Abstract
The reconstruction of psychology and its establishment on a firm Marxist-Leninist foundation has long been the ideal of Soviet psychologists. As early as 1923, K. N. Kornilov called for the construction of a new ‘Marxist’ psychology to replace the old ‘bourgeois idealist schools’1, and the same call has been reiterated by almost every Soviet psychologist since.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cf. Chapter II, p. 40.
Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 4.
Rubinštejn, ‘Problema dejatel’nosti i soznanija v sisteme sovetskoj psixologii’ [The Problem of Activity and Consciousness in the System of Soviet Psychology], UZ MGU — Psixologija, dviženie i dejatel’nost’, vyp. 90, 1945, p. 9 (henceforward: Rubinštejn, ‘Dejatel’nost’ i soznanie’).
Rubinštejn, A ‘Perestrojka’, p. 197.
“Krizis, čerez kotorij prošla psixologija, éto — kak i krizis fiziki, o kotorom pisal Lenin v Materializme i empiriokritisizme kak i krizis drugix nauk — o matematiki do literaturovenija, étot byl krizis filosofskix osnov nauki.” (The crisis through which psychology passed, like the crisis in physics of which Lenin wrote in Materialism and Empiriocriticism, and like the crises in the other sciences — from mathematics to literature — was a crisis of the philosophical foundations of science.) Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 6.
Cf. ibid., p. 4ff.
Cf. Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 6. Rubinštejn insists that the crisis was not caused by a “paralysis of scientific investigation” but is a “general crisis of the methodological foundations of the science”: “No vse etom obščij krizis metodologičeskix osnov nauki, a ne parallič naučnogo issledovanija v oblasti psixologii, kak nauki.” Rubinštejn, ‘Dejatel’nost’ i soznanie’, p. 7.
Cf. Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 6; ‘Dejatel’nost’ i soznanie’, p. 7; Osnovy, pp. 63ff.
Cf. Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 4.
Cf. Rubinštejn’ ‘Dejatel’nost’ i soznanie’, p. 7.
Descartes, Principia Philosophiae, 1, 9. Oeuvres, Vol. VIII, p. 7.
Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 63; ‘Dejatel’nost’ i soznanie’, p. 4.
Introspection as a method can be broadly defined as the process of observing the operations of one’s own mind with a view to determining its content and laws. Rubinštejn is correct in tracing the method back to Descartes and Locke for whom it was the chief method of psychology. It was also the primary method employed by the founders of the new experimental psychology like Wilhelm Wundt, Oswald Külpe, E. B. Titchner, etc. It should be noted that Rubinštejn does not reject introspection as a method but only the dualism which considers it as the only method for investigating mind. It is a valid method for the investigation of mind provided it is objectively verified (cf. Osnovy, pp. 31–34). Cf. E. G. Boring, ‘A History of Introspection’, Psychological Bulletin 50 (1953);
Robert S. Woodworth, Contemporary Schools of Psychology, New York 1948
Gardner Murphy, Historical Introduction to Modern Psychology, London 1949.
Cf. Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 4; Osnovy, p. 50.
Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 144.
“V svoej neposredstvennosti ona zamykaetsja vo vnutrennij mir i prebraščaetsja v sugubo ličnostnoe dostojanie. Každomu sub’ektu dany tol’ko javlenija ego soznanija i javlenija ego soznanija dany tol’ko emu.” (In its immediacy it is locked away from the outer world and turned into a purely personal possession. To each subject only the phenomena of his consciousness are given and the phenomena of his own consciousness are given to him alone.) Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p 4. Cf. also Osnovy, p. 11.
Ibid.
“No, vmeste s tern — i v étom koren’ voprosa — nevozmožnym stanovitsja ob’ektivnoe poznanie psixiki i so storony pereživajuščego ee sub’ekta.” (At the same time — and this is the heart of the question — objective knowledge of the psychic becomes impossible even for the subject which experiences it.) Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 4.
Ibid.
Ibid. Cf. also Osnovy, pp. 58ff.
Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, pp. 4–5.
“Idealističeskaja psixologija priznala real’nye psixičeskie processy liš” sub’ektivnymi soderžanijami samonabljudenija, a bixevioristy i refleksologi nekritičeski polnost’ju prinjali idealističeskuju koncepciju svoix protivnikov. Tol’ko v silu étogo oni ne mogli najti nikakogo inogo puti dlja realizacii ob”ektivnoj naučnosti psixologičeskogo poznanija, kak otkaz o poznanija psixiki. Introspekcionisty, zamykaja psixiku vo vnutrennem mire soznanija, otorvali psixiky ot dejatel’nosti; bixevioristy prinjali kak nepreložnuju istinu étot otryv drug ot druga soznanija i dejatel’nosti, vnutrennogo i vnešnego. Tol’ko na étoj osnove možno bylo opredelit’ svoju zadaču tak, kak éto sdelali predstaviteli povedenčeskoj psixologii: vmesto izučenija soznanija, otorvannogo ot povedenija, postavit’ sebe zadačej izučenija povedenija otorvannogo otsoznanija.” (Idealist psychology considered real psychic processes as merely the subjective content of introspection, while the Behaviourists and Reflexologists took over completely the idealist conception of their opponents. Hence they could find no other way to the realization of objective, scientific, psychological knowledge than the rejection of knowledge of the psychic. The introspectionists, by locking the psychic away in the inner world of consciousness, separated the psychic from activity; the Behaviourists accepted as an unassailable fact this separation of consciousness and activity, of the inner and the outer. Only on such a basis were the behaviourists able to so define the task of psychology: in place of the study of consciousness separated from behaviour, they set themselves the task of studying behaviour separated from consciousness.) Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 63.
Rubinštejn, By tie i soznanie, pp. 15–30; Principy, pp. 256–330.
Rubinštejn, ‘Filosofija i psixologija’ [Philosophy and Psychology], VF, 1957, 1, 114–127.
Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 5.
Cf. reference 22.
Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 6.
Ibid.
“On vedet k dejstvennoj soznatel’nost’ i soznatel’noj dejstvennost’. Svoe zaveršenyi on dolžen polučit’ v novoj koncepcii soznanija, stol’ že principal’noj otličnoj ot introspektivnoj, ot dekartovskoj, kak dekartovskaja byla otlična ot aristotelevskovoj.” (It leads to an active consciousness and to a conscious activeness. It must attain completion in a new conception of consciousness as fundamentally distinct from the introspectionist or Cartesian, as the Cartesian was distinct from the Aristotelian.) Rubinštejn, ‘Dejatel’nost’ i soznanie’, p. 9.
“Pered sovetskoj psixologiej vstala zadača postroenija sistemy psixologii na novoj, marksistsko-leninskoj, filosofskoj osnove.... Nado bylo... sozdat’ na osnove marksistsko-leninskoj dialektiki novye ustanovki i proložit’ novye puti dlja razrešenija osnovnyx teoretičeskix problem psixologičeskoj mysli.” Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 81.
“Obedinennaja naučnaja sessija Akedemii nauk SSSR i Akademii medicinskix nauk... podčerknula, čto issledovanija I. P. Pavlova sozdali pročnyj estestvenno-naučnyj fundament dlja psixologii, i postavila pered psixologami vopros o neobxodi-mosti perestrojki psixologii na osnove učenija I. P. Pavlova.” (The combined session of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and of the Academy of Medical Sciences underlined the fact that the investigations of I. P. Pavlov have created a firm natural-science foundation for psychology, and placed before psychologists the question of the necessity of reconstructing psychology on the basis of the teaching of I. P. Pavlov.) Rubinštejn, ‘Perestrojka’, p. 198.
Ibid., p. 197.
Ibid., p. 198.
In the articles written between 1950 and 1953 (death of Stalin) Rubinštejn adds another element to the reconstruction of psychology, namely, Stalin’s works on linguistics. Cf., e.g., ibid., p. 198.
“Osnovnoj porok staroj idealističeskoj psixologii soznanija, isxodivšej iz idealisti-českoj filosofii, zaključalsja v torn, čto predstaviteli ee byli — pol’zujac’ krasočnym vyraženiem I. M. Sečenova — ‘obosobiteljami psixičeskogo’.” (The fundamental defect of the old idealist psychology of consciousness, which comes from idealist philosophy consists in the fact that its representatives were — to use an apt expression of I. M. Sečenov — ‘isolators of the psychic’.) Rubinštejn, ‘Problema soznanija v svete dialektičeskogo materializma’, Izvestija AN SSSR — serija istorii i filosofii 3 (1945), 148.
Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 85.
Ibid., pp. 14–17.
Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 6.
Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 14.
“Soznatel’noe dejstvie otličaetsja ot ne soznatel’noe v samom svoem obektivnom obnaruženii: ego struktura inaja i inoe ego otnošenie k situacii, v kotoroj ono sover-šaetsja; ono inače protekaet.” (Conscious activity differs from nonconscious in its manifestation: it has a different structure and its relation to the situation in which it is accomplished is different; it proceeds differently.) Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 15.
Ibid.
Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 6. Rubinštejn quotes the well-known text from the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: “Man sieht wie die Geschichte der Industrie und das gewordene gegenständliche Dasein der Industrie das aufgeschlagene Buch der menschlichen Wesenskräfte, die sinnlich vorliegende menschliche Psychologie ist.” Karl Marx, Kleine ökonomische Schriften, MW, Bd. 1, p. 602.
“Soznanie — éto specifičeskaja forma otraženija ob”ektivnaja dejstvitel’nosti suščestvujuščej vne i nezavisimo ot soznanija.... V svoem sobstvennom vnutrennem soderžanii ono opredeljaetsja posredstvom svoego otnošenija k ob”ektivnomu miru.” Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 13.
“Prinadležnost’ individu... sub”ektu — pervaja xarakternaja osobennost’ vsego psixičeskogo. Psixičeskie javlenija vystupajut poétomy kak processy i kak svojstva konkretnyx individov; na nix obyčno ležit pečat čego-to osobenno blizkogo sub”ektu, iz ispytyvajuščemu.” Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 5.
“Esli prinadležost’ individu, sub”ektu javljaetcja pervym suščestvennym priznakom psixičeskogo, to otnošenie ego k nezavisimomu ot psixiku, ot soznanija ob”ektu — drugaja ne menee suščestvennaja čerta psixičeskogo.” Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 5.
Ibid. Cf. Marx, Engels, Deutsche Ideologie, MEW, Bd. 3, p. 26.
“Vnutrennjaja priroda ego vyjavljaetsja v ego otnošenii k vnešnemy.” Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 8.
“Soznanie konkretnogo real’nogo individa — éto edinstvo pereživanija i znanija.” Ibid.
Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 7.
“In dem er... auf die Natur ausser ihm wirkt und sie verändert, verändert er zugleich seine eigene Natur.” Marx, Das Kapital, MW, Bd. 4, p. 177.
Cf. reference 53.
Marx, Kapital, pp. 177–178.
“Erst durch den gegenständlich entfalteten Reichtum des menschlichen Wesens wird der Reichtum der subjectiven menschlichen Sinnlichkeit, wird ein musikalisches Ohr, ein Auge für Schönheit der Form, kurz, werden erst menschlicher Genüsse fähige Sinne, Sinne, welche als menschliche Wesenskräfte sich bestätigen, teils erst ausgebildet, teils erst erzeugt.” Marx, Kleine ökonomische Schriften, MW, Bd. 1, p. 601.
Rubinštejn, Osnovy, pp. 87–172.
Ibid., pp. 87ff.
Ibid., p. 90.
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 91ff.
Ibid., p. 93.
“Dlja razvitija psixiki sobstvennaja istorija suščestvenno svjazana s razvitiem form povedenija, kotorye regulirujutsja čerez posredstvo organov čuvstv i nervnoj sistemy.” (The development of the psychic as such is essentially connected with the development of forms of behaviour which are regulated by the sense organs and the nervous system.) Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 115.
Ibid., pp. 94–95.
Ibid., p. 115.
Ibid., p. 130.
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 131–132. Rubinštejn’s account is a paraphrase of Engels’ ‘description’ in
the Dialectics of Nature. Cf. F. Engels, Dialektik der Natur, MEW, Bd. 20, pp. 444–455.
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 447–448.
It could be objected that animals also make changes in their environment; e.g. the bird builds a nest, the bee makes a hive. Rubinštejn does not consider this problem but it is probable that he would answer with Engels: “... auch Tiere produzieren, aber ihre produktive Einwirkung auf die umgebende Natur ist dieser gegenüber gleich Null. Nur der Mensch hat es fertiggebracht, der Natur seinen Stempel aufzudrücken,....” Engels, Dialektik der Natur, p. 322.
Ibid., pp. 148ff.
“Razdelenie truda s neobxodimostiju privodit k tomu, čto dejatel’nost’ čeloveka napravljaetsja neposredstvenno na udovletvorenie na sobstvennyx ličnyx ego potreb-nostej, a obščestvennyx; dlja togo čtoby byli udovletvoreny ego potrebnosti, čelovek dolžen sdelat’ prjamoj cel’ju svoix dejstvij udovletvorenie obščestvennyx potrebnostej.” (The division of labour necessarily leads to the result that man’s activity is not immediately directed towards the satisfaction of his personal needs, but to those of society; In order to assure the satisfaction of his personal needs man must make the satisfaction of social needs the immediate goal of his activity.) Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 149.
Ibid., p. 154.
Ibid.
“I dlja psixiceskogo razvitija čeloveka suščestvenno, čto on roždaetsja s čelovečes-kim mozgom, čto, pojavjajas’ na svet, on prinosit s soboj takoe, polučennoe ot predkov, nasledstvo. Eti nasledstvennye dannye otkryvajut emu širokie vozmožnosti čelovečeskogo razvitija.” (It is also essential for the psychic development of man that he be born with a human brain, that he come into the world endowed with that legacy from his ancestors. These inherited gifts open to him the wide possibilities for human development.) Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 154.
Cf. reference 76.
Ibid.
“S razvitiem u čeloveka trudovoj dejatel’nosti, kotoraja materializuetsja v opredelen-nyx produktax, soznanie čeloveka, formirujuščeesja i razvivajuščeesja v processe étoj dejatel’nosti, oposreduetsja predmetnym bytiem istoričeski sozdavaemoj materiarnoj i duxovnoj kul’tury. Buduči ‘produktom mozga’, soznanie stanovitsja istoričeskim produktom.” (With the development of work-activity which is materialized in definite products, man’s consciousness, which is formed and developed in the process of that activity, is determined by the objective being of material and spiritual culture which has arisen in the course of history.) Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 21.
“Moe soznanie v svoej vnutrennej suščnosti oposredstvenno ob”ektivnymi svjazjami, kotorye ustanavlivajutsja v obščestvennoj praktiki i v kotorye ja vključajus’ vxožu každym aktom svoej dejatel’nosti, praktičeskoj i teoretičeskoj. Každyj akt moej dejatel’nosti i ja sam v nem i čerez nego tysjačami nitej vpleten, mnogoobraznymi svjažami vključen v ob”ektivnye obrazovanija istoričeski složivšejsja kul’tury, i moe soznanie naskvoz’ oposredstvovano imi.” Rubinštejn, ‘K. Marks’, p. 8.
Naučnaja sessija, p. 311.
Rubinštejn, ‘Dejatel’nost’ i soznanie’, p. 13.
Rubinštejn, Osnovy, pp. 17–21.
Ibid., p. 19.
Rubinštejn, ‘Perestrojka’, p. 201.
Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 149.
Rubinštejn, ‘Perestrojka’, p. 201.
“Monizm — pišet tovarišč Stalin — isxodit iz odnogo principa — priroda ili bytija imejuščego material’nuju i ideal’nuju formu, togda kak idealizm, isxodit iz dvux principov — material’nogo i ideal’nogo, kotorye, soglasno dualizmu otricajut drug druga.” (Monism — writes Comrade Stalin — starts with one principle — nature or being which has a material and ideal form, while idealism begins with two principles — the material and the ideal which, according to dualism, contradict each other.) I. V. Stalin, Sočinenija, t. 1, p. 327. Quoted by Rubinštejn, ‘Perestrojka’, p. 201.
Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 85.
Rubinštejn, Principy, pp. 249–256.
“Eto položenie [edinstva soznanija i dejatel’nosti] vse ešče vyražalo otnošenie soznanija i dejatel’nosti kak vnešnee sootnošenie dvux obosoblennix členov (k tomy že bez opredelenija xarakter ix vzaimootnošenii, bez ukazanija na to, čto pervično, čto iz čego proisxodit).” (This principle [of the unity of consciousness and activity] expressed nonetheless, the relation of consciousness and activity as two isolated members (without determining the character of their interaction, without showing which was primary and which derived).) Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 251.
Ibid.
‘Osnovnoe pozitivnoe soderžanie položenija o edinstve soznanija i dejatel’nosti zaključaetsja v utverždenii ix vzaimosvjazi i vzaimoobuslovennosti.” (The fundamental, positive content of the principle of the unity of consciousness and activity is the affirmation of their interconnection and interdetermination.) Ibid.
Cf. Chapter II.
“Psixičeskie javlenija, kak i ljubye drugie, svjazany so vsemi javlenijami žizni, so vsemi storonami i svojstvami materiarnogo mira. V različnyx svjazjax oni vystupajut v raznom kačestve: to kak reflektornaja vysšaja nervnaja dejatel’nost’, to kak ideal’noe v protivopoložnost’ materarnomu ili kak sub”ektivnoe v protivopoložnost’ ob”-ektomu.” Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 4.
Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 8.
Cf. Chapter II, reference 90.
Cf. Chapter II, reference 88.
Cf. Chapter II, reference 93.
“Xaraktera psixiceskix javlenij — kak i ljubix drugix — ne zavisit ot točka zrenija, s kotoroj oni rassmatrivajutsja.” (The character of psychic phenomena — as of any other — does not depend on the point of view from which they are observed.) Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 41.
“Vsjakoe javlenie, vključajas’ v novye svjazi, vystupaet v novom kačestve, kotoroe fiksiruetsja v novoj ponjatijnoj xarakteristike.” Ibid., p. 259.
“Ključ k rešeniju voprosa zaključaetsja v torn, čto, pol’zujas’ vyraženiem Gegelja, osobo otmečennym Leninym, odna i ta že vešč’ est’i ona i sama i nečto drugoe, poskol’ky ona vystupaet v raznyx sistemax svjazej i otnošenij. Govorja konkretnee, psixičeskie javlenija — kak i vse pročie — v raznyx sistemax suščestvennyx dlja nix svjazej i otnošenij vystupajut v raznyx kačestvax, to est’ drugie kačestva, svojstva, aspekti vystupajut v nix kak veduščie, opredeljajuščie.” Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 9.
“Vsajakaja konkretnaja vešč’, vsjakoe konkretnoe nečto stoit v različnyx i často protivorečivyx ontošenijax ko vsemuostal’nomu, ergo, byvaet samim soboj i drugim.” V. I. Lenin, Filosofskie Tetradi, Sočinenij, torn 29, p. 124.
Cf. ‘Kačestvo’ and ‘Svojstvo’, in: M. Rozental i P. Judin (Red.), Filosofskij slovar’, M. 1963, pp. 193, 399.
“... odin i te že psixičeskie javlenija vsegda vystupajut i v torn i v drugom kačestve.” Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 4–5.
Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 9.
“Na samom dele isxodnymi členami osnovnogo gnoseologičeskogo otnošenija javljajutsja ne obraz i vešč, a poznavajuščij otražajuščij ob”jektivnuju real’nost’ sub”ekt: ob”ektivnaja real’nost’ s kotoroj sub”ekt vzaimodejstvuet.” (In fact the primary members of the fundamental epistemological relations are not image and thing, but the subject which knows and reflects objective reality and the objective reality with which the subject interacts.) Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 10.
Ibid.
Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, pp. 319, 222–224; Principy, p. 9.
“Bolee obščie zakony niželežaščix oblastej rasprostranjajutsja i na vyšeležaščie oblasti, no ne isčerpyvajut zakonomernostej étix poslednix. Veduščimi zakonomer-nostjami každoj oblasti javljajutsja ee specifičeskie zakonomernosti, opredeljajuščie veduščie specifičeskie svojstva dannoj oblasti javlenij.” (The more general laws of the lower levels are valid also for the higher levels but do not exhaust the regularities (Gesetzmässigkeiten) of the latter. The principle regularities of each level are the specific regularities, which determine the principle specific properties of the given level of phenomena.) Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 30.
Ibid., p. 31; Cf. also ‘Voprosy psixologičeskoj teorii’ [Questions of Psychological Theory], VP, 1955,1, p. 10.
Ibid.
Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 10.
“Svojstvo otraženija, kotorym obladaet vse suščestvjuščee, vyražaetsja v torn, čto na každoj vešči skazyvajutsja te vnešnie vozdejstvija kotorym ona podvergaetsja.” (The property of reflection which all existing things possess is expressed in the fact that each thing bears the mark of the outer impulses to which it has been subject.) Ibid., p. 11.
Lenin, Materializm i empiriokriticizm, Sočinenij, t. 18, p. 91, (89). Cf. Chapter I, pp. 25–27.
Cf. Chapter I, reference 146. For a more detailed account in English of the theory of reflection cf.: T. J. Blakeley, Soviet Theory of Knowledge, Dordrecht 1964, esp. Ch. 3.
Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 10.
“Otraženie kak obščee svojstvo materii, vsex sfer vzaimodejstvija v material’nom mire zaključaetsja, vo-pervyx, v torn, čto vnešnie vozdejstvija obuslovlivajut i samoe vnutrennjuju prirodu veščej i javlenij, kak by otkladyvajutsja v nej tak, čto v každom javlenii rezul’tatami svoix vozdejstvij na nego kak by ‘predstavleny’, otraženy vse vzaimodejstvujuščie s nim predmety; pri étom, vo-vtoryx, ljuboe vozdejstvie odnogo javlenija, na drugoe prelomjaetsja čerez vnutrennie svojstva togo javlenija, na kotoroe éto vozdejstvie okazyvaetsja. Rezul’tat ljubogo vozdejstvija na javlenie ili predmet zavisit ne tol’ko ot javlenija ili tela, na nego vozdejstvujuščego no i ot prirody, ot sobstvennix vnutrennix svojstv togo predmeta ili javlenija, na kotoroe éto vozdejstvie okazyvaetsja.” (Reflection as a general property of all spheres of interactivity in the material world consists, first, in the fact that external activities condition even the internal nature of things and phenomena, so impressing themselves on these phenomena that every phenomenon ‘represents’ or reflects the objects which interact with it by registering in itself the results of their activity; and, second any activity of one phenomenon on another is refracted by the internal properties of the phenomenon on which the activity is exerted. The result of any action on a phenomenon or object depends, not only on the phenomenon or body acting on it, but also on the nature, on the peculiar inner properties of the object or phenomenon on which that activity is exerted.) Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 11.
“... priroda javlenij predstavlejaet tu ‘prizmu’, čerez kotoruju odin predmety i javlenija otražajutsja v drugix.” Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 11.
“Poskol’ku vozdejstvija každoj vešči na druguju prelomljajutsja čerez svojstva étoj poslednej, vešči ‘otržajut’ drug druga.” Ibid.
Ibid., p. 12; Principy, p. 12.
Ibid., p. 13.
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 13–14.
“‘Reflektornoe’ ponimanie psixičeskoj dejatel’nosti — kak vyše otmečalos’, označaet, čto psixičskaja dejatel’nost’ est’ vnešne obuslovlennaja otvetnaja dejatel’nost’; ona -vnešne obuslovlennaja otvetnaja dejatel’nost’ mozga čeloveka.” (The ‘reflex’ conception of psychic activity — as mentioned above — means that psychic activity is externally conditioned response-activity; it is the externally conditioned response-activity of the human brain.) Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 25.
“Psixičeskaja dejatel’nost’ mozga možet byt’ otraženiem mira, lis’ poskol’ku ona nosit reflektornyj xarakter, poskol’ku psixičeskie javlenija opredeljajutsja v samom svoem vozniknovenie vozdejstviem veščej, otraženiem kotoryx oni v silu étogo javlja-jutsja.” (Psychic activity of the brain can only be a reflection of the world in so far as it has a reflex character, in so far as psychic phenomena, in their very origin, are determined by the action of those things whose reflection they are.) Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 5.
Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 12; cf. also: ‘Voprosy psixologii myšlenija i princip determinizma’ [Problems of the Psychology of Thought and the Principle of Determinism], VF, 1957,5, pp. 101–113.
Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 15.
Ibid., p. 16.
Ibid.
“... soglasno dialektiko-materialističeskomu determinizmu, vsjakoe dejstvie est’ vzaimodejstvie, vnešnie pričiny dejstvujut čerez posredstvo vnutrennix uslovij.” (According to dialectical-materialist determinism every action is interaction, the outer causes act through the medium of the inner conditions.) Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 12.
Rubinštejn, O myšlenij i putjax ego issledovanija [On Thinking and the Paths of its Investigation], M. 1959, p. 7.
Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 11.
Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 25.
“Teorija otraženija dialektičeskogo materializma — éto rasprostranenie dialektiko-materialističeskogo principa determinizma na poznavatel’nuju dejatel’nosti čeloveka, podobno tomu kak reflektornaja teorija — éto raspostranenie togo že dialektiko-materialističeskogo principa na psixičeskuju dejatel nost’ mozga.” (The theory of reflection of dialectical materialism is the extension of the dialectical materialist principle of determinism to the cognitive activity of man, just as the reflex theory is the extension of the same dialectical materialist principle to the psychic activity of the brain.) Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 15.
“... psixičeskie javlenija, soznanie ne vovse čužerodno materiarnomu miru i ne obosobleno ot nego; a samym fundamentom material’nogo mira ego ob”edinjaet obščee svojstvo otraženija.” (... psychic phenomena, consciousness are not entirely alien to the material world and are not isolated from it; the general property of reflection unites them with the very foundation of the material world.) Ibid., p. 21.
Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 12.
Ibid., p. 318.
Rubinštejn, ‘Voprosy psixologičeskogo teorii’ (Questions of Psychological Theory], VP, 1955,1, p. 6.
Cf. Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, pp. 3, 29, 317; Principy, p. 7, etc.
For Rubinštejn, the psychophysical problem is not merely the body-mind problem or the problem of the relation between psychic and physiological events, but the wider problem of the relation of the psychic to the material world. Cf. Rubinštejn, ‘Problema soznanija v svete dialektičeskogo materializma’ [The Problem of Consciousness in the Light of Dialectical Materialism], Izvestija AN SSSR, serija istorii i filosofii, 1945, vyp. 3, p. 145; Bytie i soznanie, pp. 15ff.
Rubinštejn, Principy, p. 8.
“Specifičeskij krug javlenij, kototye izučaet psixologija, vydeljaetsja otčetlivo i jasno — éto naši vosprijatija, mysli, čuvstva, naši stremlenija, namerenija, želanija i.t.p., -vse to, čto v kačestve pereživanija kak budto neposredstvenno nam dano.” Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 5.
“Psixologičeskoe poznanie — éto oposredovanno poznanie psixiceskogo čerez raskrytie ego suščestvennyx, ob”ektivnyx svjazej i oposredovany.” Rubinštejn, Osnovy, p. 22.
Rubinštejn, Bytie i soznanie, p. 4.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1968 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Payne, T.R. (1968). The Reconstruction of Psychology. In: S. L. Rubinštejn and the Philosophical Foundations of Soviet Psychology. Sovietica, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3456-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3456-2_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3458-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-3456-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive