1903
.. IBERWEG. "OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY" (EDITED BY MAX HEINZE)
3 vols. 1876-1880. LEIPZIG
The book has a somewhat strange character: short sections with a couple of words about the content of doctrines and extremely long, small-print explanations, three-quarters full of names and titles of books, moreover, old: the bibliography goes up to the 1860s and 1870s. Something *unleserliches*!
A history of names and books!
F. PAULSEN. "INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY"
1899
It is strikingly characteristic how openly the question is posed in the introduction: the task of the latest philosophy is to "reconcile religious worldviews and scientific explanation of nature" (p. IV** [V]***). Sic! And this idea is developed at length: the struggle is on two fronts - against materialism and "Jesuitism" (both Catholic and Protestant). Materialism, of course, is understood (or presented?) as purely mechanical, physical, etc.****

* - unreadable! Ed.
** F. Paulsen. "Einleitung in die Philosophie". Berlin, 1899. Ed.
*** .. Paulsen. "Introduction to Philosophy". M., 1899. Ed.
**** - purely mechanical, physical, etc. Ed.
+
170
171

The author also directly states that the latest philosophy relies on Kant and is a representative of "idealist monism."
Up to p. 10 [10] ... "The world between knowledge and faith"...
And p. 11 [11]: "To establish this world" - "this is the central point of Kant's philosophy... To do justice to both: knowledge against Hume's skepticism, faith against its dogmatic denial in materialism - this is the result of his work" (12) [11].
"Only one circumstance can disturb the hopeful expectation" (hope for this world) "of this: it is the absolutely hostile to religion radicalism, spreading now among the broad masses of the population... Thus, atheism now appears" (as it did before among the bourgeoisie) "as a dogma of social democracy" (p. 14-15 [14]). "This is a catechism turned inside out. And just as the old dogmatism, so too this new, negative dogmatism, is hostile to science, insofar as it chains the spirit of criticism and doubt with its dogmas." (Reminiscent of the name *Antipfaffen* and asserts that Christianity is not partial to the rich, that it, Christianity, will survive the struggle to which Europe is heading.)
In rejecting materialism and defending the theory of *Allbeseelung* (which he interprets in an idealistic sense), Paulsen ignores 1) that he is not rejecting materialism, but only some arguments of some materialists; 2) that he contradicts himself by interpreting modern psychology in an idealistic sense.
Cf. p. 126 [125]. "Force... is nothing but a tendency towards a certain activity, and, consequently, in its general essence, coincides with unconscious will."
(*Ergo* - *Seelenvorgänge und Kraft* are not so *unüberbrückbar* as the author thought earlier, p. 90 [88] ff.)

* - anti-clerical. Ed.
** - universal animation. Ed.
*** - not so unbridgeable. Ed.

F. PAULSEN. "INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY"
Pp. 112-116 [111-115]: why could the *Weltall* not be the bearer of the *Weltgeist*? (Because man and his brain are the highest development of the spirit, as the author himself admits.
When Paulsen criticizes the materialists, he opposes matter with higher forms of the spirit. When he defends idealism and interprets contemporary psychology in an idealistic sense, he brings lower forms of the spirit closer to *Kräfte*, etc.***
This is the most vulnerable part of his philosophy).
Cf. especially pp. 106-107 [105-106], where Paulsen speaks against the view of matter as something dead.
*Contra* p. 86 [84]: "in movement, there is absolutely no thought"...
The author seems to dismiss too easily the idea that *Gedanke ist Bewegung* ****. His arguments boil down only to "common human reason: meaningless," "thought is not movement, but thought" (87) [85]. Perhaps heat is not movement, but heat??
The author's arguments are utterly foolish, such as the claim that a physiologist would not stop talking about thoughts, but about movements equal to these thoughts? And no one will ever stop talking about heat.
When in love, would he speak to the lady about the corresponding vasomotor process... This is obvious nonsense (86-87) [85]. Indeed! - Mr. Paulsen! And feeling a lack of warmth, we will talk not about how warmth is a kind of movement, but about how to get coal.
Paulsen considers it *sinnlos* ***** to assert that thought is *Bewegung*. Yet he himself is against dualism and speaks of an "equivalent." (140 and 143 [139 and 143-144]) - "the physical equivalent of the psychic" (or *Begleit-
NB

* - universe. Ed.
** - conceptual confusion. Ed.
*** - with forces, etc. Ed.
**** - thought is movement. Ed.
***** - meaningless. Ed.

erscheinung*). Is this not the same *begriffliche Konfusion* **, for which he contemptuously criticizes Büchner?
When Paulsen declares his parallelism "not local," but "ideal" (p. 146 [145]), its dualistic character becomes even clearer. This is not an explanation or a theory, but a mere verbal trick.
Written in 1903.
First published in 1930 in the Lenin Collection XII

Printed from the manuscript