is as if two worlds, closed and separated from each other, in which the processes are committed in consent to each other, as well as the Leibnia, on its pre-installed harmony.
But modern philosophers , of course, they could not get around the question, which is why the action of these two different worlds is located with each other in harmony, and here is the difference between two groups of philosophers . Aloneit is argued that it is quite enough to state the relationship that exists between the physical and mental. Full
suffice to say that they are performed in parallel with each other. Others find that this is not enough that it is necessary to explain what is the reason for which there is an internal connection between the mental and physical, which establishes the specified ratio. First can be called supporters empirical parallelism, seconds can be called supporters mONISMA or teaching O. unity, tole mental and physical. They are also called supporters of psychophysical mONISMA or non-reposnosis. This last name wishes to indicate a connection that exists between modern teachings and the teachings of Spinozes.
Before moving to understanding the issue, why there is a right relationship between physical and mental processes, I will show how the advocates of psychophysical parallelism explain the situation that the mental is always mental. This provision seems to be contrary to the simplest observation. For example, the bell trembles: we have a feeling of sound. The simplest and most natural explanation is that the shake of the bell tape (something physical) is the reason for the appearance of a feeling (something mental). Defenders of the same psychophysical parallelism find that it would be wrong that the feeling, according to their theory, should be born out of the sensation; But it is extremely difficult to explain it to them in the highest degree, because I do not tremble the bell, the feeling of sound could not arise.
Defenders of psychophysical parallelism to prove that mental phenomena have only mental, indicate that any physiological, and, on the contrary, what we have in the brain any physiological process is accompanied by a certain mentalAt least the latter could not be opened by us. When we have some kind of physical row, then we
not able to point out all the combination of conditions that participate in the product of this phenomenon; For example, for the vehicle of the flight of the nuclei of the gun there is the result of a powder sizing, and the fact that there are also such intermediate processes as the formation of gases with known elasticity, the effect of elasticity, the influence of earthly attraction, air resistance, etc., it remains completely unknown. In the same position, we are, when we wish to determine the reasons for the appearance of sound sensation after the bell shake happened. That the trembling of the bell was among the conditions preceding the emergence of a sound sensation, it is undoubtedly; And that there are still numerous mental states that precede the appearance of the feeling of sound, it remains unknown for us. These are these numerous mental states, according to supporters of psychophysical parallelism, the source of the feeling of sound, one of the reasons of which are and physiological changes generated by the bell shake. Such an explanation of that position Ήτο mental has a mental source *).
Consider now the doctrine of mONIZME, it is the necessary conclusion from the teachings of psychophysical parallelism, according to which mental and physical. There are two sides of the same phenomenon that mental and f.the same is the same, but only considered from two different points of view. The rationale for the identities of the mental and physical is one of the weakest points of psychophysical monism.
Monizma defenders offer the following interpretation of identity from the point of view theories of knowledge.
In general, from the point of view of the popular theory of knowledge,
*) Cm. Wund. Lectures on the soul of man and animals. SPb., 1894. Paulsen (Introduction to the philosophy 2nd ed. 1899 p. 94-95) explains it somewhat differently.
there is a huge difference between the spiritual world and the material, between the subject and the object, between the "I" and "Na-I" · in reality it is not true. "Materials and material processes on one side and mental phenomenon on the other are not different in their own. Both are suitable for the concept of the phenomena of consciousness, and the phenomena of these, moreover, relate to themselves between them. Their difference or their opposite consists only that the first type of phenomena can be objectified, and the second of this property is deprived of "*). That is, in other words, there is no such difference between the world internal and the world, as it is usually recognized. The same content can be inner, and external, depending on the point of view we will look at it. From here it turns out to distinguish the external and internal.
First of all, what is internal and external? If we consider some thing outside us: a stone, water, then this is the subject of external observation. If we perceive some "idea", "feeling", then this is something inner. Any mental process is something inner. From this point of view, the brain, for example, there is something external. It is a soft, whitish mass, which has extension and other properties.
Now you need to show that the brain and mental process essence the two sides of the same phenomenon. It seems to be a thing completely unthinkable, because there is a radical difference between the physical and between the mental difference: one is pretty, the other is not extended. How can they represent the same thing? The difficulty seems unresolved, but the protector of MONISM proceed from that position, which is in reality, from the point
*) Rile. The theory of science and metaphysics, p. 225. WEDDT . Essay of psychology § 22. Taine. De l'intelligence. Kn. IV. GL IX.
there are no indigenous differences between the theory of knowledge, between the material and between mental processes, because all the material is nothing but a totality of our ideas. What is, eg, a piece of stone? A piece of stone has a known length, known gravity, color, roughness, etc., but space, color, severity, roughness is nothing but our feelings, so there is a combination of our sensations in reality, i.e. mental Elements. If we are talking about material things, in fact, we are talking about them as a totality of mental elements; And that our soul is a well-known set of thoughts, feelings, desires, etc., it is understandable by itself. Thus it is clear that there is no significant difference between mental and physical, in terms of the theory of knowledge; they, so to speak, woven out of the same material, and this makes them clear with each other, as well as the fact that they make up two sides of the same phenomenon that the brain and mental phenomenon are the same, considered from two different points of view.
This can be explained using the following example. If I, for example, "I think", I have some "desire", some "volitional decision", then in my brain there are processes of movement of some brain particles, etc. from my internal experience I know that I have such a thought, such a feeling. But if at a time I think, some physiologistwith the help of any advanced devices, they began to consider the processes that are performed in my brain, he would take the same thing that I perceive, but only on the other hand, so. What I call thought would be the movement of the brain particles. The difference between the thought and movement of the particles of the brain stems from the fact that we are the same as we consider from two different points
: What I consider from the inside, then physiologist Russ matrix outside; In fact, what we both consider, there is the same thing. The position of things here is such that at the same time I can't consider the same thing on both points of view.
So you need to understand the idea that the spiritual and material is the same, considered from two points of view: with internal and external.
This explains everything. When Okkazionalists recognized the consent between the mental and physical, then for them physical and mental were two in different worlds, between which they recognized parallelism. Supporters of MONISM are in a different position. They are just accepted townof the other process. "We are not right to say," Riel says, - what will only correspond to innervations of the brain; We must, on the contrary, to say decisively, that will the samea process that is an objective contemplation as central innervation, but subjective as the impetus "*).
Defenders of psychophysical monism. The incomprehensibility of the show mental and physically tried to clarify using various sample comparisons.
Fehner, One of the most prominent defenders of this exercise recently, to explain that the position that the mental and physical essence of the two sides of the same phenomenon used the following comparison. Imagine a circle. If you are inside a circle, the circumference will seem concave you; If you become outside the circle, the same circumference will seem convex to you. This comparison shows that the same thing considered from two different points of view may seem to us differently. Similarly, in relations between mental and physical. The same, considered from the inside, representing
*) The theory of science and metaphysics, p. 231.
it is a mental mental, considered from the outside, seems to us physical. Another comparison it seems to depict the relationship between mental and physical better. "The solar system, considered from the Sun, represents a completely different look than from the ground. From there it represents Copernikovsky world, hence Ptolomeyevsky. There is no possibility to observe both world systems to observe the same observer, although both are inseparably connected "*).
Similar comparison leads and TEN:he likes all the existing book written in two languages, of which one represents the original, and another translation of this original. The original is mental, and the translation is physical. The same content in two different types.
All of these comparisons pursue one goal: they wish to show that we cannot perceive the mental and at the same time to perceive the other side of it, that is. Physical. What lies in the base of physical and mental contractions can be considered only on the one hand-or with internal (mental), or with external (physical).
The best comparison, in my opinion, suggested Ebbinghauses. Imagine spherical cups embedded one to another. Imagine further that the surfaces of these cups have the ability to perceive. It is easy to understand that only the surfaces would be perceived only convex surfaces, while others are just concave, not even that perceived by them at the same time appears as a concaveness and as a bulge. But if any creature, for example, a man, he would have considered the same thing, then it would see that they represent the same thing. In the same position we are and when we are considered
*) Elemente d. Psychophysik in. I. p. 3.
we are ourselves; We can contemplate ourselves or inside themselves, or only from the outside, and once we perceive ourselves or only as spiritual, or as physical.
This comparison of Ebbinghauses wants to say that it seems to us that spiritual and material phenomena are different because we perceive them in various ways ·, but if we could perceive them at the same time, they would seek us the same.
Such is the essence of psychophysical monism, which we must carefully distinguish from psychophysical parallelism. Empirical parallelism is an empirical teaching, which only states the existence of a certain conformity between mental and physical phenomena; psychophysical monism seeks explain Such a compliance with the recognition of their unity. It is possible to be a supporter of empirical parallelism, not going so far to seek explaining it, especially since these explanations are mostly leading to metaphysical hypotheses.
That is why one supporter of the parallelism from the other should be thoroughly distinguished. Eg Avenarius it is a supporter of only empirical parallelism, as he considers it completely wrong with that monism, according to which the brain and soul essence the two sides of the same phenomenon. Göfdit it turns out to be a parallelist of another type; He recognizes unity between spirit and matter, but does not ask the question of what the essence of that single principle, the two sides of which the spirit and matter turns out, and he considers it necessary to add that its theory does not exclude the possibility of building a metaphysical hypothesis. Wund distinguished these two points of view. In empirical psychology, he is a supporter of empirical parallelism; In his metaphysics, he considers it necessary to admit unitedlow on physical and mental phenomena.
Herbert Spencer he is a monist in the sense of spinoz. Just as the spinosa thought that at the base of all phenomena there was one substance, the attributes of which is spirit and matter, in the same way and Spencer suggests that at the base of all phenomena lies an unknown, incomprehensible reality, the detection of which turns out to be spirit and matter. Recognition of some kind of thing in yourself, lying outside of direct experience, Herbert Spencer is made by the metaphysicist of Spinozovsky type.
Monism is currently enjoying a huge distribution and we have a lot of outstanding defenders. In England, his representatives are Ben and Herbert Spencer, in France Tenc and Ribo, in Germany Wundt, Paulsen, Ebbinghauses, Iodl; Finally, among the representatives of Monsimism should also be mentioned in Russia of the Danish psychologist Gafeding in Russia.
If we were asked what the reasons for such success of MONISM, then, in all likelihood, we would need to recognize two such reasons, scientific and philosophical.
From the point of view of scientific, psychophysical parallelism · seems attractive because it is, so to speak, a rather indifferent point of view, recognizing the same as the rights of mental and physical; In addition, at this point of view, denying the interaction between spirit and matter remains intact Mechanical Interpretation of life phenomena. It does not recognize the intervention of any such mystical principle with which natural science cannot be considered. Here all bodily phenomena are explained by physicochemical causes.
This point of view is also of interest in that, recognizing constant parallelism among mental and physical phenomena - it provides a large service psychophysiology,as it considers legitimate psychological research there, where a continuous physiological purpose is interrupted, and, on the contrary,
masses a legitimate physiological study where the mental chain is interrupted.
The philosophical cause of the success of MONISM is as follows. In the current century, the trend is seen to build an idealistic worldview on scientific basis. Psychophysical parallelism seems to be the greatest in accordance with modern scientific requirements. In addition, if you hold parallelism to the end, it will be possible to recognize not only the animal animation and animals, but also plants, and equally and the whole inorganic world. Then it turns out that all the world existing in the world, and since "mental is only the inner side of that, the external side represents the physical, and since the mental side represents the validity as it is by itself, the physical one is only external detection, it can be said that the most important side of validity is spiritual. According to Paulsen, for example, "My bodily life serves as a mirror of my mental life, the body system of organs is available to my external perception of the expression of the will and system of its motives; The body is visibility or phenomenon of the soul. " According to Wondtu, "The Spiritual Being has its own reality of things."
Thus, the spiritual began expresses the essence of reality; The task of global life is the development of the spiritual side, the creation of spiritual goods, etc. In one word, the idealistic worldview is erected on empirical grounds.
Here are the main reasons for such a huge success of the monistic worldview at present *).
*) Literature on psychophysical monism: Gafeding. Psychology. GL II. Paulsen. Introduction to philosophy. M., 1894. KN. I -I. GL I -I. Wund. Essay of psychology. M., 1897, § 22. 8. Wund. Lectures on the soul of man and animals. St. Petersburg., 1894. Lecc 30th. Wund. The foundation of physiological. Psychology. M., 1880. Ch. 25 Rile. The theory of science and metaphysics. M. 1887.
A few years ago, destructive work begins in Germany. Outstanding thinkers begin to speak out in the sense that psychophysical monism is a completely insolvent doctrine.
I consider this moment to be highly significant, because the proof of interaction between mental and physical can cause a serious blow to the mechanical worldview. The doctrine of freedom of will, which has so far been an unsolvable problem due to the fact that it was impossible to prove the impact of the spirit on matter, can now get a completely different permission. The feasibility of organic life, which remained incomprehensible due to the same reasons, will, in all likelihood, is quite another interpretation.
Among the opponents of the parallelism are such outstanding writers as Sigvart, James, Stymf and many others.
What are the shortcomings of the doctrine? First of all, everyone could easily notice that the most important disadvantage is that it is difficult to understand how it is possible townbetween spirit and matter. The monista themselves say that there is a radical difference between mental and physical, that mental cannot have an impact on physical, and, on the contrary, that the mental world and physical represent two heterogeneous areas. How can the identity of such heterogeneous phenomena be thought of? A supporter of the athex can say that he is also implied to make a clear or specifically representable the identity of two such heterogeneous phenomena. For him, the identity is only hypothesis, P.
Departure 2nd. GL 2nd me. Ebbinghaus.. Grundzüge d. Psychologie. 1897.p. 37-47. Jodl. Lehrbuch d. Psychologie. 1896. Ch. 2nd. Spencer. Bases of psychology. § 41, 56, 272, etc. Ban. Soul and body. Ten. About mind and knowledge. Kn. 4th. GL 2nd.
the help of which he can explain the correspondence between physical and mental, because if he had not allowed such a show, he would have to recognize, like Okkazionalists, or the interference of God in each of the acts, or the pre-installed harmony of the leiben. True, there is a gnoseological argument that makes the impressive spirit of spirit and matter. This argument we looked higher. It comes down to recognizing that there is no difference between the spirit and matter, since the matter is in reality there is also a combination of sensations, and therefore the spirit, and the matter is woven as if from one material.
But the following objection can be represented against this argument. It can be agreed that the matter has a combination of sensations or ideas, but for our knowledge in the end, the impassable difference remains between the Spirit and Matter; Therefore, it seems that monism can be recognized as descriptive hypothesis only if there is no other hypothesis that could more satisfactorily explain the relationship between spirit and matter.
We have seen that Monism does not recognize the ability to interfere with the spirit into matter, because in this case the law of conservation of energy would be disturbed. But the law of conservation of energy, the amount of energy in the world is constantly, and if the soul could interfere with the body's activity, then she would have added the energy that physicistcan not take into account. If, on the other hand, material movements could turn into something mental, it would mean that physical energy disappears. Therefore, in general, the recognition of such interaction could be contrary to the basic laws of mechanics.
The defenders of interaction indicate that the intervention of the spirit in the activities of the matter could not be contrary to the laws of mechanics. For example, the first law
mechanics say that "the body is at rest until any external force leads it from equilibrium state." In general, this law is understood in such a way that the body is in a state, peace can only be moved only to another body; But this some object to this, saying that in the first law it is said only that the body can be derived from the state of rest only any external force But it has not been proven at all that this strength must certainly proceed from the body, and therefore you can allow "that cause, Changing movement may proceed and not from the body, but, as in this case, from the Spirit.
According to Kroman *), the principle of maintaining energy means speed movements, not the direction of movement, and therefore it can be assumed that the soul has an impact on the direction of bodily movements, if only speedthe movements remain constant, and it would not contradict the law of energy conservation: "Imagine, he will, the world of atoms who would play a crowd of spirits, like a ball: the amount of energy of this atomic world would remain unchanged if only every atom was discarded with unchanged speed. "
The same intervention of the Spirit in the activities of matter considers conceivable and Viennese physicistBolzman, and he thinks that this intervention could not contradict the laws of mechanics **).
But there is another way to prove the possibility of interaction, not contradict the laws of mechanics; it's precisely
*) KROMAN. Kurzgefasste Logik U. Psychologie.
**) Here are his words given in psychology H Öfler 'a. (Psychologie 1897, p. 59 - 9 Note.) Mit Dem Energiesatz Eine Einwirkung Des Psychischen Auf Das Physische Nicht Unverträglich Sei, Wenn Man Annehme, Dass Diese Einwirkung Normal Gegen Die Niveaufläche Erfolge.To understand this statement, it should be remembered that if the force acts on the body at a right angle to the direction of its movement, then it does not work in the body and changes only the direction, but not the speed. Therefore, kinetic energy, which depends on the square of the speed, remains unchanged. Maxwell. Matter and movement. St. Petersburg, 1885, § 78.
if you understand a special way energy. Then can be recognized on a row with physical energy and Mentaland recognize the converger of one energy to another. This point of view is held Sigvartand Stump.They say that the law of energy conservation is mainly the law transform one energy to another, i.e. we can say that thermal energy, for example, can turn into light, electrical; And, on the contrary, we can also say that the amount of energy with such transformations remains unchanged, but at the same time it should not think at all how many people do that, that one or another type of energy must be completely interpreted mechanically, as movement of molecular particles.For example, if the moving core is on the path of the ship meets the armor, the kernel movement stops, but at the same time the kinetic energy of the nucleus turns into thermal energy. Many interpret this phenomenon in such a way that the movement of the visible mass turns into motion molecular; but several physicsfind such an interpretation illegal and claim that actually we don't have any data for approval that the heat is movement. We can only say that it is energy without giving the nearest definition of it.
With such an understanding of energy, since it does not boil down to the movement of the smallest particles of matter, it is easy to assume that there is a mental energy that can turn into physical, and vice versa. After all, the essence of energy is to work, and whether this energy will be physical or mental - it is indifferent. If so understand the energy, the interaction is explained extremely simple: physical energy turns into a mental and vice versa.
"With regard to the law of conservation of energy, says Stump *), Then it seems to me that there are two ways to lead
*) See it Rede Zur Eröffnung Des III International Congresses Für Psychologie.
its in agreement with the postulate of universal interaction.
First of all, the difference between potential and kinetic energy shows that energy does not need to be preserved in the form of motion. But regardless of this, the reality of the law does not depend on the specific idea that all natural processes are in the movements. If it is expressed without any hypothetical increase, then it will be just a law transformations. If the kinetic energy (live strength of the visible movement) turns into other forms of force, and this eventually can be turned back into kinetic energy, then the same amount is obtained that was used. What are these and other forms of energy, the law does not say anything about this, and therefore it would be possible, as I think, to a mental look at the accumulation of the energy of a special kind, which could have your exact mechanical equivalent.
So that it does not think that this is a doctrine on which the existence of a special mental energy is recognized, has a materialistic nature, (because there is a mental psychic here, and I have a hurry to note that this teaching is not inherent in all, since it does not recognize that physical energy turns into a special type of physical energy. It would be possible if the energy would be recognized for a special type of movement, but there is no one here. In addition, philosophers this direction is considered in advance the psychic as real as physical, and only to explain the interaction recognize the need to allow the existence of mental energy.
But in view of the fact that both of the above interpretations are based on our ignorance of physical processes participating in cooperation, I will allow myself an interpretation in which the law of conservation of energy
gIA remains untouched and which is based mainly on a logical analysis of the concept of causality.
Since Descartes, it is said that causality can only be between phenomena uniform *); But this is wrong, and that's why: it would be correct only if we were under the reason to understand something that it creates an action, or if we were looking for some internal connection between the cause and action - meanwhile, Reality under causality, we must understand not at all. With the help of the term causality, we wish only to designate that if it is given, then after it appears in, the change A causes changes in, etc. Therefore, there is no need for between the cause and consequence there existed Uniformity.The most heterogeneous phenomena can be with each other regarding causality.
It usually it seems that the causal attitude in the world of physically highly simply is also clear, and the causal relationship between mental and physical is completely incomprehensible. If, for example, a ball moves, and on the way it meets another ball, which is driven by them, then we say that the movement of the first ball is cause Second movements. This connection seems simple and understandable to us; But if I have the movement of your hand, then it seems that the causal relationship between one and the other is incomprehensible. In fact, one causal attitude is no more understandable than another, and even can be the second more clearly than the first. Maybe the first attitude becomes understandable for us only because we are already familiar with the second.
This consideration shows that we actually have no reason to deny the possibility of causal
*) According to Decartes, each action is already potentially contained in its cause., For from where, asks, the decartes, -a can get its real content, if not from the cause "?
relationship between physical and mental, and it is actually characteristic of interaction.
It seems to me that there is another consideration that makes understandable interaction, unless we analyze the scientific use of the concept of causality.
In everyday life, we usually understand the reason one of the preceding conditions of some action, often forgetting that each action is determined by the whole nearby conditions from which we choose one for convenience.
For example, we say: "The merchant received a telegram who informs him about any trade failure, and this telegram was causehis death. " Meanwhile, actually such reasons were extremely much. Maybe before that he received several unpleasant news, there may be a nervous system of it this time was particularly unstable and so under. From a number of these reasons, the sad news was only one of the reasons that identify something or another action. If you take some example of the cause of communication in the field of physical phenomena, it will turn out τά same. So, strictly speaking, every reason is, so to speak, partialthe reason each action is always determined a set of reasons.
If we understand the reason, we will see that there can be between the mental and physical world causal interaction.
Take, for example, the case when after some volitional solution arises movement. Considered from a physical point of view, this movement can be explained in such a way that in the cortex of the brain there is an excitement that is transmitted to the muscles of the hand to the moving nerve and reduces these latter. But can we say that physical arousal is the only condition due to which the movement is going on? With what is in
commune solutions? Is it possible to say that it does not matter to move the hand? Obviously, it is impossible. If there was no solve solution, then there would be no movement of the hand; Consequently, let's just say that the will in this case is the cause of movement, but only partial Cause. If there was no will, then there would be no nervous excitement, and at the same time the movement of the hand; hence, the will in this case undoubtedly has a causal value.
Someone, perhaps, will say that the will does not matter because the same actions that are performed using will, may be accomplished without the help of will, for example, the so-called automatic actions. Persons who are in a state of somnambulism make a number of expedient actions. But this objection is absolutely not thorough, and even, just the opposite, it shows the causal value of the will, because no matter how difficult the automatic actions are, no matter how appropriate, they will never have such a character, which possess purely volitional action. It is not known a single case that a person in a state of somnambulism could say in the parliament; There can not automatically create any car, etc. under.
From the same point of view, it is possible to explain the emergence of the feeling of the influence of physical reasons, precisely, if we adopt that physical reasons are a partial cause of the feeling; For example, if the bell is trembling and we have a feeling of sound, then the emergence of this sensation cannot be explained by one physical reasons, but also cannot be explained only by mental reasons: it must be assumed that both kinds of causality act together. For the occurrence of sensations, the same importance both nervous excitations coming from the hearing aid to the brain and the preliminary
Mental states existing in consciousness. What physical reasons have importance in this case, it is for all obvious. It may not be clear how mental states may be caused in this process, but make sure that the last is extremely easy if we take an example of a person sleeping or in a condition of fainting. When the bell is trembling, they receive physical excitement, but do not get the feeling of sound, because there are no mental states that are an additional reason for the experience of sensations.
Thus, it is possible to explain the interaction between mental and physical phenomena, if you correctly interpret the concept of causality. This interpretation represents also t. The importance that it does not violate the law of conservation of energy, because we can assume that, for example, the volitional decision during the creation of motion does not create physical energy, and, on the contrary, when the nervous excitement causes a feeling, then physical energy is not destroyed by turning into Mental phenomenon.
There is still proof of the impact of the spirit on matter, borrowed from the theory of evolution; It, by the way, belongs James. This proof is reduced to the following. According to Darwin's theory, organisms are adapted to the environment. Those organisms that are equipped with organs that helps in the struggle for existence will survive; The same organisms that do not have such bodies die in the struggle for existence. The bodies contributing to the struggle for existence are developing; The organs that this goal do not contribute are atrophy, destroyed. If we consider the mental life of some kind of elementary organism, for example, mollusk, and human life, we will see that there is a huge difference; Human consciousness is developed, while mollusk it is in its infancy.
If consciousness for a person was represented by some excessive, unnecessary appendage, then it, of course, would have been atrophy; And the fact that it develops shows that it is the necessary function. If functions are developing only as a result of their utility, it is obviously a consciousness develops due to its utility. The utility of consciousness is that it helps in the struggle for existence, and this can only be done if it has an impact on the course of the body's physical history. It is easy to understand how it can happen. A little developed organism very badly regulates its relations to the outside world; Gifted by consciousness The body is adapted significantly better: Intellect helps him, making a choice from various kinds of possible actions. He chooses favorable actions and suppresses unfavorable and with it contributes to the body in the struggle for existence.
But, helping in the struggle, consciousness at the same time has a well-known impact on the physical form of the body. As it happens, you can easily imagine if you pay attention to how vegetable organisms from animals are very different, which in the struggle for existence used the services of intelligence.
Thus, it is clear that consciousness has a well-known impact on the body.
This look was proposed by Jams, but he was equally held and supporters of Monsimism as Paulsen and Wundt *). In fact, Pulsensen, and Wundt, supporters of Montizma, this is a contradiction, because the possibility of the impact of consciousness to the body cannot put together with the recognition of a monistic principle.
In general, it should be recognized that to conduct a monistic
*) James. Psychology. Vol. I. 138-144.Paulsen. . Introduction to the philosophy page 196 and D. WundT in Grundz Üge d. Phys. Psychologie, 4th ed., Vol. 2nd, p. 641, recognizes the effect of will on the physical organization.
the principle quite consistently turns out to be quite difficult. In "philosophy “ WEDDTA recognizes organic feasibility and is explained by the fact that the will, of course, the world, interferes during the natural phenomena and determines them. In general, WEDDT does not find it possible to explain the organic life with mechanical reasons and recognizes the intervention of the will in it *).
If such an outstanding writer like WUNDT could not conduct a consistent principle of monizim, this clearly indicates the insufficiency of the principle of monizma himself, and therefore it seems that at present the question of what can be considered more correct, monism or dualism should be answered, That dualism recognizing the material and special spiritual principle, in any case better explains the phenomena than Monism **).
Now we can start considering the issue of "soul". Many may seem that it
*) See its System D. Philosophie in Pers. p. 533. Hauptmann. In his book Metaphysik in d. Modernen Physiologie cites many places from "psychology" of Wundt, who clearly show that Vundt looked in spirit, as a guideline.
**) Stymf . Rede Zur Eröffnung Des III International Congresses für psychologiein "Beilage Zur Allgemeinen Zeitung Jahrg. 1896. No. 180,as well as BERICHTE DES III INTERNATIONALEN KONGRESSES FÜR PSYCHOLOGIE.München, 1897. Sigvart . Logik. B. IL 1893, p. 518 —41. James.Principies of psychology. 1890. V. 1 . 138—144.
KROMAN. Kurzgefasste Logik und Psychologie. 1890,p. II8 and d. Rehmke. Lehrbuch d. Allgemeinen psychologie. 1894,p. 107-115. Its same . Aussenwelt Und Innenwelt, Leib Und Seele. 1898.Külpe. Einleitung in Die Philosophie 1894,as well as in Zeitschrift f. Hypnotismus. B. 7. H. 2. Höf. 1 er. Psychologie. 1897, p. 58- 59. Wentscher. Lieber Physische und Psychische Kausalität Und Das Princip Des Psychophysischen Parallelismus, 1896and Erharät. Die Wechselwirkung Zwischen Leib Und Seele. 1897 . In Russian literature, in favor of interaction has expressed recent prof. N. Ya. Grotto in the article "The concept of the soul and mental energy in psychology." (Questions of philosophy and psychology, No. 27), as well as Arch. f. Systemat. Philosophie, 1898. Die Begriffe der Seele Und Der Psychischen Energie in Der Psychologie.Criticize parallelism See L. M. Lopatin. The concept of the soul according to internal experience. Questions of philosophy and psychology. 1896 XXXII.
the question is not at all scientific, that the question of the soul can enter into the area of \u200b\u200breligious philosophy, but by no means to draw up the subject matter of psychology. As a last resort, only metaphysics can speak about the soul; Empirik Same philosopherit will not consider this issue to be the subject of his research. But those who think in this way are mistaken, because even such empiricals - philosophers , as D. S. MILL and Herbert Spencer, not only considered it possible to talk about "soul", but even recognized it existing as we will see below.
If the modern intelligent public is very common that the actual science cannot talk about the soul, then this comes from the fact that she attributes a rough anonymous look that belongs to a primitive man. Many of the public think that if the philosopher speaks about the soul, he knows the same as a primitive man.
But what, in fact, the primitive man understood under the shower? For him were not alien questions about whether there is a soul in man: he came out for these issues to the observation of such phenomena, as a distinction between a person alive and dead, between a man sleeping and awake. Primitive man explained this distinction because the living person has a "soul" - it is a special creature that dwells in it. It may leave a person, and then he is done dead. This soul represents something like a thin shell, something like shadow or couple. This soul, leaving the body, feed., In a dream, it can be worse, go to the place, very far from sleeping, and come back to him again. After the death of the soul leaves the body of a person, according to a folk expression, she "flies" from him, and as a result of this, some nations have a custom to open windows at a time when anyone dies,
it would be possible to fly the soul to flourish. Here is such an understanding of the soul some attribute f.losofam, but everyone can easily see that the soul, the existence of which recognized the primitive person, materially, that his understanding of the soul-purely materialistic and a single modern philosophomophomophomophomotive can not be.
What is the soul? Many, delivering such a question, think to get a very simple and definite answer. This kind of waiting is explained by the habits that we assimilate us from childhood. When in childhood we ask the question of what "steamer" is, and we get a completely definite answer, then it seems to us that if we raise the question that such a soul is, the philosophouse is given to the same definite answer that it would show that he understands that he understands Something that has the visuality of material things. But here it is not right.
What kind of the essence of the data on which philosophustrates your assumption regarding the existence of the soul? These facts are mainly the essence of the following. First, the so-called unity of consciousness, and secondly identity identity. Under the unity of consciousness, we must understand the following. If we, for example, compare two views, and in, then we must simultaneously keep in consciousness both of these ideas, therefore, should be something such that connect these ideas are one. This is something connecting to one whole, and there is a soul. After all, in the process of comparison, it is necessary that both "ideas at one time thought to be at the same time attended in our consciousness. This is a combining and there is something that philosopherscall the shower.
Another argument that is given in favor of the existence of the soul is attending our "I» our personality. But what is "me" and what should be understood under the identity of the person?
To answer this, we should only ask yourself what we think when we use the word "I". When I use the word "me", then I think that I ranked such a social situation that I was born there that I am so many years that I have such an appearance that I have Such a clothing that I am the one who spoke on this very place for a week. If I wanted to further reflect on the same topic, I would remember my childhood and would notice that I studied the one that was so many years ago, spent my childhood there, etc. There is my "I", my "personality". We consider the identity of the personality that I am veryzable my present "I" with the "I", which I had many years ago. Between them in reality there is a huge difference. In fact, when I was a child, then by using the word "I", I thought completely different than when I use this word now. But it seems to me, -Who my present "I" is the one with my past "I".
If I did not feel the athex of my today's "I" with my "I" a month ago, I would not consider myself responsible for my actions, made a month ago. But since I consider myself responsible, it means that I recognize my identity at various moments of my life.
Here are the facts, in the reality of which is hardly anyone will be doubting, but how to explain them? Trying to explain these facts, some philosophers I.they came to recognize the need to allow the existence of the "soul".
They assumed that there is a special spiritual substance, which they considered simple and indivisible, intangible and indestructible. This spiritual substance is a carrier of all spiritual states; It connects all separate states into one. Thanks to her, our "I" seems tolerant and continuous
. This spiritual substance is not something undersized with our spiritual states, with our feelings, thoughts, desires, etc. It is something separate, standing outside of them and aims unite spiritual states one whole. She, in other words, resembles a material atom. Just like an atom, hiding behind the material phenomena, in fact there is a carrier of all the properties of these latter and the spiritual substance, being directly not available to our perception, is a carrier of forces, with the help of which it causes the phenomena of consciousness.
Philosophers , which recognized the existence of such a spiritual substance called spiritualists in his own sense of the word.
Against this theory, the largest objection was given by the English philosopher David Yum. *). According to this philosopher, we can only know what is available to our direct perception. We have a feeling of cold, light, sound, etc. About these properties directly by us we can speak as something existing, because each of them corresponds to a certain idea. Is it possible to say that there is any idea that would correspond to the fact that philosophy of personality? If we are to resolve this issue, we turn inside ourselves, to our consciousness, and are looking for any special idea of \u200b\u200b"me", simple, like, for example., The idea of \u200b\u200blight, sound, etc., will turn out to be that there is no such idea. Every time we look inside ourselves, we only find there only some particular idea: heat, cold, sound, light, etc., but we do not find the ideas of "I". If we wish closer to find out the content of the idea "I", it turns out that it consists of a number of simple ideas. From here "I" is nothing but co-
1) see Its Treatise On Human Nature. Kn. I. h. Iv. 6.
coupliness Representations, or ideas. Therefore, the look of tech philosopherswhich thought there is a simple spiritual substance, because there is a simple idea of \u200b\u200b"I", you need to be considered wrong.
The only thing that we can say about our "me" is that it is a set of individual ideas, but by no means we can argue that I have some kind of spiritual substance. Therefore, if we had to answer the question that such a soul, then, from the point of view of a philosophy, we would have to say that it is nothing more than a set of individual ideas, but could not recognize the existence of a separate spiritual substance.
This look found so many defenders. Currently there philosopherswho think there is no spiritual substance, and that the soul is nothing but a totality of individual ideas.
Against the spiritualistic theory, which took the existence of a soul from the show and the immutability of our "I", was given in the form of objections those facts from psychiatry, which are known as split personality.These are precisely those cases when the patients have the provision of the existence of their new personality, which has nothing to do with the previous person. The patient, being in one state, speaks of his different state, as something for him is completely outsiders, "I not only seemed to be one of the patient, - that I was someone else, but I really was Other. The other "I" passed the place of my first "I" *).
If it were so, the spiritualist theory would be impossible, because then it would have to assume that the soul could share for several parts.
Further objections are reduced to the following. "Representatives of Spiritualism, says James.**) - were a slope
*) Taine. De l'intelligence. Vol. I. KN. IV. GL Sh.
**) Psychology. 1896. p. 150-6. Psychology. Vol. I.
we argue that at the same time knowable objects, know something, with something that is, according to them, there is some simple and unchanged spiritual personality. " But this, according to Geems, is absolutely not thorough. There is no resolutely no need to recognize a special spiritual substance when we can explain the same process purely psychologically, that is, with the help of the assumption that this kind of facilities are familiar with the help of mental states known to us.
As for the identity conception, many people doubt its existence. Ceys of personality, according to James, no, because my "I" is different at various moments of my life. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe identity of the person is there is a product of conclusion, and not direct perception. It is, seeing minor differences in my "me", at various moments of life, I ignore this difference, and these different "I" bring in one class. In other words, I do the same thing that I do in the case when, on the basis of the private similarity between things, I convey them into one class.
If, for example, I perceive a number of similar objects, then at least between them there was some difference, I connect them in one class. I get one generic image; So I get the concept of any thing, about the animal, etc. According to James, and the concept of my "I" is obtained in the same way. At various moments of my life, I perceive my "I" is not undressed, but different. With undoubted difference, between these "I" there are also points of similarity, just as there are points of similarities between individual representatives of any class of things. Summarizing, I get the famous generic concept about my "I"; Therefore, there can be no speech about the absolute identity of our "I", and therefore it is impossible to refer to this fact to proof the absolutely dedicated "I" or the spiritual substance. You can only talk about a relatively constant "I".
Thus, according to some philosopherswe have no identity identity. Our personality today and our personality many years ago are completely different things. True, we recognize this classroom, but this is the identity absolute. In this case, the concept of identity is used in a completely particular sense. We will look at a few examples, of which it is done clear how the concept of the you shows is different and in what sense it is used in this case.
If we, for example, contemplating some statue in the museum, we say that this is the same statue that once adorned some Athenian temple, then we are the concept of "the youth" in this case we use in your own way. It can be said that the statue of which is being consistent with the one with the one with which we are squeezing. But here, for example, I contemplate any thousand-year oak, about which a legend has been preserved that there was some commander to rest during the battle. Can we say that this is the same oak about which the legend tells? From a certain point of view, we cannot argue this. After all, if the oak is nothing but a totality of material particles, then there are no material parts of historical oak; They are known to replaced completely new due to metabolism in plant organisms. Nevertheless, we fully oppose this oak with historical.
In the same way, we do and in relation to your own body. Then the body I have currently, I am quite rezing with that body that I had a year ago, although I know from physiologythat due to the metabolism in my body there is not a single atom from those that were a year ago. The change in the body is so significant that
it's an old joke, according to which if there was no soul in us, but it would be one body only, then we, having signed a bill year ago, would not have been obliged to pay on it, because of the one who signed the bill, now no more. But the materialists will not agree with this conclusion. And this is because we are our body, despite the most significant modifications, we consider the underestimate. It seems with less right we use this expression in the next case. We call the "British" that the people who inhabit the UK, and withdraw him with the very people who inhabited the same islands a thousand years ago, although in reality a single person who was part of the English people of the VIII century, no longer survived .
But why do we allow ourselves to sneeze them with each other? As you noticed, I brought examples of the youth of life. organismsAnd it seems to me that this identity is explained by the continuity of the body's existence. Under continuity I understand the following. If we take, apply., People and imagine that it consists of a known series of generations, we will see that at a well-known moment of his life one generation does not have time to extort, how otherwise, so at every moment old there is a new one, And this is true about all that we call the body.
If we agree with this, then it is easy to understand the show of our "I" at various moments of our life. Our consciousness consists of a set of ideas or in general spiritual states; This totality is different for each given point; Representations replace each other and for different moments of life are different. Nevertheless, we consider these ideas in continuous, in the sense, in which we consider continuous elements in the life of the people. Thanks to this continuity, the identity of our "I" is established.
Hence, the concept of a show in relation to the person is not used in absolute, but in a relative sense.
All these considerations led to the fact that the existence of a spiritual substance was questioned.
Currently, among the philosophicals are supporters of the so-called substance, others are supporters relevance; The essence of this difference is reduced to the fact that, in the opinion of the first, the soul is a substance, according to the second, it is continuously replacing the connection of processes or acts. Defenders of this last theory are Paulsen.and Wund *).
Both are opponents of spiritualism in the former sense of the word, they do not consider it possible to recognize the existence of a separate spiritual substance and make it on the basis of the following considerations.
First of all, the spiritual substance is completely unavailable to our perception. We can perceive our spiritual states, our feelings, thoughts, desires, and what is their carrier, we are not able to perceive, -And why do we have any reason to recognize its existence? It seems that there is no. True, they may say that "we also do not perceive the material atom, but they recognize its existence. In the same way, we must recognize the existence of a spiritual substance, because although we do not perceive it, but for that it explains to us a lot. " On this and WEDDT, and Paulsen responds equally; "We recognize the existence of a material atom, because he explains to us a lot, the spiritual atom is nothing does not explain. What is the same in this case to recognize its existence? "
*) See Paulsen. Introduction to philosophy. M., 1894. P. 131-9, 369 and D. Wundt. Essay of psychology. "M., 1897. § 22. Lectures on the soul of man and animal. St. Petersburg., 1894. Lecture of the 30th. Foundation of physical psychology. M., 1886, p.
System d. Philosophie, 2 E ed. p. 364 and d. On the concept of substance, see his Logik. V. I. p. 524 and d.
It is said that the spiritual substance is the carrier of spiritual states, there is something that connects them into one. Do not be a spiritual substance, our mental states, so to speak, would be fused in all directions. The spiritual substance for that and serves to connectthem in one whole. Paulsen thinks that it is completely wrong because, recognizing the substance in such a sense, we would fall into materialism, because we imagine that the spiritual states need a backup in the same sense, in which it is needed for things material. Therefore, Paulsen, and. WUNDT think that there is no need to recognize the soul as something that is out ofindividual spiritual states. The Genesis of the Soul, in their opinion, is exhausted with a mental life, so --e. Representations, feelings and others. Spiritual states. "Soul, by Paulsen, there is a multiplicity of the facts of internal life, associated-in unity way, closer to describe which we are not able."
Thus, Paulsen does not deny the existence of the soul. In his opinion, the soul is, you just need to understand what it is. He even agrees to call the soul by the substance, if under this latter understand what has an independent existence. In this sense, the soul "has" ideas, "wears" in itself. We can not imagine that, for example. The idea existed outside the connection we call the soul.
But since it is impossible to understand how the soul, being Aggregate representations at the same time is carrierrepresentations, then Paulsen for illustration leads an example, which, in his opinion, clarifies this relationship between soul and individual performances. Take, apply., Some poem. It consists of separate phrases, words. Can we say that the poem is something that exists thosethis totality of words that is the poem? Ko
bad, no. But can we, on the other hand, say that the poem is nothing but a simple totality of these words? Of course not. Because if we took all the words that are part of the poem and mix them with each other, we would no longer receive poems. Why? Because the poem is not a simple Mechanical addition of individual words. There is something that precedes individual words. This is exactly what whole, which exists before its parts.This is exactly the idea of \u200b\u200ba whole that determines the order and placement of words. We can put in one or another part of the poem or another word only because it meets the idea of \u200b\u200ba whole. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe whole determines the place of each individual word.
Similarly, the soul is not there is a simple mechanical connection of representations to one whole; Here is a whole preceded by its parts. Each feeling, the presentation that is in our consciousness is determined by the whole that can be called soul.
Thus, it is easy to understand the essence of the teaching paulsen. On the one hand, he recognizes that the Being of the Soul is exhausted by spiritual life, spiritual states that these spiritual states are connected in one unity, but that there is no particular spiritual substance. Thus, a huge difference between those philosophers, which recognize the spiritual substance, and between those that deny it is construed.
But what to say about this denial of the spiritual substance? Can it be recognized quite solid? Is it possible to say that enough recognition only spiritual states in order for us to explain all the above phenomena in our mental life? Is it possible to say that for this there is no need for something out ofor other than spiritual states? Supporters of the substance of the soul in modern philosophy imagine that it is possible. Generally against the substance say
that in the explanation of mental phenomena, we can do the only empirical laws alone. But it is incorrect because even empiricals - philosophy can do without the assumption of anything outside individual mental states.
L. FROM. Mille, the direct follower of Yuma, found that the soul could not be reduced to a simple combination of spiritual states, that she is still something inexplicable standing out of These states. Here it is the words: "As a substance is a mysterious something... so the spirit is the mysterious something that feels and thinks ... there is something, What I call my I, or, expressing otherwise, my spirit and that I recognize different from these sensations, thoughts, etc., something that I admit not to thoughts, but creature The Being) with these thoughts, and that I can imagine existing on forever at rest, without any thoughts ... The Spirit can be recognized by a sensing subject of all the senses, because it has these feelings and experienced. " In another place, Mill compares the soul with a thread that connects individual pearls into a necklace. If you pull this thread, then the necklace will not be; In a completely thus, the soul is something that is outside individual spiritual states and serves to connect them. "You are reduced" I "to a number of states of consciousness, but it is necessary that anything connected them between them. If you pull the thread from your pearl necklace, which will remain? Separate pearls, and not a necklace at all. " He finds that there is something real in the influence of spiritual phenomena, the real, as the sensations themselves.
Thus, it is clear that Mill differs from Yum precisely the fact that for him "I" is something out of Individual mental states, although it is closer to know without anything *).
*) Mill. Logic system. Kn. 3rd, ch. Z-I, § 8. Study of the philosophy of Hamilton. GL XII.
Similarly, and Herbert Spencerrecognizes the soul in the just mentioned sense: "Although every single impression or idea may be absent, but what connects together and ideas is not missing, and its non-ceased presence has its necessary consequences, or even just makes it, our concept About some existing here is a continuous existence or about reality. Existence does not mean anything more as the presence or continuation of the stay, and therefore in the shower is what continues to remain, despite all the changes, and supports the unity of the unit, to all attempts to divide it, is then existence, which may be approved in the full sense of the wordand what should we call the substance of the soul, in contrast to the various forms that it takes "*).
From this passage you can see that for Herbert Spencer, as well as for Mill, the soul is something outside of individual spiritual states, although it, in their opinion, is closer to be good.
Supporters of relevance say that there is no reason to allow the existence of substance, because it is not perceived; In addition, she does not explain anything.
But is it possible to consider the explanation that supporters are relevant, solid, and can they really do without spiritual substance in their explanations? After all, in their opinion, instead of saying that the spiritual substance is a carrier of individual spiritual states, it suffices to say that the soul is the multiplicity of spiritual states, and that this multiplicity is the carrier of each individual spiritual state. But can this expression even be called understandable?
*) Spencer. Bases of psychology, § 59.
One spiritual state, being taken in itself, can not be a carrier of spiritual states, but how does it acquire this ability when it enters the connection with others when these states are set? After all, it seems to be granted that if this property is carrier is not inherent in individual states, it is not purchased if these states are many. Thus, supporters of relevance, saying that the multiplicity of spiritual states, there is a carrier of individual spiritual states, actually do not explain anything *).
It is possible to say that the advocates of the relevance give a satisfactory explanation when, eliminating the spiritual substance, propose to determine the soul, as a combination of individual spiritual states connected in unity, the way closer is not determined? After all, to say this phrase, it means that something that we know about the soul, one connection of the elements is not exhausted that, except for individual spiritual elements of states, we must be allowed yet.
Supporters of relevance think that the concept of substance is completely not applicable to spiritual phenomena. But is it?
It all depends on what to understand under the substance. Defenders relevance say they don't want to admit substance as something that is out ofdirectly to us these spiritual states.
But is it possible to say that such an understanding of the substance is the only possible? After all, according to this understanding, the substance exists in itself, and the detection of the substance exists by themselves, separately. But does the substance really have something that needed exists outside of his phenomena? It would be
*) See the objection to the relevance of K ü. lPE, Einleitung in di Philosophie. 2nd ed., 1898.
328
correctly even relative to the material substance, material atoms.
After all, what is the substance?
In the things we know, we always have such elements that are permanent Compared to other elements that are varying. A typical example of such a relationship between changing and permanent elements is a material atom as a permanent carrier of material phenomena. In this sense, atom we call the material substance. But is there something that exists separately from its manifestations? It seems that there is no. Therefore, we can say that the substance should be called constant in things that we see them. But this substantial should not be certainly any existence on the fact that we perceive in phenomena. We should not think that the substance exists in things separately from its phenomena, or accepted, as they are also called in philosophy .
"In itself, reality is not something divided into the world of substances and the world of acceeds, but they actually form one inseparable integer. The global process is not really any other reality than atoms that could be considered as those who are behind the resulting products, but they are in connection with them as members of one indivisible whole "*).
Perfectly notes prof. L. M. Lopatin:"There are no phenomena outside of substances, as there are no substances outside their properties, states and actions; The nature of the substance is expressed in the laws and properties of phenomena, and on the contrary, it is impossible to be considered the nature of the substance what is not manifested in it. Otherwise, the substance is not transcendent,
*) Vanneerus.. Arch. f.. sYST.. Philosophie.. N.. F.. B.. I.. H.. 3. p.362 andd.
330
but immanent its phenomena. Each phenomenon by nature there is a substance itself at this particular moment of its being "*).
So, under the substance, we must understand the other way of phenomena, which is distinguished by the most intention, "and which serves the basis For a changing side of phenomena. Such a relationship between the substance and its phenomena is something logically necessary. We can not imagine that any activity could be without a figure, some phenomenon without substance. This is the nature of all material phenomena that we always distinguish them via constant, phenomenon from basics phenomena. This kind of constant we have in mental life. This constant should not be determined by something existing out of The mental themselves themselves, it can fully exhaust with these phenomena, but at the same time it has the properties, which can be called its substance by virtue of which we can call it.
It is impossible to say that in our mental life, all the testicle that our mental life is only a changing process. There is something constant in our mental life. So, for example, in the process of comparison there is something, a permanent entity, thanks to which the comparison process can be carried out. In fact, if we assume that there are in our mind only Condition A, and the state in, then, of course, the comparison process could not be implemented; Therefore, we must allow another general subject.
Our spiritual world is inherent in constancy also because it represents unity. This unity we can explain best with the comparison of it with the unity that we see in organisms. After all,
*) The concept of the soul according to internal experience. Questions of philosophy and psychology. 1896 XXXII.
331
we can also say in a very latter that YUS is connected to one unity. The body also represents something folded from individual components. But this connection is peculiar, it is not a simple mechanical connection from individual items. In the same way, our mental organism does not represent a simple mechanical connection from each other, and also represents something whole, one in the generation of the body. This unity is inherent in constancy and relative, immutability, and this is precisely the essence of those properties that characterize substance.
And if so, then you can see that Vundt, and hyaulsen are substantialists, because the substance in this sense and they recognized. And WEDDT, and Paulsen does not recognize substance only in the sense in which it means there is a separate existence from its discovers. If the substantial sign of the substance should be considered that it is something independent With something, on which other phenomena depends, then in such a sense and WEDDT, and Paulsen are equally supporters of the substance. For them, the soul is not a mechanical addition of individual spiritual states, for them it represents a well-known organization, a well-known unity, which is a carrier of individual spiritual states. This unity is distinguished by constancy and relative immutability; In short, it is inherent in all those properties that are attributed to the spiritual substance in their own sense.
It is clear that the newest supporters of the theory of relevance as Paulsen and Vundt are not so different from representatives of the substantiality, as it may seem at first glance. It is worth only to recognize the unity, something that precedes its parts, etc. under: so that the difference between the substantiality and the relevance is inconsistent. The best proof of this latter
332
classes is that the famous German philosopher , Lot at one time, recognizing the theory of substance infor the same, and subsequently considered himself a defender of substances, but only he understood it somewhat differently; He thought " the fact of unity of consciousness is therefore thereby the fact of the existence of the substance.Everything, of course, depends on what sense to give the concept of substance. It all depends on how to understand the substance. According to Lot Chase, the substance is something that can act, to be influenced by something, testing various states, and in the change of them to detect unity. Such a concept is quite applicable to the soul. The soul acts on the body, exposed to the body, it is unity.According to Lot Tread, the soul is what it is found: unity living in certain feelings and aspirations *).
Thus, we can say that in the modern philosophy, which recognize the existence of the soul, also recognizes its substantiality, if not directly, then in any case indirectly **).
G.. Chelepanov.
*) Cm . his Medicinische psychologie. 1852.Then System d. Philosophie (Metaphysik) 1884.§ 238 I. Grundz.ü gE D.. Psychologie., § 78.
**) see the soul. BZN.{!LANG-ed87d684c530c58f5135d5c1462323d3!} {!LANG-24b83199990dac4d6bdb47d4eca6aad9!}{!LANG-65b52959c7413180977c98c46741de45!} I.{!LANG-1e94ace707dc507b3c899323f9463d57!} Herbert Spencer,{!LANG-2aaf0b24cad46328f32f156d3511a9ee!} {!LANG-4f3f7143fac6569fe03f8fd37d719ab2!}{!LANG-a37ebccfa5be32acb98ce4b566ec8d0e!} {!LANG-66b41d1a8ce1563b07f9a1136dec48e2!}{!LANG-dd79bc90c205c95c366f744444643e31!} {!LANG-29cb55eb65ec2c1f455fb8405c6a4144!}{!LANG-c8b8a7450a6b0f97facb9af2897518a0!} {!LANG-f3aaa51c8cf216ad6a08c2c18b928555!}{!LANG-ddc57787d72cad6724165b1271ebd8b7!} {!LANG-87e6fe167d12dd1ef1fb7a9c8937375a!}{!LANG-06b2c12ddf52eff697d6ef0516d604af!}{!LANG-92c44070ee28b29aca47eaf5cb0abe68!}{!LANG-7fe105985cff78c2706571b7f6003224!} {!LANG-e6243c7107439198a43eb32467b92567!}{!LANG-89d09ac0324ee799dce8fc3f2108324f!} {!LANG-0ddf1df24db77567c2da9e4b6471d0b5!}{!LANG-aee26eef8e5cccffba1091b226674940!} . {!LANG-7cbc8ba6dbdd7f3ab825012faaffdace!} . {!LANG-242e7586bcee44b9f9310729c85a9627!} . 3- {!LANG-a633a29cfa00fef6480f997f4fc6d337!} . {!LANG-a59803925c9b00e9af058f3e664d62b4!} . 3 - {!LANG-a633a29cfa00fef6480f997f4fc6d337!} . {!LANG-0ba5f5a72106487d4b5b937d489ca64a!}{!LANG-a8a78d0ff555c931f045b6f448129846!}{!LANG-d8bcf63a83de3edd36b10d3c1d400534!}{!LANG-68605a1cdb95fc15d9ef5beb9f164d91!}{!LANG-001e1820392a1c4cd9fcc511bd673da5!} . 70 {!LANG-823d39eb197bebe716280c55fc42cdb8!} . {!LANG-b4839ef9ae0fe8a24efcd18566c159aa!}{!LANG-ee07aef795e12790a97799cd6755077c!}{!LANG-f0fd44801cc891f56c91f53c7fde521d!} . 1898. {!LANG-a59803925c9b00e9af058f3e664d62b4!} {!LANG-4d5c4978404df4c88b66c8bfbdb3cf45!}{!LANG-9202ff921ab909dedbca893781ca26c4!}{!LANG-b975f6d83fdac2970c683441bcd91b2a!}in {!LANG-c3f37ab755d6cfc9e510cfff0f3b0f41!}{!LANG-aee26eef8e5cccffba1091b226674940!} {!LANG-1e8c1f09f2e363e90df95c1862a6277b!}{!LANG-ce9977521b16bbc8251271a8f98a1f0c!} ). {!LANG-aeb5a241e271c32e6b6ad3bb61cd2ea7!} . {!LANG-4657906be12c41ea5efe42510305ba66!}
333
{!LANG-2c3d68720687963cf8c69160a2c37a11!}