Pub Date : 2021-09-03DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2010425
Y. Prokopchuk
ABSTRACT This article is devoted to the study and comparative analysis of the metaphysical foundations of the worldview of Lev N. Tolstoy (1828–1910) and Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895–1986). The author considers the interpretation of the phenomenon of consciousness given by these thinkers as the key to understanding the unity of the world and man, true spiritual values, and criticism of traditional social institutions. The author outlines three aspects of Tolstoy and Krishnamurti’s perception of the phenomenon of consciousness (religious–metaphysical, psychological, and social) that help us understand a wide range of problems related to the worldview of the Russian and Indian thinkers. Based on analysis of sources (Tolstoy’s artistic and philosophical works, texts of Krishnamurti’s talks, etc.), the author concludes that the two outstanding representatives of world culture and philosophy are close to each other in many important aspects.
{"title":"The Phenomenon of Consciousness in the Works of Lev Tolstoy and Jiddu Krishnamurti","authors":"Y. Prokopchuk","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2010425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2010425","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article is devoted to the study and comparative analysis of the metaphysical foundations of the worldview of Lev N. Tolstoy (1828–1910) and Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895–1986). The author considers the interpretation of the phenomenon of consciousness given by these thinkers as the key to understanding the unity of the world and man, true spiritual values, and criticism of traditional social institutions. The author outlines three aspects of Tolstoy and Krishnamurti’s perception of the phenomenon of consciousness (religious–metaphysical, psychological, and social) that help us understand a wide range of problems related to the worldview of the Russian and Indian thinkers. Based on analysis of sources (Tolstoy’s artistic and philosophical works, texts of Krishnamurti’s talks, etc.), the author concludes that the two outstanding representatives of world culture and philosophy are close to each other in many important aspects.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"425 - 443"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44833993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-03DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2010416
S. Klimova
ABSTRACT This article describes the device of enstrangement in relation to L.N. Tolstoy’s religious–political ideas. We focus on discussing the connection between enstrangement as a literary device and Tolstoy’s use of it to criticize the social and political power structure. Our research shifts the optics from politics to life, to man’s spiritual and practical world. We direct our attention not to Tolstoy’s most self-evident critiques of the power structure, but to his religious anthropology, which is aimed at returning man to the space of life’s primordial meanings, including by use of enstrangement. This article shows how Tolstoy comes to an understanding of the false artificiality, of the illusory nature, of the world of culture and man’s cultured “Self” through representation of the cultural environment as symbolic and ideological, automatizing people’s lives and manipulating their consciousness. Having lost the living substratum of life in the secular, “cultured” world, Tolstoy finds it in the new Word of God, enstranged from automatization, and in a new practice of living “according to Christ.”
{"title":"L.N. Tolstoy: Enstrangement, Politics, Religion","authors":"S. Klimova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2010416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2010416","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article describes the device of enstrangement in relation to L.N. Tolstoy’s religious–political ideas. We focus on discussing the connection between enstrangement as a literary device and Tolstoy’s use of it to criticize the social and political power structure. Our research shifts the optics from politics to life, to man’s spiritual and practical world. We direct our attention not to Tolstoy’s most self-evident critiques of the power structure, but to his religious anthropology, which is aimed at returning man to the space of life’s primordial meanings, including by use of enstrangement. This article shows how Tolstoy comes to an understanding of the false artificiality, of the illusory nature, of the world of culture and man’s cultured “Self” through representation of the cultural environment as symbolic and ideological, automatizing people’s lives and manipulating their consciousness. Having lost the living substratum of life in the secular, “cultured” world, Tolstoy finds it in the new Word of God, enstranged from automatization, and in a new practice of living “according to Christ.”","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"362 - 380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49562090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-03DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2010424
G. Alekseeva
ABSTRACT Tolstoy became acquainted with the works of Henry George as he was writing his treatise “What Then Should We Do?” George’s economic ideas fascinated him so much that he stepped away from the treatise to spend time trying to comprehend the American economist’s solutions. At first, the project of a single land tax did not appeal to him, and he writes in his treatise, “George proposes we recognize all land as state property, and therefore all taxes, both direct and indirect, should be replaced by rents. That is, everyone who uses the land should pay the state the value of its rent. What would that be? … It would be slavery, as determined by the volume of land use.” However, from the moment he read Progress and Poverty and Social Problems Tolstoy unequivocally agreed with George’s position that “private ownership of land is theft,” though it took time for him to comprehend and adopt George’s position on the single land tax.
{"title":"Henry George’s Reforms as Economic Impetus for Lev Tolstoy’s Moral Doctrine","authors":"G. Alekseeva","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2010424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2010424","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Tolstoy became acquainted with the works of Henry George as he was writing his treatise “What Then Should We Do?” George’s economic ideas fascinated him so much that he stepped away from the treatise to spend time trying to comprehend the American economist’s solutions. At first, the project of a single land tax did not appeal to him, and he writes in his treatise, “George proposes we recognize all land as state property, and therefore all taxes, both direct and indirect, should be replaced by rents. That is, everyone who uses the land should pay the state the value of its rent. What would that be? … It would be slavery, as determined by the volume of land use.” However, from the moment he read Progress and Poverty and Social Problems Tolstoy unequivocally agreed with George’s position that “private ownership of land is theft,” though it took time for him to comprehend and adopt George’s position on the single land tax.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"417 - 424"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46564746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2000312
V. Davydov
ABSTRACT The author proves that, despite the opinion prevalent among historians of psychology, the concept of “practical, sensuous activity” was present in Vygotsky’s work from the very beginning of his studies; moreover, it determined their general direction. Following Marx, Vygotsky regarded the tool-based nature of human activity as its specific trait. Psychological activity is likewise mediated by means of tools of a special kind—the “verbal signs”; using these social tools, man masters his own behavior. Having been able to trace the origins of consciousness to practical activity, to “life,” Vygotsky did not go into the concrete specifics of this process and set about searching for the primeval source of consciousness in the “emotional sphere.” His disciple Alexey Leontiev resumed the study of the practical genesis of the psyche, having started a new stage in the development of the cultural–historical theory. In conclusion, the author of the article analyzes the weak points of today’s psychology of activity and points out the necessity of combining the activity-based and the sign–symbolic approaches in the science of man.
{"title":"The Concept of Activity as the Basis of Research of L. S. Vygotsky’s School of Psychology","authors":"V. Davydov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2000312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2000312","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The author proves that, despite the opinion prevalent among historians of psychology, the concept of “practical, sensuous activity” was present in Vygotsky’s work from the very beginning of his studies; moreover, it determined their general direction. Following Marx, Vygotsky regarded the tool-based nature of human activity as its specific trait. Psychological activity is likewise mediated by means of tools of a special kind—the “verbal signs”; using these social tools, man masters his own behavior. Having been able to trace the origins of consciousness to practical activity, to “life,” Vygotsky did not go into the concrete specifics of this process and set about searching for the primeval source of consciousness in the “emotional sphere.” His disciple Alexey Leontiev resumed the study of the practical genesis of the psyche, having started a new stage in the development of the cultural–historical theory. In conclusion, the author of the article analyzes the weak points of today’s psychology of activity and points out the necessity of combining the activity-based and the sign–symbolic approaches in the science of man.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"290 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46170672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2000316
B. Meshcheryakov
ABSTRACT This article analyzes problems related to Lev S. Vygotsky’s name. The motives behind the replacement of his original patronymic “Simkhovich” with “Semyonovich” are discussed, as well as the reasons for which he changed his family name from “Vygodsky” to “Vygotsky.” Both these changes were made between 1917 and 1924. The author draws attention to a number of coincidences in the lives of Martin Luther and Lev Vygotsky, which could have come to the latter’s notice. The author puts forward and substantiates the hypothesis that the change of a letter in the family name might be accounted for by Vygotsky’s attempt—drawing on the inspiring example of Luther’s life—to get over the inner crisis caused by the tragic events in his family.
{"title":"L. S. Vygotsky: The Riddle of His Name","authors":"B. Meshcheryakov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2000316","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2000316","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyzes problems related to Lev S. Vygotsky’s name. The motives behind the replacement of his original patronymic “Simkhovich” with “Semyonovich” are discussed, as well as the reasons for which he changed his family name from “Vygodsky” to “Vygotsky.” Both these changes were made between 1917 and 1924. The author draws attention to a number of coincidences in the lives of Martin Luther and Lev Vygotsky, which could have come to the latter’s notice. The author puts forward and substantiates the hypothesis that the change of a letter in the family name might be accounted for by Vygotsky’s attempt—drawing on the inspiring example of Luther’s life—to get over the inner crisis caused by the tragic events in his family.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"338 - 344"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43946876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2000306
A. Maidansky
It was as early as during the 1960s that Anglo-American readers first discovered Vygotsky, although he did not rise to real fame until 1978, when a thin collection of his works, Mind in Society, triggered a powerful wave of admiration. Michael Cole described the state of affairs using a vivid metaphor: “Recently, within a very few years, Vygotsky has become a fad, and, as with all fads, the greater notoriety brought with it both genuine evolution and dimestore knockoffs.” Such Vygotsky’s terms and topics as zona blizhayshego razvitiya (“the zone of proximal development”), vzrashchivanie vysshikh psikhologicheskikh funktsiy (“the ‘ingrowing’ of higher psychological functions”), and znakovoye oposredstvovanie (“sign mediation”) are especially in demand at the market of Western psychology. The “instrumental psychology” of the early Vygotsky is much closer and clearer to the Western reader, especially the English-speaking one, than his theory of the mind as the “dynamic meaningful system” and the “height psychology” of his final years. By now, most of Vygotsky’s heritage has been translated into English and other languages. The quality of those translations, as well as the degree to which the original texts have been understood, often leaves much to be desired, though. This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that Vygotsky’s thought flourished in an entirely different historical and cultural milieu. The mainstream of Vygotsky studies in the West is a far-reaching hybridization of his views with local currents in psychology, like social constructivism, enactivism, neo-Piagetian approaches, and so on. Also, such key notions as smysl (sense, significance, purpose, essence—all in one) and perezhivanie (emotional experience), which have no exact counterparts in English, are usually interpreted in terms of British empiricism.
{"title":"Recent Archival Discoveries and New Perspectives in Vygotsky Studies Guest Editor’s Introduction","authors":"A. Maidansky","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2000306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2000306","url":null,"abstract":"It was as early as during the 1960s that Anglo-American readers first discovered Vygotsky, although he did not rise to real fame until 1978, when a thin collection of his works, Mind in Society, triggered a powerful wave of admiration. Michael Cole described the state of affairs using a vivid metaphor: “Recently, within a very few years, Vygotsky has become a fad, and, as with all fads, the greater notoriety brought with it both genuine evolution and dimestore knockoffs.” Such Vygotsky’s terms and topics as zona blizhayshego razvitiya (“the zone of proximal development”), vzrashchivanie vysshikh psikhologicheskikh funktsiy (“the ‘ingrowing’ of higher psychological functions”), and znakovoye oposredstvovanie (“sign mediation”) are especially in demand at the market of Western psychology. The “instrumental psychology” of the early Vygotsky is much closer and clearer to the Western reader, especially the English-speaking one, than his theory of the mind as the “dynamic meaningful system” and the “height psychology” of his final years. By now, most of Vygotsky’s heritage has been translated into English and other languages. The quality of those translations, as well as the degree to which the original texts have been understood, often leaves much to be desired, though. This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that Vygotsky’s thought flourished in an entirely different historical and cultural milieu. The mainstream of Vygotsky studies in the West is a far-reaching hybridization of his views with local currents in psychology, like social constructivism, enactivism, neo-Piagetian approaches, and so on. Also, such key notions as smysl (sense, significance, purpose, essence—all in one) and perezhivanie (emotional experience), which have no exact counterparts in English, are usually interpreted in terms of British empiricism.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"255 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43578388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2000311
A. Maidansky
ABSTRACT The author argues that the idea of freedom guided Vygotsky’s research from his very first steps in psychology, when he was deliberating on the “overman” and on “mastering one’s own behavior” by means of signs. The freedom of actions and intentions, not intellectual superiority, is the most essential distinction of “cultured man” from his kin in the animal kingdom. Man is free as long as he acts as a human—in accordance with culture rather than situationally, under the pressure of external natural forces. In the “height,” or “acmeist,” psychology of his later years, Vygotsky defines freedom as “the affect in the concept,” in the spirit of Spinoza’s Ethics. It is from this angle that the article studies the genesis of “psychological systems”—the age-specific changes and social varieties of affect–concept relationship, as well as the disruption of this relationship typical of schizophrenia.
{"title":"Lev Vygotsky’s Psychology of Freedom","authors":"A. Maidansky","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2000311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2000311","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The author argues that the idea of freedom guided Vygotsky’s research from his very first steps in psychology, when he was deliberating on the “overman” and on “mastering one’s own behavior” by means of signs. The freedom of actions and intentions, not intellectual superiority, is the most essential distinction of “cultured man” from his kin in the animal kingdom. Man is free as long as he acts as a human—in accordance with culture rather than situationally, under the pressure of external natural forces. In the “height,” or “acmeist,” psychology of his later years, Vygotsky defines freedom as “the affect in the concept,” in the spirit of Spinoza’s Ethics. It is from this angle that the article studies the genesis of “psychological systems”—the age-specific changes and social varieties of affect–concept relationship, as well as the disruption of this relationship typical of schizophrenia.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"275 - 289"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48501864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2000313
Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva
ABSTRACT The article analyzes the background and dynamics of Lev S. Vygotsky’s notions of smysl (“sense,” “meaning,” “significance,” “purpose,” “essence”—all in one). Drawing on the data of archival records, the author has reconstructed the two main courses taken by the category “smysl” in its development: (1) within the bounds of a field metaphor, also used in the development of the “meaningful field” construct, and (2) as part of the interpretation of smysl as an integral characteristic of man’s attitude to the external world. Vygotsky’s theoretical projects are being compared to the experimental studies of his team conducted in the early 1930s. The author demonstrates that the discursive field of Vygotsky’s conception, which was determined by the category “smysl,” had a complex composition and was defined via a dialogue with K. Lewin’s field theory, using the method of formal-dynamic analysis and experimental techniques developed in the framework of dynamic psychology.
{"title":"The Two Courses of Development of the Category “Smysl” in L. S. Vygotsky’s Works","authors":"Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2000313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2000313","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article analyzes the background and dynamics of Lev S. Vygotsky’s notions of smysl (“sense,” “meaning,” “significance,” “purpose,” “essence”—all in one). Drawing on the data of archival records, the author has reconstructed the two main courses taken by the category “smysl” in its development: (1) within the bounds of a field metaphor, also used in the development of the “meaningful field” construct, and (2) as part of the interpretation of smysl as an integral characteristic of man’s attitude to the external world. Vygotsky’s theoretical projects are being compared to the experimental studies of his team conducted in the early 1930s. The author demonstrates that the discursive field of Vygotsky’s conception, which was determined by the category “smysl,” had a complex composition and was defined via a dialogue with K. Lewin’s field theory, using the method of formal-dynamic analysis and experimental techniques developed in the framework of dynamic psychology.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"303 - 325"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44006655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2000314
E. Sokolova
ABSTRACT This article analyzes several essential aspects of L. S. Vygotsky’s manuscript Konkretnaya Psikhologiya Cheloveka (Concrete Human Psychology, 1929) and related works that have to do with his—unrealized personally by himself—project of creating psychology “in terms of drama.” The article also comments on ideas formulated by the French Marxist philosopher Georges Politzer, whose works served as one of the project’s sources. The methodological foundations for creating the “dramatic” (concrete) psychology suggested by Politzer and Vygotsky are explicated as well. The author discusses the contents of such concepts as drama, emploi (in the sense of “onstage speciality”), role, mastery, will, choice—the terms Vygotsky used—in the context of the very broad interpretation of “drama” in works of some contemporary researchers of the scholar’s work. She also analyzes the ways of solving the problems of volitional regulation of activity and the possible mechanisms of resolving role conflict, which is, according to Vygotsky, the essence of drama. Further directions of evolution of these ideas of Vygotsky in the works of Aleksei N. Leontiev’s school, which deal with the psychology of volitional action and deeds, are followed as well.
{"title":"Psychology “in Terms of Drama” Project: The Origins, the Essence, the Implementation","authors":"E. Sokolova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2000314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2000314","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyzes several essential aspects of L. S. Vygotsky’s manuscript Konkretnaya Psikhologiya Cheloveka (Concrete Human Psychology, 1929) and related works that have to do with his—unrealized personally by himself—project of creating psychology “in terms of drama.” The article also comments on ideas formulated by the French Marxist philosopher Georges Politzer, whose works served as one of the project’s sources. The methodological foundations for creating the “dramatic” (concrete) psychology suggested by Politzer and Vygotsky are explicated as well. The author discusses the contents of such concepts as drama, emploi (in the sense of “onstage speciality”), role, mastery, will, choice—the terms Vygotsky used—in the context of the very broad interpretation of “drama” in works of some contemporary researchers of the scholar’s work. She also analyzes the ways of solving the problems of volitional regulation of activity and the possible mechanisms of resolving role conflict, which is, according to Vygotsky, the essence of drama. Further directions of evolution of these ideas of Vygotsky in the works of Aleksei N. Leontiev’s school, which deal with the psychology of volitional action and deeds, are followed as well.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"326 - 337"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46704864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2000309
L. Vygotsky
ABSTRACT This study begins with the statement that European psychology is undergoing schism and crisis. Proceeding from the principle of the primacy of the whole over its parts, structural psychology (Gestalt psychology) 1 has attempted to overcome the dualism of the “subjective psychology of experiencing” and the “objective psychology of behavior.” Being and consciousness, behavior and experience conform to universal structural patterns. Vygotsky sees the inherent (“genetic”) defect of structural psychology in its tendency to ignore the social nature of the human psyche. A “Marxist reform of psychology” ought to consist in the reinterpretation of the concept of structure, in the research into (i) the origin and “synthesis” of structures in general and (ii) the “social factor” defining the structure of a human personality in particular.
{"title":"Structural Psychology","authors":"L. Vygotsky","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2000309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2000309","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study begins with the statement that European psychology is undergoing schism and crisis. Proceeding from the principle of the primacy of the whole over its parts, structural psychology (Gestalt psychology) 1 has attempted to overcome the dualism of the “subjective psychology of experiencing” and the “objective psychology of behavior.” Being and consciousness, behavior and experience conform to universal structural patterns. Vygotsky sees the inherent (“genetic”) defect of structural psychology in its tendency to ignore the social nature of the human psyche. A “Marxist reform of psychology” ought to consist in the reinterpretation of the concept of structure, in the research into (i) the origin and “synthesis” of structures in general and (ii) the “social factor” defining the structure of a human personality in particular.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"263 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49038133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：