Valentin Balanovskiy

Researchers often talk about a powerful heuristic potential of the Kantian heritage, but sometimes they do not show concrete examples in defense of this opinion outside Kantianism and Neo- Kantianism. This article contains an attempt to demonstrate that on the example of how efficiently C.G. Jung used Kant’s ideas to construct the theoretical basis of analytical psychology in general and his conception of archetypes in particular, we can see the urgency of Kant’s heritage not only for his direct spiritual successors. In addition the question is discussed: why did Jung claim that epistemologically he took his stand on Kant?

The article is devoted to an objective assessment of the role of Sabina Spielrein – one of the Russian pioneers of psychoanalysis – in the forming of theoretical basis of analytical psychology. A bibliographic review precedes the main part, in order to show the prevailing bias towards the consideration of personal life and the subjective features of Spielrein’s creativity, and not her ideas. In the first part the author briefly considers Spielrein’s contribution to the empirical justification and further development of the complex theory and shows how her ideas are related to Jung's representations on the phylogenesis and ontogenesis of the psyche as a result of complex building-up and about the psychogenesis of schizophrenia. In particular, it is noted that Spielrein is the first one who clearly formulate a hypothesis, according to which our psyche a priori does not constitute anything integral, but is a combination of many complexes. In the second part the author focuses on the concept of speciespsyche, which anticipates the concept of collective unconscious. He draws parallels between the ideas of Spielrein and Jung on the role of collective unconscious contents of the psyche in shaping the individual's current psychic experience. In particular, the author focuses on the idea that every experience is always both conscious and unconscious, and if it does not superimpose the entire history of similar experiences inherited from the ancestors then it does not reach the needed level of intensity. In the same part the author points out three factors that do not allow us to assert with complete confidence that the concept of species-psyche is the exclusive merit of Spielrein, even though she published her ideas before Jung. The third part gives an assessment of the contribution of Spielrein to the development of Jung’s and Freud’s views on the destruction. The author points out the two main sources of Spielrein’s reflection on the destruction nature. The first is the ideas of the Russian biologist I.I. Mechnikov concerning the instinct of normal death. The second is Jung's ideas about the ambivalent nature of the libido. The author also demonstrates the close connection between the notion of species-psyche and the concept of destruction. Then a distinction is made between the simple static instinct of self-preservation and the ambivalent dynamic instinct of preservation of the species. In addition, the author compares Spielrein’s and Jung’s views on the essence of the destruction with the views of Freud. For this purpose a distinction is made between the death instinct as a positive drive for transformation through the destruction and the death instinct as the drive to completely destruction or stop of all processes. Дается оценка роли С.Н. Шпильрейн в формировании теоретического базиса аналитической психологии. Демонстрируется значимость ее научного вклада в развитие представлений К.Г. Юнга о комплексе, фило- и онтогенезе психики, психогенезе шизофрении, коллективном бессознательном и деструкции. Особый акцент делается на последние два момента. Кроме того, выявляются некоторые различия в понимании сущности феномена деструкции С.Н. Шпильрейн, К.Г. Юнгом и З. Фрейдом.

This study aims to show a similarity of Kant’s and Jung’s approaches to an issue of the possibility of scientific psychology, hence to explicate what they thought about the future of psychology. Therefore, the article contains heuristic material, which can contribute in a resolving of such methodological task as searching of promising directions to improve philosophical and scientific psychology. To achieve the aim the author attempts to clarify an entity of Kant’s and Jung’s objections against even the possibility of scientific psychology and to find out ways to overcome those objections in Kant’s and Jung’s works. The main methods were explication, reconstruction and comparative analysis of Kant’s and Jung’s views. As a result it was found, that Kant and Jung allocated one and the same obstacles, which, on their opinion, prevent psychology to become a science in the strict sense. They are: 1) coincidence of subject and object in psychology; 2) impossibility to apply quantitative mathematic methods in psychology; 3) pendency of the issue of psychophysical parallelism. However, Kant and Jung indicated ways to resolve formulated by them fundamental difficulties. All those ways lay through the searching a principle of interaction and connection between the psychic and the physical.

The article discusses some facts of C. G. Jung's direct appeal to the ideas of I. Kant. The main part of the article is preceded by statistical data on the mention of various philosophers in the Collected Works of Jung. It is not surprising that Kant leads in the number of links to his ideas or personality in Jung’s heritage. Then I show examples of the mention of Kant in Jung’s correspondence, which allow understand the fundamental philosophical background of analytical psychology better. For this purpose in particular I give excerpts from which it becomes clear that the creator of the analytical psychology, unlike his predecessor C. G. Carus, never hypostasized the collective unconscious, because Jung believed that this is a thing in itself. Also by correspondence it is clear that Jung grasped Kant’s criticism of the rational proofs of existence of God well. Then I point out how apriorism is manifested in analytical psychology. Also I explain briefly how to understand that archetypes and instincts are necessary a priori conditions for the formation of psychic experience. In conclusion, the reasons are given for which Kant and Jung rejected the fundamental possibility of the existence of psychology in the status of strict science. В статье рассматриваются некоторые факты прямого обращения К. Г. Юнга к идеям И. Канта. Основная часть статьи предваряется статистическими данными по упоминанию различных философов в 20-томном академическом собрании сочинений Юнга. Совершенно не удивительно, что по количеству ссылок лидирует Кант. Далее приводятся конкретные примеры упоминания родоначальника немецкой классической философии в переписке Юнга, что позволяет лучше понять фундаментальную философскую подоплёку аналитической психологии. Так, приводятся отрывки, из которых становится ясно, что создатель аналитической психологии, в отличие от своего предшественника К. Г. Каруса, никогда не гипостазировал коллективное бессознательное, считая, что это вещь в себе. Также по переписке видно, что Юнг усвоил произведённую Кантом критику доказательств бытия Божия. Затем в статье указывается, каким образом в аналитической психологии проявляется априоризм. Кратко объясняется, как следует понимать то, что архетипы и инстинкты являются необходимыми априорными условиями формирования психического опыта. В заключение приводятся основания, по которым Кант и Юнг отвергали принципиальную возможность существования психологии в статусе строгой науки, и которые до сих пор не преодолены.

In this article is discussed an issue, how Nicolas von Grot’s theory of psychic energy had an influence upon theoretical basis of the analytical psychology, firstly, upon the concept of ‘libido’, which denotes a universal psychic energy. Also the author analyzes C.G. Jung’s objections against some moments of Grot’s argumentation and shows, how these objections can be eliminated through the Jung’s concept of psychoid factor’ (‘psychoid’) В данной статье рассматривается влияние энергетизма Н.Я. Грота на формирование теоретического базиса аналитической психологии К.Г. Юнга в части разработки последним учения об универсальной психической энергии либидо. Также анализируются возражения К.Г. Юнга против некоторых мест гротовской аргументации, и демонстрируется, каким образом эти возражения могут быть сняты посредством обращения к разработанному в поздних юнговских трудах понятию «психойдный фактор» («психойдное»)

The subject of the article is a mass psychology of B.P. Vysheslavtsev. This is a socio-philosophical conception, which created by Vysheslavtsev through the synthesizing of German classical philosophy, neo-Kantianism, Russian religious philosophy and analytical psychology. He developed the mass psychology in close collaboration with C.G. Jung by his direct order. The mass psychology, despite the heterogeneity of its foundations, became an organic continuation of analytical psychology. Moreover, there is reason to suppose that Vysheslavtsev's socio-philosophical and religious ideas influenced all of Jung’s later work. The main method used was a comparative analysis of the ideas of Vysheslavtsev and Jung, as well as a critical interpretation of the original sources, including unpublished archival materials — letters and manuscripts. The novelty lies in the fact that previously the mass psychology of Vysheslavtsev eluded the attention of researchers. This is primarily due to the inaccessibility of sources on this issue, since some of them are either not published and stored in archives, including the Bakhmeteff Archive (Columbia University in the City of New York) and C.G. Jung Papers Collection (ETH Zurich University Archive), or was published in rare foreign journals and not translated into Russian. At the same time, without these sources it is difficult to understand not only the evolution of Vysheslavtsev’s views, but also the logic and reasons for the development of Jung’s ideas from the 1940s to his death. Thus, this article is intended to partially replenish these gaps in the history of Russian and European philosophy and psychology. Предметом исследования данной статьи является созданная на основе синтеза немецкой классической философии, неокантианства, русской религиозной философии и аналитической психологии социально-философская концепция Б.П. Вышеславцева, названная им "массовая психология". Данная концепция разрабатывалась в тесном взаимодействии с К.Г. Юнгом, в том числе, по его непосредственному заказу. Массовая психология Вышеславцева, несмотря на разнородность её основ, стала органичным продолжением аналитической психологии. Более того, есть основания полагать, что социально-философские и религиозные идеи Вышеславцева оказали влияние на всё позднее творчество Юнга. В качестве основного метода использовался компаративный анализ идей Вышеславцева и Юнга, а также критическая интерпретация первоисточников, включая неопубликованные архивные материалы - письма и рукописи. Новизна заключается в том, что ранее массовая психология Вышеславцева ускользала от внимания исследователей. Обусловлено это, в первую очередь, труднодоступностью источников по данной проблеме, так как часть из них либо не опубликована и хранится в архивах, в том числе в Бахметьевском архиве Колумбийского университета (Нью-Йорк) и Архиве Юнга (Цюрих), либо была опубликована в редких иностранных изданиях и не переведена на русский язык. Вместе с тем, без данных источников трудно понять не только эволюцию взглядов Вышеславцева, итогом которой стал труд "Кризис индустриальной культуры", но также логику и причины развития представлений Юнга начиная с 1940-х годов и заканчивая его смертью. Тем самым, данная статья призвана отчасти восполнить указанные лакуны в истории русской и европейской философии и психологии.

The author considers ethical and legal aspects of a developing of AI systems. He examines the ethical aspect through the prism of Kant’s philosophy and outlines moral prospects of (quasi)intelligent robots. The author considers the legal aspect in context of normative regulation of risks that arise with a creating of AI systems. In conclusion the author makes an assumption on forthcoming transformation of a legal system because of a new type of legal acts that combine classical form of legal act and machine protocol. В статье затрагиваются этический и правовой аспекты развития систем искусственного интеллекта. Этический аспект автор рассматривает с позиций философии И. Канта и обрисовывает нравственные перспективы создания (квази)разумных роботов. Правовой аспект рассматривается в контексте нормативного регулирования рисков, возникающих при создании систем ИИ. В заключении делается предположение о грядущей перестройке правовой системы в связи с возникновением нового типа НПА, которые сочетают в себе классическую форму НПА и машинного протокола.

The concept of ‘transcendental reflection’ has been under-studied despite its crucial significance for Kant’s philosophical system. Kant’s transcendental reflection is an instrument inherent in our consciousness. Without this instrument, one would be unable to distinguish between representations/ fantasies and the reality; to have self-consciousness; to identify the functions of the human soul; to distinguish between the effects of the senses, the understanding, and reason within these functions, including identifying the a priori forms of the senses, the understanding, and reason; and to classify representations by the faculty of cognition to which they belong. This study aims to reconstruct the main features of Kant’s ideas of transcendental reflection and to define this notion through analysing the Critique of Pure Reason and the other fundamental works of Kant.

The author demonstrates that despite of belonging to different philosophical traditions C.G. Jung and N.O. Lossky concluded that everything in the Universe is connected by some fundamental acausal principle. This connecting principle cannot be described by means of classical spatial-temporal paradigm. Jung names such principle ‘synchronicity’, Lossky – ‘gnoseological coordination’. According to Jung, synchronicity is a modern interpretation of the ancient idea of sympathy, which is most fully and consistently represented in G.W. Leibniz’s doctrine of the pre-established harmony. The key parameters of synchronicity are its spaceless and timeless nature. This fact, as Jung suggested, allows give a rational explanation of parapsychological phenomena. Like Jung, Lossky relied on Leibniz’s ideas. However, in spite of the fact that the principle of gnoseological coordination also describes the acausal type of connection and makes it possible to explain parapsychological phenomena, its character is somewhat different from synchronicity. As the author shows, these differences are due to the fact that Jung was largely based on Kant's transcendentalism and took into account the difference between thing-in-itself and phenomena, while Lossky consistently stood on intuitivism. В статье демонстрируется, что, несмотря на принадлежность к разным философским традициям, К.Г. Юнг и Н.О. Лосский пришли к похожим выводам об акаузальном характере взаимодействия всего сущего на фундаментальном уровне, который не может быть описан в привычных пространственно-временных параметрах. Для обозначения подобного акаузального вида связи Юнг вводит термин «синхронистичность», Лосский – термин «гносеологическая координация». По мнению Юнга, синхронистичность является современной интерпретацией древней идеи симпатии, которая наиболее полно и последовательно представлена в учении Г.В. Лейбница о принципе предустановленной гармонии. Ключевыми параметрами синхронистичности является её внепространственный и вневременной характер, что, как полагал Юнг, позволяет дать рациональное объяснение парапсихологическим феноменам. Как и Юнг, Лосский во многом опирался на идеи Лейбница. Однако, несмотря на то, что принцип гносеологической координации также описывает акаузальный вид связи и позволяет объяснить парапсихологические феномены, его характер несколько отличается от синхронистичности. Как показывает автор статьи, различия эти обусловлены тем, что Юнг в большей степени основывался на трансцендентализме и дискурсивизме Канта и принимал во внимание различие между вещами в себе и феноменами, в то время как Лосский последовательно выстраивал интуитивистскую систему. В заключении даётся ответ на вопрос, зачем Юнгу и Лосскому потребовалось постулирование акаузальных принципов связи.

The publication of the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant marked the beginning of an intellectual revolution not only in Philosophy, but also in other spheres of intellectual activity. Every year interest to this work is only growing up, especially in the context of the development of cognitive sciences and technologies related to the development and implementation of artificial intelligence systems. However, both Kant’s contemporaries and subsequent generations of researchers had questions about the basic concepts, outlined in the first Critique. Nikolay Lossky became one of such outstanding experts in Kant’s philosophy, who carried out a metacritique of transcendental idealism. His analysis is interesting because it is characterized by consistency, depth and inclusiveness, despite the fact that he was not a supporter of Kant’s philosophy. The proposed article explicates the main points of the metacritique of pure reason carried out by Lossky. The aim is to systematize the advantages and disadvantages of transcendental idealism highlighted by him in order to assess the validity of objections and identify points that paradoxically escaped Lossky’s attention. In particular, it is shown that the highest evaluation of Lossky is awarded to Kant’s efforts to create an epistemology that does not rely as presuppositions on any other branches of human knowledge; the resolution of contradictions between Empiricism and Rationalism; the creation of the doctrine of synthetic rationality and transcendental logic; the idea of the need for the immanence of knowledge to consciousness. Lossky identified as the key shortcomings of transcendental idealism a range of contradictions grouped around such concepts as the things in themselves, affection, experience, inner sense, transcendental schema, and unity of apperception. At the same time, it is shown that such a key concept for Kant’s theoretical philosophy as transcendental reflection has disappeared from the Lossky’s field of consideration. The study is preceded by a brief description of Lossky’s characteristics, including personal ones, as a meta-critic of pure reason.

The article compares views of C.G. Jung and N.O. Lossky on the nature of time, including in the context of contemporary to them physical theories - quantum mechanics by W. Pauli and relativistic physics by A. Einstein. In particular, the author points to the similarity of ideas of both thinkers that the psyche relativizes time not only subjectively, but also objectively. Jung and Lossky provide this statement with a similar empirical basis, for example, the researches of T. Flournoy, as well as similar theoretical arguments by postulating a fundamental acausal principle of the connection of all things, which is better suited for describing psychic and some physical phenomena than the classical causal explanation. In analytical psychology, such a principle is synchronicity, in hierarchical personalism - gnoseological coordination. Both concepts are genetically related to the G.W. Leibniz idea of pre-established harmony, which was reinterpreted by Jung and Lossky through different worldview foundations. Jung in his reasoning relied on the transcendental idealism of I. Kant, the principle of complementarity and the discoveries of quantum mechanics, Lossky - on intuitivism, the principle of subordination and on his own interpretation of Einsteins theories. Jung comes to the conclusion that the psyche has a timeless character, and Lossky comes to the conclusion that it has a super-temporal character. Jungs timelessness indicates the transcendental nature of psyche and the strive to get away from the classical causal explanation, saving it according to the principle of complementarity only to consider the phenomenal side of being and mainly physical processes. One of the pioneers of quantum mechanics Pauli was of the same opinion in general. Because of there is nothing transcendent in hierarchical personalism, Losskys super-temporality is of a strive to find a deeper basis for occurring in time processes, and, according to the principle of subordination, to include time in the hierarchical structure of the universe, prescribing for it a role of one of the two key forms of psychic and psycho-material processes characteristic of a certain stage of being.

The author attempts to answer a question of whether the fact that Immanuel Kant’s theory of experience most likely has a conceptual nature decreases an importance of Kant’s ideas for contemporary philosophy, because if experience is conceptual by nature, then certain problems with the search for means to verify experiential knowledge arise. In particular, two approaches are proposed. According to the first approach, the exceptional conceptuality of Kant’s theory of experience may be a consequence of absence of some important chains in arguments contained in the Critique of Pure Reason, which could clarify a question of how the conceptual apparatus of the subject corresponds to the reality. The author puts a hypothesis that the missing chains are not a mistake, but Kant’s deliberate silence caused by the lack of accurate scientific information that could not have been available to humankind in Enlightenment epoch. According to the second approach even if Kant’s theory of experience is exclusively conceptual by nature, this cannot automatically lead to a conclusion that it is unsuitable for obtaining reliable knowledge about reality, since transcendental idealism has powerful internal tools for verifying data in the process of cognition. The central position among them is occupied by transcendental reflection.

The paper analyzes S.N. Spielrein’s scientific contribution to development K.G. Jung’s ideas. It starts with a list of areas pioneered by S.N. Spielrein’s and a review of literature which, as the author points out, is often biased, focusing not on the ideas of one of the first women in psychoanalysis, but on her personal life and individual characteristics. Further the paper analyzes several principal conceptions (with the exception of the original conception of destruction) where S.N. Spielrein’s contribution was essential. She tried to give a more strict definition to C.G. Jung’s theory of the complex which played a key part in development of analytical psychology. S.N. Spielrein was the first to prove empirically in her dissertation the potential of the theory which contradicted classical psychoanalysis. S.N. Spielrein also played a part in development of C.G. Jung’s notions of philo- and ontogenesis of the mind in the process of the so called ‘complex intergrowth’ and gradually developing a common core in the form of I-consciousness. She also worked to define genesis of schizophrenia as a process of replacement of the personal content of the mind by collective contents. She contributed to development of the notion of the collective unconscious. The author analyzes her conception of ‘ancestral soul’ in the context of later achievements of analytical psychology, pointing out similarities in definitions. The author suggests a hypothesis on reasons why, after her separation from C.G. Jung, all mention of the collective unconscious disappeared from S.N. Spielrein’s publications. In conclusion, on the basis of characteristics of the female mind, identified by S.N. Shpilrein, the author hypothesizes on why actuality of her ideas has not been appreciated. Статья посвящена оценке научного вклада С.Н. Шпильрейн в развитие идей К.Г. Юнга. Основной текст предваряется указанием областей, в которых Шпильрейн оказалась первопроходцем, а также библиографическим обзором с выявлением слабых мест сложившейся традиции, сторонники которой предпочитают фокусироваться не на идеях одной из первых женщин-психоаналитиков, а на ее личной жизни и психологических особенностях. В основной части подробно рассматриваются несколько ключевых для аналитической психологии концепций (за исключением оригинальной концепции деструкции), вклад С.Н. Шпильрейн в развитие которых оказался наиболее существенным. Во-первых, анализируются ее усилия по уточнению сформулированной К.Г. Юнгом теории комплекса, сыгравшей ключевую роль в становлении аналитической психологии. С.Н. Шпильрейн стала первым исследователем, который в своей диссертации на конкретном эмпирическом материале доказал приемлемость этой теории, идущей вразрез с классическим психоанализом. Во-вторых, эксплицируется вклад С.Н. Шпильрейн в развитие представлений К.Г. Юнга о филогенезе и онтогенезе психики в результате так называемого комплексного срастания и постепенного обретения единого стержня в форме Я-сознания. В-третьих, отмечается роль Шпильрейн в уточнении генезиса шизофрении как процесса замещения личностных содержаний психики коллективными психическими содержаниями. В-четвертых, рассматривается вклад С.Н. Шпильрейн в развитие понятия коллективного бессознательного. В частности, анализируется ее учение о «душе рода» или «родовой душе» в контексте более поздних открытий аналитической психологии, указываются сходства формулировок. Кроме того, выдвигается гипотеза, почему после разрыва с К.Г. Юнгом в трудах С.Н. Шпильрейн полностью исчезают концепты, близкие понятию коллективного бессознательного. В заключение на основании выявленных С.Н. Шпильрейн особенностей женской психики строится предположение, почему ее идеи только сегодня стали по-настоящему актуальными.