FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521  
522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   >>   >|  
orstellung_) of the ego, therefore, can never be actually brought to completion. (The assumption of the freedom of the will leads to an analogous _regressus in infinitum_, in which the question, "Willst thou thy volition?" "Willst thou the willing of this volition"? is repeated to infinity.) The only escape from this tissue of absurdities is to think the ego otherwise than is done by popular consciousness. The knowing and the known ego are by no means the same, but the observing subject in self-consciousness is one group of representations, the observed subject another. Thus, for example, newly formed representations are apperceived by the existing older ones, but the highest apperceiver is not, in turn, itself apperceived. The ego is not a unit being, which represents itself in the literal meaning of the phrase, but that which is represented is a plurality. The ego is the junction of numberless series of representations, and is constantly changing its place; it dwells now in this representation, now in that. But as we distinguish the point of meeting from the series which meet there, and imagine that it is possible simultaneously to abstract from all the represented series (whereas in fact we can only abstract from each one separately), there arises the appearance of a permanent ego as the unit subject of all our representations. In reality the ego is not the source of our representations, but the final result of their combination. The representation, not the ego, is the fundamental concept of psychology, the ego constituting rather its most difficult problem.[1] It is a "result of other representations, which, however, in order to yield this result, must be together in a single substance, and must interpenetrate one another" (_Text-book of Introduction_, p. 243). In this way Herbart defends the substantiality of the soul against Kant and Fries. The soul's immortality (as also its pre-existence) goes without saying, because of the non-temporal character of the real. [Footnote 1: On the Herbartian psychology, cf. Ribot, _German Psychology of To-day_, English Translation by Baldwin, 1886, pp. 24-67; and G.F. Stout, _Mind_, vols. xiii.-xiv.--TR.] The soul is one of these reals which, unchangeable in themselves, enter into various relations with others, and conserve themselves against the latter. In its simple _what_ as unknowable as the rest, it is yet familiar to us in its self-conservations. In the absence of a more f
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521  
522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

representations

 

subject

 

result

 

series

 

consciousness

 

represented

 

apperceived

 
abstract
 
representation
 

Willst


psychology

 

volition

 

existence

 

substance

 

Introduction

 

substantiality

 

defends

 

Herbart

 

immortality

 

single


interpenetrate

 

relations

 

conserve

 

unchangeable

 

simple

 

conservations

 

absence

 

familiar

 

unknowable

 
German

Psychology

 
problem
 

Herbartian

 

character

 

Footnote

 

English

 

Translation

 
Baldwin
 

temporal

 
simultaneously

popular

 

knowing

 

absurdities

 

formed

 

existing

 

observing

 

observed

 
tissue
 
escape
 
completion