Chelpanov Georgy Ivanovich (1862-1936)

Georgy Ivanovich Chelpanov was born in April 1862.

Chelpanov - Russian philosopher and psychologist, founder of Russia's first Institute of Experimental Psychology at Moscow University (1912)

He received his secondary education at the Mariupol gymnasium. After graduating from high school, in 1862 he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Novorossiysk University in Odessa, which he graduated in 1887, followed by secondment to Moscow University, where in 1886 his scientific supervisor N.Ya. Grotto. In 1890 he began teaching philosophy at Moscow University as a private lecturer. In 1892 he moved to the Kyiv University of St. Vladimir, where he was a professor of philosophy.

Chelpanov published articles on psychology and philosophy in the magazines “Russian Thought”, “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology”, “World of God” and in “Kyiv University News”; in the latest edition, Chelpanov included reviews of the latest literature on psychology, the theory of knowledge and Kant’s transcendental aesthetics.

In 1897, he defended his dissertation “The Problem of the Perception of Space in Connection with the Doctrine of Apriority and Innateness,” for which he was awarded a Master of Philosophy degree by the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. In 1904, he defended the second part of the same work at the Faculty of History and Philology of Kyiv University, with the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

In the 20s of the 20th century, during a discussion on the subject of social psychology, he proposed dividing psychological science into social psychology and psychology itself. Chelpanov's book “Brain and Soul” - a series of public lectures given in Kyiv in 1898-99; the author gives a critique of materialism and an outline of some modern teachings about the soul. The critical part of the work was completed more thoroughly than the positive part; criticizing the doctrine of parallelism and mental monism, the author ends his study with the words: “dualism, which recognizes a material and a special spiritual principle, in any case explains phenomena better than monism.”

In “Problems of the perception of space in connection with the doctrine of a priori and innateness,” Chelpanov defends in its most important terms the point of view expressed by Stumpf in his book “Ursprung der Raumvorstellung.” Essentially, this is a theory of nativism, which asserts that space, psychologically, is something non-derivative; the idea of ​​space cannot be derived from something that does not itself have extension, as the geneticists assert. Space is as necessary a moment of sensation as intensity; intensity and extension constitute the quantitative side of sensation and are equally inextricably linked with the qualitative content of sensation, without which they are unthinkable. It follows that all sensations have extension; but Chelpanov does not directly consider the question of the relationship between these extensions. Not the entire content of extension, as it appears in developed consciousness, is recognized by Chelpanov as non-derivative, but only planar extension; From it, through mental processes, complex forms of perception of space grow. The idea of ​​depth is a product of processing the experience of planar extension. Chelpanov sees the essence of non-derivative extension in externality, and depth is the transformation of this externality or planar extension.

Chelpanov departs from Stumpf in that the former brings the quality of sensations closer to extension, believing that the difference in places in space corresponds to a difference in qualities; therefore Stumph denies Lotze's theory of local signs. Chelpanov, on the contrary, believes that the theory of local signs can be combined with the doctrine of the non-productivity of the perception of extension and that although local signs are not necessary integral part the initial idea of ​​space, but they play an important role in the expansion and development of this idea.

The first half of Chelpanov’s work is devoted to a detailed presentation of the theories of nativism and geneticism, represented by the main representatives of these teachings.

Chelpanov expressed his philosophical views in the book: “On modern philosophical directions” (Kyiv, 1902). The author proves the idea that only idealistic philosophy is possible today. Philosophy is metaphysics. She doesn't have a special method. The subject of philosophy is “the study of the nature of the universe”; philosophy is a system of sciences, but this should not be understood in the spirit of positivism.

The main disadvantage of positivism is that it has no theory of knowledge; therefore positivism had to take a different form. Chelpanov follows various forms of philosophical thought in the 19th century, namely agnosticism, neo-Kantianism, metaphysics, as expressed by Hartmann and Wundt. “At the present moment, anyone seeking a scientific and philosophical worldview can be most satisfied precisely by Wundt’s metaphysics or, in general, by construction carried out according to this method. A worldview can be satisfactory if it is idealistic. If, in addition, it is built on realistic principles, then this turns out to be precisely in the spirit of our time.” Thus, Chelpanov declares himself a follower of Wundt, and criticism of Wundt’s worldview will at the same time be a criticism of Chelpanov’s philosophy.

PSYCHOLOGY AND PEDAGOGICAL VIEWS OF G.I. CHELPANOVA

A. A. NIKOLSKAYA

Georgiy Ivanovich Chelpanov (1862-1936) has a prominent place in the history of Russian psychology and philosophy. Having started your scientific activity in Kyiv (from 1892 to 1906 he was a professor of philosophy at Kiev University), he widely deployed it in Moscow. In 1907 he became a professor at the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University. Here his not only scientific and pedagogical, but also organizational talent was fully demonstrated. He actively participated in the work of the Moscow Psychological Society (became its deputy chairman). At Moscow University, he organized (1907) a psychological seminary for students wishing to specialize in the field of psychology: theoretical problems were discussed in detail there and classes in experimental psychology were conducted. Classes at the Psychological Seminary under the direction of G.I. Chelpanov was interested in a significant number of participants and became quite widely known, which prompted the businessman and philanthropist S.I. Shchukin to provide financial assistance to G.I. Chelpanov in organizing the educational and scientific Psychological Institute at Moscow University, which exists to this day.

Designing the activities of the Psychological Institute, G.I. Chelpanov consulted with leading scientists in Europe and America, took advantage of the experience of the best institutions of a similar profile and managed to create the world's first psychological institute, built according to a special plan and which was the largest in those years1.

Directing the Psychological Institute, G.I. Chelpanov trained a whole galaxy of talented students who later became major scientists who made a significant contribution to the development of various problems of psychological science (N.F. Dobrynin, N.I. Zhinkin, S.V. Kravkov, P.A. Rudik, A.A. Smirnov, B.M. Teplov, P.A. Shevarev, V.M.

G.I. Chelpanov took an active part in scientific life, in particular, he actively spoke at congresses on educational psychology and experimental pedagogy, and closely followed philosophical and psychological literature. He organized the publication of research by the institute’s staff and created a special psychological journal, “Psychological Review.”

Scientific interests of G.I. Chelpanov related mainly to fundamental ideological and methodological problems. He studied the perception of space, viewed from psychological and epistemological points of view. In the field of his attention were constantly questions of the relationship between material and spiritual origin in man. In this regard, he criticized materialism in assessing the factors in the formation of the human psyche. This side of his scientific interests was reflected both in pre-revolutionary works and in the post-revolutionary years.

Attention G.I. Chelpanov was also attracted to problems of ethics, logic, and the study of higher intellectual processes.

Particularly noteworthy is his pedagogical skill. G.I. Chelpanov created systematic courses on introduction to philosophy, psychology and logic. Developed by G.I. Chelpanov's methodology for mastering experimental work for students,

specializing in the field of psychology, retains its didactic significance to this day. His textbook on psychology for gymnasiums and self-education has been reprinted many times. The logic textbook, which went through ten editions before the revolution, began to be used in the educational process again in 1946. He warmly took G.I. to his heart. Chelpanov problems of training young generations, quality of education, , .

In the pre-revolutionary years, the activities of G.I. Chelpanova had a wide resonance. His name was highly respected among Russian and foreign scientists. At the grand opening of the Psychological Institute (March 23, 1914), G.I. Numerous greetings were addressed to Chelpanov as his “creator and leader.”

In the first post-revolutionary years, G.I. Chelpanov continued to lead the institute. In November 1921, he was elected by the scientific council of the institute and approved by the State Scientific Council as director of the institute. However, in November 1923 he was forced to leave this post. In the early 20s. An active struggle began for the introduction of Marxism into science. In psychology, this struggle was clearly manifested at the first All-Russian Psychoneurological Congress, held in January 1923, at which G.I. Chelpanov was sharply criticized. After the removal of G.I. Chelpanov from the leadership of the institute, he was actually deprived of the opportunity to actively participate in scientific life, although, having analyzed the main provisions of Marxism, he made an attempt to point out the limited possibilities of applying Marxist philosophy to solving psychological problems, and warned against mechanistic errors, , , .

Analysis of the activities of G.I. Chelpanov and his role in the development of Russian science still do not exist. In the general context of presenting the history of Russian psychology, his name is mentioned in a negative sense as the name of an outspoken opponent of materialism in general and Marxism in particular. The positive role of G.I. Chelpanov is reduced only to the organization of the Psychological Institute. Fortunately, there is now an opportunity to highlight the true role of G.I. Chelpanov in the history of Russian science.

The purpose of this article does not include an analysis of all the multifaceted activities of G.I. Chelpanova. It seems appropriate to cover in more or less detail that part of his creative heritage that is associated with the solution of psychological and pedagogical problems that are extremely relevant at the present time.

G.I. It is customary to reproach Chelpanov for speculativeness, in isolation from the solution of specific, vitally important problems, to interpret him as a “zealot of “pure”, free from practical application science." However, this is not so. He was by no means indifferent not only to the problems of the relationship between psychology and pedagogy, but also to the broader principles of constructing the process of upbringing and education.

The problem of the relationship between pedagogy and psychology, the question of the nature of psychological knowledge necessary for teachers, the possibility of using psychological data for practical pedagogical purposes have been in the sphere of interests of Russian psychological science since mid-19th century. At the end of the 1980s, due to the introduction of experiments into psychology, interest in these problems increased significantly. And at the beginning of the 20th century, especially after the organization of the laboratory of experimental educational psychology by A.P. Nechaev in St. Petersburg in 1901, extremely high hopes began to be placed on experimental psychology. A tendency arose to recognize only experimental psychology as scientific, and to “put it in the archives” and make theoretical, general, or, as it was often called, metaphysical psychology a part of history. Accordingly, in pedagogy the idea of ​​replacing traditional pedagogy with experimental pedagogy based on data from experimental psychology began to be popularized. This tendency was clearly manifested already at the first All-Russian Congress on Educational Psychology in the summer of 1906. More

it intensified more at subsequent congresses, as a result of which congresses on educational psychology turned into congresses on experimental pedagogy.

Interest in experimental research methods also appeared among practical teachers, especially after the penetration of the test method into Russia. It seemed that with their help (and with the help of similar methods) one could quickly get an idea of ​​the degree of giftedness of students, their personality, diagnose their mental development and make a forecast for the future. It was possible to involve teachers in this work. The idea arose of organizing classrooms at schools in which students would be subjected to experimental psychological tests.

This point of view was reflected in the resolutions of congresses on educational psychology and experimental pedagogy, in publications, lectures, reports, and public speeches mainly by supporters of the natural science direction of the development of psychology (A.P. Nechaev, N.E. Rumyantsev, G.I. Rossolimo and etc.).

G.I. Chelpanov and his supporters opposed excessive enthusiasm for experimental psychology, especially against the straightforward application of experimental psychology methods in pedagogical practice, pointing out the scientific inconsistency of such an approach and the practical danger.

Legs. Chelpanov was by no means an opponent of experimental psychology. Back in 1888, at a meeting of the Moscow Psychological Society, he made a report in which he pointed out the scientific significance of the experiment in psychology. Answering the question from I.M. Sechenov, “who and how to develop psychology?”, G.I. Chelpanov did not at all deny the need for the natural science aspect of psychological research. But at the same time, he considered it urgently necessary to combine it with theoretical psychology, the task of which he saw in systematization, reduction to unity of the data obtained.

“It is necessary to distinguish private psychological research,” he noted, “... from psychology, which brings this fragmentary knowledge into a system... This is precisely theoretical, general or philosophical psychology. It explores the basic laws of the spirit.”

In a report at the Second All-Russian Congress on Pedagogical Psychology (July 1909), analyzing the tasks of the development of psychological science, G.I. Chelpanov noted a clear tendency to contrast theory with facts, to attach greater importance to facts than to any theories. This trend made him worry about the development of psychology. He considered the opposition between experimental and theoretical psychology to be disastrous. Without theoretical psychology, he warned, “experimental psychology may simply degenerate into a craft technique.” He saw the difference between old and new psychology not in content, but in methods. Calling for the combined efforts of theoretical and experimental psychology, G.I. Chelpanov persistently emphasized: “If anyone thought that I wanted to belittle the importance of experimental psychology in any way, he completely misunderstood me... By proposing to bring the study of experimental psychology in connection with theoretical psychology, I proceed from the conviction that in this way it is possible to deepen experimental research and make they are more serious. I am not thinking about the elimination of experimental psychology, but about the thoroughness of its development... I am afraid of the growing amateurism in psychology, when many people think that in psychology one can carry out research or collect facts with the same ease as children. collect a herbarium or collection of insects."

The question of the relationship of experimental psychology to the school of G.I. Chelpanov considered them to be among the most important. “For me,” he wrote, “the question of experimental psychology in relation to school is the question of what our pedagogy should be, and the question of pedagogy

there is a question about the fate of the teaching profession in Russia. Currently, general attention is paid to the so-called experimental pedagogy. It is on her that great hopes are pinned. The matter takes on the appearance as if our entire teaching and educational work depended on experimental pedagogy, on the use of experiment in pedagogical practice." This turn of events worried G.I. Chelpanov very much, since this issue is complex and far from being completely resolved.

Summing up the development of psychological science over 25 years at the ceremonial meeting of the Psychological Society in 1910, G.I. Chelpanov particularly focused on the state of individual psychology that arose during this period. Individual psychology, similar to experimental pedagogy, set as its ultimate goal knowledge of the individual’s abilities and making a psychological diagnosis on this basis. The solution to such a problem has enormous practical significance. However, emphasized G.I. Chelpanov, it is feasible only if reliable scientific methods are available. Namely, the methods are still extremely imperfect and inaccurate. The popular questionnaires, tests and similar methods do not provide reliable results and have only an auxiliary value. “These methods, the so-called psychological tests,” believed G.I. Chelpanov, “have exclusively scientific significance, that is, they can be used exclusively for scientific research, but not for practical purposes." Moreover, he emphasized, these methods by their nature cannot correspond to the solution of the task aimed at understanding the personality of the individual (which is necessary for practical purposes). They can not give an idea of ​​the personality as a whole , but only about its individual manifestations. “Modern individual psychology can only determine certain mental characteristics of a personality, but not individuality,” insisted G.I. In addition, even the study of individual aspects of personality requires not a one-time study, but a long-term one. , since a person’s mental qualities are not constant values, but fluctuating ones. In this regard, he was especially critical of the “psychological profiles” proposed by G.I.

Very serious G.I. Chelpanov considered the question of who should collect scientific data, in whose hands the research methods should be, and who has the right to make a diagnosis and make a prognosis for personal development.

Among many supporters of individual psychology and experimental pedagogy, the idea of ​​involving practical teachers in scientific work and the need to create diagnostic laboratories in schools found support. This trend G.I. Chelpanov considered it useless for science and extremely dangerous in practical terms. The collection of scientific data should be carried out by people who have training received in special institutes and who are able to interpret mental phenomena. In the hands of unprepared people, the use of mass research methods can lead to dire consequences. “The imaginary ease of resolving such an important practically important issue as the question of personality diagnosis,” G.I. Chelpanov pointed out, “will attract to the study many inexperienced experimenters who will carry out experiments on children. These inexperienced experimenters can fanatically believe in the immutable truth obtained figures and will also fanatically try to implement conclusions based on falsely interpreted data. An element that is very doubtful will be introduced into the work of education. I will not for one moment find it difficult to say which will have a worse effect on the children: complete ignorance of the teachers with psychology or an erroneous one. the use of scientific methods. I look with great concern at the attempt of some psychologists to put these methods into the hands of teachers and teachers. Even now, teachers, tempted by the role of diagnosticians, are very willing to take on such a dubious role." “...Psychological tests,” emphasized

he is not like that simple thing so that they can be given into the hands of teachers."

One should not at all conclude from this that G.I. Chelpanov denied the role of psychology for pedagogy. He just wanted to emphasize that the relationship between psychology and pedagogy is more complex than it seems to supporters of experimental psychology and pedagogy. Psychology, in his opinion, is absolutely necessary for pedagogy. But pedagogy has its own subject and cannot be based only on psychology. Pedagogy should be based primarily on philosophical ethics, which provides justification for the ideals of education. And psychology indicates the means by which these goals can be achieved. Pedagogy should in no way be considered as applied psychology. And the teacher must be familiar not only with the experimental methods of psychology, but also know general laws mental activity, know the psychology of the child. Assessing the situation that developed in Russian psychology and pedagogy in the first decade of the 20th century, G.I. Chelpanov believed that there was no subject for the dispute that flared up between scientists. In his opinion, there is no basis for contrasting experimental psychology with general, theoretical psychology, just as there is no basis for contrasting experimental pedagogy with general pedagogy. “Such a contrast,” he argued, “is both false and tendentious.” Experimental psychology, he argued, is an important part of general psychology. It is not the content that distinguishes it, but the research methods. Similar relationships exist between experimental and general pedagogy.

Supporters of the experimental direction were more numerous, their point of view prevailed in the decisions of congresses on educational psychology and experimental pedagogy, and were more popular among the teaching masses. But still the critical position of G.I. Chelpanov had his influence because his scientific authority was very high.

After the revolution, in the 20s, when G.I. Chelpanov, as an idealist and opponent of Marxism, was removed from active scientific life; his warnings about the danger of thoughtless direct introduction of experimental psychology into practice were forgotten. Experimental methods, mainly tests, were widely used in educational institutions and fell into the hands of the teaching masses who did not have proper training. The results of this not only had a detrimental effect on the work of the school, but also discredited the method itself, and along with it, for many years, they slowed down the comprehensive study of the child (pedology), which was based on the test method.

Our time is characterized by widespread interest in the practical use of psychology in various fields. And in scientific research there is a certain bias towards applied branches of psychology. In this regard, it is necessary to remember the lessons of history, in particular, the views of G.I. Chelpanov on the relationship between theory and practice, on the importance of developing fundamental problems not only for theory, but also for practice, on the role of scientific training and methodological culture of the researcher.

It is advisable at this moment to recall the thoughts of G.I. Chelpanov on the organization of school education. In 1917 it was created State Committee for school reform on a democratic basis. The ideas of the reform project he developed were recognized by a significant part of the intelligentsia.

In order to democratize education and make it accessible to the broad masses, it was proposed to approve a single type of school, combining a 3-year public school and a 4-year city school with a gymnasium. The study of Latin and Greek languages, and learning new languages ​​became optional. It was proposed to shift the center of gravity of education to the natural sciences. The transition from the lowest to the highest level should be carried out not on the basis of competition, but by drawing lots. Full decentralization was envisaged

school management, participation in school management of parent committees and students.

G.I. Chelpanov carefully analyzed this project and showed that it is pseudo-democratic and dangerous for the development of the Russian state. The proposed organization of secondary education, he argued, having considered all the main provisions of this project, “will entail, first of all, a lowering of the level of our culture and will lead us to complete cultural dependence on other peoples, because it is the secondary school that is the basis of the culture of the people. Lowering the educational level of secondary education schools will entail the death of democracy, because only those people who have a sufficient number of truly educated statesmen and public figures can self-govern, and this requires a secondary school with a high educational level."

The desire for school uniformity, reminded G.I. Chelpanov, contradicts the world experience of organizing secondary education, which indicates the need for a multi-type secondary school. The classical education system does not at all prevent the democratization of the school. Knowledge of ancient languages ​​introduces students to world culture. The optionality of learning new languages ​​will lead to the fact that most students will not study them. This will inevitably affect the decline in the level of education, and therefore culture. The abolition of competitive transfer from lower to higher schools is false-democratic, contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights, which states: all citizens are admitted to all public positions in accordance with their abilities; free peoples know no other grounds for preference than virtues and talents.

The shortcomings inherent in the reform project, according to G.I. Chelpanov, will inevitably lead to the fact that students will receive the appearance of education, and not real knowledge, diplomas, and not real education. Genuine, not imaginary, democracy pursues different goals. “We must not forget,” emphasized G.I. Chelpanov, “that in democratic state real knowledge and education are valued, not diplomas." G.I. Chelpanov considered the proposed complete decentralization of school management to be a serious mistake. The state cannot stand aside from school management, because it needs the education of the people. "The integrity of education depends on the correct organization of education. and its strength,” he asserted. But this does not at all deny the need for local authorities to participate in school management. State bodies types of schools must be determined, sample programs, ways to coordinate different levels of school with each other. And economic issues and the internal organization of school life may be under the supervision of local authorities.

According to G.I. Chelpanov, and the school itself should receive a certain autonomy. But first of all, he insisted, freedom and independence should be given to the teacher, since a true teacher at every step has to show creative and personal initiative. The teacher, considered G.I. Chelpanov plays a special role among government and public figures. There should be no outside influence on it. Therefore, giving legislative force to the institution of parent committees and the participation of students in pedagogical councils of G.I. Chelpanov also considered these to be false-democratic reforms. In parent committees, he rightly believed, there may be many people who are pedagogically unprepared and inclined to defend the imaginary interests of children, which will undoubtedly affect the decline in the level of educational and moral life of the school. The participation of students in pedagogical councils will inevitably affect the authority of the teacher. There must be an appropriate distance between the teacher and students. “Students must recognize the moral” and intellectual authority of the teacher, argued G.I. Chelpanov.- Without such recognition, the school cannot exist.

Then it is not a school, but an organization like a house committee or something like that." Every time, he noted, during the period of revolutionary movements in Russia, the question of the participation of students in school management is raised. But the experience of the development of other countries indicates that neither This was not allowed to happen in one democratic country.

The question of secondary school reform, noted G.I. Chelpanov, must be discussed and resolved with the involvement of universities, academies, pedagogical and other scientific institutions, with the participation of the leaders of secondary educational institutions themselves. But in reality the situation is completely different. “The drafters of the project for a new secondary school for Russia,” he noted, “thought of it not as a state that should lead an international cultural competition, but as some kind of colony. By a strange irony of fate, a democratic school for Russia people are busy who are unable to rise above bureaucratic methods of thinking... Russian teachers should fight for a truly educational school worthy of the great culture of Russia."

Opinion of G.I. Chelpanov regarding the reform of secondary schools remained a voice crying in the wilderness. The development of school education took a different path, sometimes even sadder, than provided for in the draft of the state committee.

Russia again faces the need for reforms, including the education system. It would be worth recalling the thoughts of G.I. on this matter. Chelpanov - one of the most educated and philosophically minded figures of Russian science.

1. Budilova E. A. The struggle of materialism and idealism in Russian psychological science (second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries). M., I960.

2. Petrovsky A.V. History of Soviet psychology. Formation of the foundations of psychological science. M., 1967.

3. Radzikhovsky L. A. G.I. Chelpanov - organizer of the Psychological Institute // Vopr. psychol. 1982. No. 5. P. 4760.

4. Smirnov A. A. Development and current state psychological science in the USSR. M., 1975.

5. Chelpanov G.I. The problem of space perception in connection with the doctrine of a prioriity and innateness. 2 hours. Kyiv, 1896-1904.

6. Chelpanov G.I. History of basic issues of ethics. Kyiv, 1897.

7. Chelpanov G.I. Criticism of materialism and an essay on modern teachings about the soul. Kyiv, 1899.

8. Chelpanov G.I. About memory and mnemonics. St. Petersburg, 1900; 2nd ed. 1903.

9. Chelpanov G.I. Brain and soul. St. Petersburg, 1900; 6th ed., M., Pg., 1918.

10. Chelpanov G.I. Course of lectures on logic. Kyiv, 1901.

11. Chelpanov G.I. Introduction to philosophy. Kyiv, 1905.

12. Chelpanov G.I. Psychology. Basic course. M., 1909.

13. Chelpanov G.I. Biological point of view in psychology. M., 1909.

14. Chelpanov G.I. On the experimental study of higher mental processes // Issues. Philosopher and psychol. Book 96.

15. Chelpanov G.I. Modern individual psychology and its practical significance // Issues. Philosopher and psychol. Book 103.

16. Chelpanov G.I. About American psychological institutes. M., 1911.

17. Chelpanov G.I. Psychology and school. M., 1912.

18. Chelpanov G.I. Textbook of psychology. M., 1912. 10th ed.

19. Chelpanov G.I. Modern psychology of thinking and its significance for pedagogy // School and life. 1914. No. 2.

20. Chelpanov G.I. Introduction to experimental psychology. M., 1915; 3rd ed., M., 1924.

21. Chelpanov G.I. Democratization of school. M., 1918.

22. Chelpanov G.I. Objective psychology in Russia and America. M., 1925.

23. Chelpanov G.I. Psychology and Marxism. 2nd ed. M., 1926.

24. Chelpanov G.I. Psychology or reflexology? (Controversial issues in psychology). M., 1926.

25. Chelpanov G.I. Essays on psychology. M., L., 1926.

26. Chelpanov G.I. Spinozism and materialism (Results of the polemics about Marxism in psychology). M., 1927.

27. Chelpanov G.I. Textbook of logic. M., 1946.

Received by the editor on August 17, 1993.

1 The history of the creation of the Psychological Institute is described in detail by the author in an article dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the institute, published in the "Bulletin of Moscow State University" (1982. No. 3. P. 6676).

source unknown

Brief biography of Chelpanov

21.09.2012

1. Curriculum vitae. Georgy Ivanovich Chelpanov was born on April 16 (28), 1862 in the city of Mariupol (Russian Empire, now Ukraine) into a large, friendly Greek family. Simple settlers from Crimea who arrived in the Azov region at the end of the 18th century, they understood the importance of education for children and encouraged them to do so. Young Georgy was distinguished by great abilities (including artistic ones) and in 1883 he graduated from the Alexander Men's Gymnasium with a gold medal. In the same year, he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Novorossiysk University (Odessa) and graduated in 1887, receiving a gold medal for his graduation essay on the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Here his fateful meeting took place with Nikolai Yakovlevich Grot, a professor at the Department of Philosophy. He appreciated the talent of the young Mariupol resident and contributed to his development. N.Ya. Grot belonged to the famous Grot family, which was part of the intellectual elite of 19th century Russia. Father - Y.K. Grot, academician, prominent philologist, who published the 9-volume complete works of G.R. Derzhavin, brother - K.Ya. Grot, also a philologist, corresponding member of the Imperial Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

N.Ya. Grot, having moved from Odessa to Moscow, invited his favorite student, a graduate of Novorossiysk University. In Moscow, Chelpanov worked at the philosophy department of the university, passed his master's exams and became a private assistant professor. Grotto, as in Odessa, looked after and raised the student. Sent him on a business trip to Wundt in Leipzig. He provided pages of journals for his publications, including the journal “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology” he published, etc. The tradition, widespread in the then university environment, of inviting a student to a family, where long conversations were held at home, was continued. philosophical topics. Despite these positive aspects, the lack of career prospects at the Moscow department forced Chelpanov to move to Kyiv in 1892, where he began work at the philosophy department at the University of St. Vladimir. The Kiev period (1892–1907) was distinguished by the greatest fruitfulness of Chelpanov’s activities, which is not surprising - he was 30–45 years old. During this time, master's (1896) and doctoral dissertations (1904) were defended, he became first an extraordinary and then an ordinary professor, the classic works “Brain and Soul” (1900), “Introduction to Philosophy” (1905) were published, his famous textbooks on psychology and logic were published, the Psychological Seminary at the university, etc. worked effectively. During these years, he went on scientific trips abroad, mainly to German universities, from where he learned a lot of new things. These internships were extremely productive, since Georgy Ivanovich was fluent in German, and he was not short of Hellenic hard work. The unexpected death of his wife Olga Epifanovna Ivashchenko in 1906 disrupted the normal course of Kyiv life, and Chelpanov in this situation accepted an invitation to take the chair of philosophy at Moscow University. Moscow gave a new quality to his scientific and organizational activities. He was already a professor with an authoritative name, and his word meant a lot to students, colleagues and public figures. The main thing of this period was the creation of the Psychological Institute at Moscow University. Funds for the construction and equipment of the building were allocated by philanthropist S.I. Shchukin. He also subsidized Chelpanov’s trip to Germany and the USA in 1910–1911. to get acquainted with the leading psychological laboratories and institutes of the world. In 1912, Moscow Psychological Institute named after. L.G. Shchukina was built and began to function, and in March 1914 its grand opening took place.

An extensive, well-thought-out research program was outlined, and prospects for the rapid development of domestic psychology were opened up. However, the First World War, the revolution, the civil war and the post-revolutionary disorder almost wiped out everything. Particularly unfavorable was the policy of the new government, aimed at destroying free thought in the humanitarian sphere, proclaiming Marxism as the highest truth, not subject to criticism. In such a situation, there was no place left for a professor with a pronounced idealistic position, and at the end of 1923 he was removed from work at the university and the institute he created. Chelpanov was given shelter by his student G.G. Shpet at the State Academy of Artistic Sciences (GAKhN), formerly its vice-president. But in 1930 Chelpanov was fired from there too (the academy was simply closed). Last years He spent his life exposed to illness, isolated from active scientific work, and virtually abandoned by his former friends and colleagues. Georgy Ivanovich died on February 13, 1936, and was buried at the Vagankovskoye cemetery (unfortunately, the scientist’s grave has been lost).

2. Scientific contribution. Results of scientific research by G.I. Chelpanov should be distributed in three areas: philosophy, psychology, pedagogy. Philosophy. It is widely believed that Chelpanov was only an excellent teacher and popularizer of knowledge and did not create a solid theory. However, upon careful consideration of his work, such superficial judgment dissipates. With regard to philosophy, the following becomes clear. Philosophy is his basic profession. Even in psychology, he considered himself primarily a philosopher, and this was his huge advantage over psychologists who had a different origin. Chelpanov's fundamental research in the field of philosophy is expressed in a concentrated form in his final work on two dissertations, “The Problem of the Perception of Space.” His thorough study of epistemological issues is especially evident here. He deliberately avoided the problem of metaphysics, based on his general principles not to publish things that have not been thoroughly studied. According to his worldview, as V.V. testifies. Zenkovsky, he can be classified as a supporter of transcendental realism (or “ideal-realism”, as Chelpanov himself puts it). Many modern researchers define him as an adherent of neo-Kantianism, although internally he was closest to Leibnizianism. Thus, if in Chelpanov we do not see the creator of our own theory, then we must admit that his works “Brain and Soul” and “Introduction to Philosophy” are monuments of philosophical thought.

Psychology . In this discipline, Chelpanov's authority is undeniable. He developed issues of theory, methodology and practice of this science. They are presented in the most vivid form in the books “Introduction to Experimental Psychology”, “Essays on Psychology”, etc. It is unnecessary to talk about his organizational contribution, because the creation of the Psychological Institute in Moscow served as the basis for the formation of the domestic psychological school. Reproaches regarding his adherence to the method of self-observation during retrospective assessment do not seem justified, because Chelpanov did not absolutize it and quite correctly defined its place in the complex of psychometric studies.

Pedagogy . And in this area the trace left by Chelpanov is noticeable. His pre-revolutionary textbooks for gymnasiums on psychology and logic were in themselves an unprecedented phenomenon in Russian pedagogy, especially in the context of an elementary philosophy course for secondary schools. Chelpanov’s great contribution to the fight against simplistic tendencies in the introduction of psychological research into secondary schools, and he led it with the St. Petersburg school of V.M. Bekhterev and his supporters. Here he was often left alone against many, but from a historical perspective he turned out to be right. Everyone noted his pedagogical talent and friendliness towards his students, but it is also widely known that he was strict regarding the sequence of knowledge accumulation and did not let careless students pass to the next stages (these were the unshakable principles of his Kyiv and Moscow seminars).

3. Main works. It is customary to judge a scientist by his works. The main works of G.I. Chelpanova:

“Brain and Soul” (1900) – 6 editions until 1918.

“Introduction to Philosophy” (1905) – 7 editions until 1918.

“Psychology”: textbook (1905) – 16 editions until 1919.

“Logic”: textbook (1906, 2nd ed.) – 10 editions until 1918.

"Psychology and School" (1912).

“Introduction to Experimental Psychology” (1915) – 3 editions until 1924.

"Essays on Psychology" (1926).

Cycle of polemical pamphlets 1924–1928: “Psychology and Marxism”; “Objective psychology in Russia and America”; “Psychology or reflexology?”; " Social Psychology or “conditioned reflexes”; "Spinozism and Materialism".

These are lifetime publications. Most of them have been republished since the 1990s, when Chelpanov’s scientific name was returned.

4. Awards and titles:

Order of St. Stanislaus, 3rd degree (1900);

Order of St. Anne, 3rd degree (1904);

Grand Prize of Emperor Peter the Great (1907);

Small Prize of Emperor Peter the Great (1909);

Award of His Grace Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow;

Ordinary Professor at the Department of Philosophy at the University of St. Vladimir (Kyiv, 1904);

ordinary professor in the department of philosophy at Moscow University (1907).

5. Personal life events. G.I. Chelpanov married Olga Epifanovna Ivashchenko in Mariupol in 1889 (wedding in the Church of Mary Magdalene). In 1895, in Kyiv, their son Alexander was born, in 1897 - daughter Natalya, in 1898 - daughter Tatyana. In 1906, his wife died in Kyiv at the age of 43. In 1915, Chelpanov had a daughter, Elena, in Petrograd from his second wife, Nina Leonidovna Zanarevskaya, a cousin of his late wife. The fate of some members of the Chelpanov family was tragic: daughter Tatyana died in childbirth in 1933, son Alexander was shot in 1935 in a fabricated case about a German-Russian dictionary (granddaughter Marina, daughter of Alexander’s son, died in the same year). The eldest daughter, Natalya, married a French citizen, Brice Parent, in 1926 and left for France. There she became a famous illustrator of children's books. The Paren couple had a daughter, Tatyana, in 1928. She lives in Paris and has the surname "Maillard-Parin". The second wife, Nina Leonidovna Zanarevskaya, being a graduate of the Women's Medical Institute, worked as a doctor in Petrograd (Leningrad), Mariupol and Yeisk. She died in 1940 in Leningrad. Her daughter, Elena Georgievna Chelpanova, graduated from the Leningrad Academy of Arts in 1948 and became a sculptor. She lived and worked in Leningrad, where she died in 2003. Along this line, Georgy Ivanovich Chelpanov’s family tree is continued by Nina Borisovna Chelpanova (b. 1948), also a sculptor by profession. Currently lives and works in St. Petersburg. Her daughter, Chelpanova’s great-granddaughter, Elena Borisovna Bocharova (b. 1976), who graduated from the Russian State Pedagogical University in St. Petersburg, works in Moscow. A.I. Herzen. She is a social psychologist and business coach.

6. Bibliography. The first bibliographic research revealed a list of more than 100 original works by the scientist (books, articles, reviews, etc.). To date, lists of about 200 works are provided: Dmitriev T., Chubarov I. // Logos. – 1996. – No. 7. – P. 204–211; Bogdanchikov S.A. The origin of Marxist psychology. Discussion between K.N. Kornilov and G.I. Chelpanov in Russian psychology of the 20s. – Saratov: SuiUI Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2000. – 232 p.; Guseva E.P. /Almanac of the Scientific Archive of the Psychological Institute: Anniversary issue to the 150th anniversary of the birth of Georgy Ivanovich Chelpanov. Vol. 5. – M.: PI RAO; MGPPU, 2012. – P. 289–310; Ajavenko N.K. Georgy Chelpanov. Life path and scientific feat. – Mariupol: PJSC “Newspaper “Priazovsky Rabochiy”, 2012. – 256 p. The search for new sources continues. The site organizers will also participate in such research.

7. General retrospective assessment. When assessing the cases and personality of G.I. Chelpanov, it is important to see the historical dynamics, since during the Soviet period there was a purposeful transformation and distortion of the merits and achievements of the scientist, ascertained by his contemporaries at the turn of real life. Nowadays, a gradual restoration of Chelpanov’s true assessment is taking place, along with the process of reprinting his classic works, holding memorial events and carrying out objective biographical research.

Prepared by site experts. Use for scientific educational purposes. A link to the website www.chelpanov.org is required.

In the image of the Leipzig Wundt Institute and similar institutions, the Russian philosopher and psychologist Georgy Ivanovich Chelpanov (1862-1936) planned to create a special institute of experimental psychology in Moscow. He turned to the famous Moscow philanthropist Sergei Ivanovich Shchukin and persuaded him to become a sponsor of the project. He agreed on the condition that the institute be named after his wife.
The Chelpanov Institute, the first in Russia and one of the best in terms of equipment, was opened in 1914. It became a major center for the formation of a whole generation of domestic experimental psychologists. Chelpanov presented his employees and trainees with ample opportunities for scientific research. He himself was convinced that there was no other way to study consciousness other than by analyzing its structure and functions.
As ideological trends in Western psychology changed (from Wundt to other variants of the idealistic interpretation of consciousness), Chelpanov made adjustments to his understanding of the subject of psychology (consciousness) and its method (introspection). He was an excellent organizer, lecturer, and popularizer, but he was never able to create an innovative concept. Meanwhile, the interest of Western psychologists was aroused precisely by those areas of Russian psychology that Chelpanov rejected as lying “beyond psychology” (Bekhterev’s reflexology, Pavlov’s doctrine of higher nervous activity).

Psychological views of G.I. Chelpanov and his role in the development of domestic science. (based on materials from the Phlogiston website http://www.flogiston.ru )
G.I. Chelpanov (1862 -1936). He did not create a new direction in the field, but made a significant contribution to it; in particular, his role in training professional personnel through the university is invaluable. Basic treatise- "The problem of space perception." In 1900, in a course of lectures “Brain and Soul,” he raised the problem of the subject of psychology and the essence of the psyche. 1915 - the books “Introduction to Experimental Psychology” and “Introduction to Philosophy” are published. He was a supporter of Kantianism. 1912 - creates the Institute of Psychology in Moscow. Training in theoretical and practical psychology. Director of the Psychological Institute until 19223. In the 20s, the restructuring of psychology based on Marxism began. Ch. argued that psychology as an experimental science cannot be Marxist and puts forward a project for the creation of social psychology, cat. d.b. m-skoy, because people is a member of society. According to Ch., the task of Psychology is to find the laws of mental life - established patterns of connection between the phenomena of mental life.
Methods of psychology.
Self-observation gives only facts. The most important method.
Analytical - theoretical. Method for constructing knowledge systems.
Experimental - tests the accuracy of psychological cognition.
Genetic - the study of development. Important.
Pavlov's teaching gives physiological knowledge of habit formation. Ch. against reflexology.
General - studies the mental life of an adult. Gains knowledge about -ke in general.
Social psychology (laws of emotional experiences of a group), Ethnic psychology, physiological. individual psychology, educational psychology, zoopsychology, criminal psychology.
Divided into pure and applied. Ch. - the psyche and its laws are considered regardless of practice. P. - associated with solving practical problems.

From Chelpanov’s point of view, the brain was just the seat of the soul, the content of which was the concern of psychology. According to his ideas, the soul existed independently of matter, but could be studied and understood using experimental techniques suitable for this purpose.

CHELPANOV Georgy Ivanovich

(1862-1936) - Russian philosopher, psychologist, teacher, specialist in the theory and methodology of philosophy and psychology. Professor (since 1897). He received his education at the historical and philological department of the Novorossiysk University in Odessa (1882-1887). From 1891 he was a private associate professor at the Department of History of Philosophy at Moscow University, and from 1892 at Kyiv University, where in 1897 he received the title of professor of psychology and philosophy and organized a psychological laboratory (1897-1906). In 1907, he was invited to Moscow University as a professor, where he also created a psychological laboratory. In 1910-11 visited Germany and the USA to get acquainted with the work of psychological institutes and laboratories. In 1912 he founded the first in Russia Moscow Psychological Institute at Moscow University. Shchukina (officially opened in 1914 with the financial support of S. Shchukin). He was its director until 1923. Many famous Russian psychologists were trained under Ch.’s leadership. He actively worked in the Moscow Psychological Society, took part in various scientific congresses on psychology and pedagogy. Published textbooks and teaching aids(Psychology. Lectures, M., 1892; Course of lectures on logic, K., 1901; Psychology, parts 1-2, M., 1909; Textbook of psychology, M.-Pg., 1919). The main directions of Ch.'s scientific research concerned the most important problems of the theory and methodology of psychology: questions about the essence of the psyche, the relationship between soul and body, biological and social in the formation of a person. He emphasized the one-sidedness of only the materialistic approach to the study of the psyche, and tried to philosophically substantiate psychology using the concept of psychophysical parallelism. From these positions he examined the subject and methods of psychology, interpreted the results of experimental studies. In his laboratories he conducted numerous experiments on the psychology of perception of space and time. Based on empirical introspective psychology, he developed a number of methods for laboratory psychological research. He believed, following W. Wundt, that the meaning of the experiment is to make introspection as accurate as possible (Problems of the perception of space in connection with the doctrine of a prioriity and innateness, parts 1-2, Kyiv, 1896-1904; Introduction to experimental psychology, M., 1915, 1924). He paid much attention to the relationship between psychology and pedagogy. He believed that psychological knowledge is necessary for teaching, but at the same time he warned against the overly widespread use of experimental psychological methods in teaching practice. emphasized important for the pedagogy of philosophical ethics, which substantiates pedagogical goals, while psychology indicates the means of achieving them. He participated in the analysis of the school reform project (Democratization of the School, 1918), criticizing it. He considered secondary education to be the basis of the culture of the people and therefore had a sharply negative attitude towards the decline in its level. In 1923, he was removed from his post as director of the Psychological Institute and deprived of the opportunity to continue his scientific activities. Nevertheless, he carried out a number of publications in which he criticized vulgar materialistic tendencies in psychology. Believed that Marxism can only be extended to the field of social psychology, but not to general psychology, which, in his opinion, should have been free from any philosophy (Controversial Issues in Psychology, 1926). Author of works: History of basic issues of ethics, K., 1897; Brain and soul, St. Petersburg, 1900,1918; Biological point of view in psychology, M., 1909; Problems of modern psychology // Questions of philosophy and psychology, 1909, no. 99; Psychology and school, M., 1912; Psychology and Marxism, M., 1924; Objective psychology in Russia and America, M., 1925; Psychology or reflexology? Controversial issues in psychology, M., 1926; Social psychology and conditioned reflexes, M.-L., 1928, etc. L.A. Karpenko, IM. Kondakov