Date

E Hartmann German philosopher works. Eduard von Hartmannpsychologyphilosophyesoteriology

the most popular of modern metaphysical philosophers, b. in Berlin in 1842. The son of a Prussian general, Hartmann, after completing his high school course, entered military service. Due to lack of calling to it, as well as due to illness (nervous knee pain), he soon retired and lives as a private citizen in Berlin. After unsuccessful studies fiction (unsuccessful drama) he focused on the study of philosophy and the sciences necessary for it. Having received his doctorate, he published his main work in 1869: “Philosophie des Unbewussten”, which immediately brought him fame, going through many editions. The starting point for the philosophy of the unconscious is Schopenhauer's view of will as the true essence of all being and the metaphysical basis of the entire universe. Schopenhauer, who in the title of his main work combined the will with the idea (Welt als Wille und Vorstellung), in fact considered only the will (the real-practical element of being) to be an independent and original essence, while the idea (the intellectual element) was recognized only as a subordinate and secondary product of the will, understanding it, on the one hand, idealistically (in the sense of Kant), as a subjective phenomenon determined by the a priori forms of space, time and causality, and on the other hand, materialistically, as determined by the physiological functions of the body or as a “brain phenomenon” (Gehirnphänomen). Against such a “primacy of will,” Hartmann thoroughly points out the equally primary significance of representation. “In every desire,” he says, “one actually wants the transition of a certain present state into another. The present state is given every time, be it simply peace; but in this one present state the desire could never be contained if there were no existence, at least at least, the ideal possibility of something else. Even such a desire, which strives for the continuation of the present state, is possible only through the representation of the cessation of this state, therefore, through a double negation. There is no doubt, therefore, that for desire, two conditions are necessary first of all, of which one is a present state as a starting point; the other, as the goal of volition, cannot be a present state, but there is some future whose presence is desired. But since this future state, as such, cannot really be in the present act of volition, but between Therefore, it must somehow be in it, for without this desire itself is impossible, then it must necessarily be contained in it ideally, that is, as a representation. But in the same way, the present state can become the starting point of desire only insofar as it enters into representation (as distinguished from the future). Therefore, there is no will without representation, as Aristotle already says: ????????? ?? ??? ???? ?????????. In reality there is only the representing will. But does it exist as a universal principle or metaphysical essence? Direct will and idea are given only as phenomena of the individual consciousness of individual beings, variously determined by their organization and the influences of the external environment. Nevertheless, in the field of scientific experience we can find data suggesting an independent, primary existence of the spiritual principle. If there are such phenomena in our world that, being completely inexplicable from material or mechanical causes alone, are possible only as the action of the spiritual principle, i.e., the representing will, and if, on the other hand, it is certain that during these phenomena no individual conscious will and representation (i.e. the will and representation of individual individuals), then it is necessary to recognize these phenomena as the actions of some universal, located outside the individual consciousness, representing will, which Hartmann therefore calls unconscious (das Unbewusste). [Feeling, however, the unsatisfactoriness of such a purely negative or defective designation (which with equal right can be applied to a stone or a piece of wood, as well as to the absolute beginning of the world), Hartmann in subsequent editions of his book allows its replacement by the term superconscious (das Ueberbewusste)] . And indeed, going through (in the first part of his book) various spheres of experience, both internal and external, Hartmann finds in them the main groups of phenomena that can only be explained by the action of a metaphysical spiritual principle; on the basis of undoubted factual data, through the inductive natural-historical method, he tries to prove the reality of this unconscious or superconscious primary subject of will and idea. Hartmann expresses the results of his empirical research in the following provisions: 1) the “unconscious” forms and preserves the organism, corrects its internal and external damage, purposefully directs its movements and determines its use for the conscious will; 2) the “unconscious” gives instinctively to every creature what it needs for its preservation and for which its conscious thinking is not enough, for example, to a person - instincts for understanding sensory perception, for the formation of language and society, and many others. etc.; 3) the “unconscious” preserves childbirth through sexual desire and maternal love, ennobles them through choice in sexual love and leads the human race in history steadily towards the goal of its possible perfection; 4) the “unconscious” often controls human actions through feelings and premonitions where full conscious thinking could not help them; 5) the “unconscious”, with its suggestions in the small, as well as in the great, promotes the conscious process of thinking and leads a person in mysticism to a premonition of higher supernatural unities; 6) it finally gives people a sense of beauty and artistic creativity. In all these actions, the “unconscious” itself is characterized, according to Hartmann, by the following properties: painlessness, tirelessness, the non-sensual nature of its thinking, timelessness, infallibility, immutability and indissoluble internal unity.

Reducing, in the footsteps of dynamist physicists, substances to atomic forces (or centers of forces), Hartmann then reduces these forces to manifestations of a spiritual metaphysical principle. What for another, externally, is force, then in itself, internally, is will, and if will, then also idea. The atomic force of attraction and repulsion is not only a simple desire or desire, but a completely definite desire (the forces of attraction and repulsion are subject to strictly defined laws), that is, it contains a certain definite direction, and is ideally contained (otherwise it would not be the content of the desire ), i.e. as a representation. So, atoms are the basis of everything real world - are only elementary acts of will, determined by representation, of course, acts of that metaphysical will (and representation), which Hartmann calls “unconscious”. Since, therefore, both the physical and mental poles of phenomenal existence - both matter and private consciousness conditioned by organic matter - turn out to be only forms of the phenomenon of the “unconscious”, and since it is certainly non-spatial, since space itself is posited by it (ideal representation, will - real), then this “unconscious” is an all-encompassing single being, which is all that exists: it is the absolute indivisible, and all the multiple phenomena of the real world are only actions and aggregates of actions of the all-unified being. The inductive justification of this metaphysical theory constitutes the most interesting and valuable part of the “philosophy of the unconscious.” The rest is devoted to scholastic reasoning and Gnostic fantasies about the beginning and end of the world and the nature of the world process, as well as the presentation and evidence of Hartmann's pessimism. Having first recognized the inextricable connection of will and representation (or idea) in a single superconscious subject possessing all the attributes of a deity, Hartmann then not only isolates will and idea, but also personifies them in this isolation as the male and female principles (which is convenient only in German : der Wille, die Idee, die Vorstellung). The will itself has only the power of reality, but is certainly blind and unreasonable, while the idea, although bright and reasonable, is absolutely powerless, devoid of any activity. At first, both of these principles were in a state of pure potency (or non-existence), but then the non-existent will absolutely randomly and senselessly wanted to want and thus passed from potency to act, dragging the passive idea there too. Real being, which according to Hartmann is posited exclusively by will - an irrational principle - is itself therefore distinguished by the essential character of irrationality or meaninglessness; it is what should not be. In practice, this unreasonableness of existence is expressed as disaster and suffering to which everything that exists is inevitably subjected. If the original origin of existence itself - the causeless transition of blind will from potency to act - is an irrational fact, an absolute accident (der Urzufall), then the rationality or purposefulness of the world process recognized by Hartmann has only a conditional and negative meaning; it consists in gradual preparation for the destruction of what was created by a primary irrational act of will. A rational idea, which has a negative attitude towards the actual existence of the world as a product of a meaningless will, cannot, however, directly and immediately abolish it, being essentially powerless and passive; therefore it achieves its goal indirectly. By controlling the blind forces of will in the world process, she creates the conditions for the emergence of organic beings with consciousness. Through the education of consciousness world idea or the world mind (in German and mind - feminine: die Vernunft) is freed from the dominion of blind will, and everything that exists is given the opportunity, through the conscious negation of the vital desire, to return again to a state of pure potency or non-existence, which is the final goal of the world process. But before reaching this highest goal, the world consciousness, centered in humanity and continuously progressing in it, must pass through three stages of illusion.

On the first, humanity imagines that bliss is achievable for the individual in the conditions of earthly natural existence; on the second it seeks bliss (also personal) in the supposed afterlife; on the third, having abandoned the idea of personal bliss as the highest goal, it strives for general collective welfare through scientific and socio-political progress. Having become disillusioned with this last illusion, the most conscious part of humanity, having concentrated in itself the greatest amount of the world's will (?!), will decide to commit suicide and thereby destroy the entire world. Improved methods of communication, Hartmann notes with incredible naivety, will make it possible for enlightened humanity to instantly accept and carry out this suicidal decision.

Written by a 26-year-old youth, the "philosophy of the unconscious", replete in its first part with correct and important instructions, witty combinations and broad generalizations, showed great promise. Unfortunately, the author's philosophical development stopped at the first steps. Despite the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies of his metaphysical system, he did not try to correct it and in his numerous subsequent writings he developed only certain particular issues, or adapted various areas of life and knowledge to his point of view. Hartmann also wrote about spiritualism, the Jewish question, German politics and education. Hartmann's philosophy has generated quite an extensive literature. His main work has been translated into many foreign languages.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Hartman Eduard

(v. Hartmann) - the most popular of modern philosophers of the metaphysical direction, b. in Berlin in 1842. The son of a Prussian general, G., after completing a gymnasium course, entered military service. Due to lack of calling to it, as well as due to illness (nervous knee pain), he soon retired and lives as a private citizen in Berlin. After unsuccessfully studying fiction (unsuccessful drama), he concentrated on studying philosophy and the sciences necessary for it. Having received his doctorate, he published his main work in 1869: “Philosophie des Unbewussten”, which immediately brought him fame, going through many editions. The starting point for the philosophy of the unconscious is Schopenhauer's view of will as the true essence of all being and the metaphysical basis of the entire universe. Schopenhauer, who in the title of his main work combined the will with the idea (Welt als Wille und Vorstellung), in fact an independent and original essence, considered only the will (the real-practical element of being), while the idea (the intellectual element) was recognized only as a subordinate and secondary product of the will , understanding it, on the one hand, idealistically (in the sense of Kant), as a subjective phenomenon determined by the a priori forms of space, time and causality, and on the other hand, materialistically, as determined by the physiological functions of the body or as a “brain phenomenon” (Gehirnphänomen). Against such a “primacy of will,” G. thoroughly points out the equally primary significance of representation. “In every desire,” he says, “I want the actual transition of a known present state into other. The present state is given every time, be it simply peace; but in this one present state there could never be a desire, if there were not at least an ideal possibility of something else. Even such a desire, which strives for the continuation of the present state, is possible only through the representation of the cessation of this state, therefore, through double negation. There is no doubt, therefore, that for volition, two conditions are necessary first of all, of which one is the present state as the starting point; the other, as the goal of desire, cannot be a present state, but there is some future whose presence is desired. But since this future state, as such, cannot really to be in the present act of wanting, and yet it must somehow be in it, because without this the desire itself is impossible, then it must necessarily be contained in it perfect, i.e. how performance. But in the same way, the present state can become the starting point of desire only insofar as it enters into representation (as distinguished from the future). That's why there is no will without vision, as Aristotle already says: “όρεκτικόν δε ούκ άνευ φαντασίας.” In reality there is only representing will. But does it exist as a universal principle or metaphysical essence? Direct will and representation are given only as phenomena individual consciousness of individual beings, variously determined by their organization and the influences of the external environment. Nevertheless, in the field of scientific experience we can find data suggesting an independent, primary existence of the spiritual principle. If there exist in our world such phenomena that, being completely inexplicable from material or mechanical causes alone, are possible only as the actions of the spiritual principle, i.e., the representing will, and if, on the other hand, it is certain that no individual conscious will and representation (i.e., the will and representation of individual individuals), then it is necessary to recognize these phenomena as the actions of some universal representing will located outside of individual consciousness, which G. therefore calls unconscious(das Unbewusste) (feeling, however, the unsatisfactoriness of such a purely negative, or defective, designation (which with equal right can be applied to a stone or a piece of wood, as to the absolute beginning of the world), G. in subsequent editions of his book allows its replacement with the term superconscious(das Ueberbewusste)). And indeed, going through (in the first part of his book) various spheres of experience, both internal and external, G. finds in them the main groups of phenomena that can only be explained by the action of the metaphysical spiritual principle; on the basis of undoubted factual data, through the inductive natural-historical method, he tries to prove the reality of this unconscious or superconscious primary subject of will and idea. G. expresses the results of his empirical research in the following provisions: 1) the “unconscious” forms and preserves organism, corrects its internal and external damage, purposefully directs its movements and determines its use for conscious will; 2) the “unconscious” gives instinct Every creature needs what it needs for its preservation and for which its conscious thinking is not enough, for example, for a person - instincts for understanding sensory perception, for the formation of language and society, and many others. etc.; 3) the “unconscious” preserves childbirth through sexual desire and maternal love, ennobles them through choice in sexual love and leads the human race in history steadily towards the goal of its possible perfection; 4) the “unconscious” often controls human actions through feelings And premonitions where full conscious thought could not help them; 5) the “unconscious”, with its suggestions in the small, as well as in the great, promotes the conscious process of thinking and leads a person into mysticism to the anticipation of higher supernatural unities; 6) it finally gives people a sense of beauty and artistic creativity. In all these actions, the “unconscious” itself is characterized, according to G., by the following properties: painlessness, tirelessness, the insensible nature of its thinking, timelessness, infallibility, immutability and indissoluble internal unity.

Reducing, in the footsteps of dynamist physicists, substances to atomic forces (or centers of forces), G. then reduces these forces to manifestations of a spiritual metaphysical principle. What for another, from the outside, is force, then in itself, inside, is will, and if will, then also idea. The atomic force of attraction and repulsion is not only a simple desire or drive, but a completely definite desire (the forces of attraction and repulsion are subject to strictly defined laws), that is, it contains a certain definite direction and consists perfect(otherwise it would not be content aspirations), that is, as a representation. So, atoms - the foundations of the entire real world - are only elementary acts of will, determined by representation, of course, acts of that metaphysical will (and representation), which G. calls “unconscious”. Since, therefore, both the physical and mental poles of phenomenal existence - both matter and the private consciousness conditioned by organic matter - turn out to be only forms of the phenomenon of the “unconscious”, and since it is certainly non-spatial, since space itself is posited by it (ideal representation, will - real), then this “unconscious” is an all-encompassing individual being, which is all that exists; it is absolute, indivisible, and all the multiple phenomena of the real world are only actions and aggregates of actions of an all-unified being. The inductive justification of this metaphysical theory constitutes the most interesting and valuable part of the “philosophy of the unconscious.” The rest is devoted to scholastic reasoning and Gnostic fantasies about the beginning and end of the world and the nature of the world process, as well as the presentation and evidence of Hartmann's pessimism. Having first recognized the inextricable connection of will and representation (or idea) in a single superconscious subject possessing all the attributes of the Divine, G. then not only isolates will and idea, but also personifies them in this isolation as the male and female principles (which is convenient only in German language: der Wille, die Idee, die Vorstellung). The will itself has only the power of reality, but is certainly blind and unreasonable, while the idea, although bright and reasonable, is absolutely powerless, devoid of any activity. At first, both of these principles were in a state of pure potency (or non-existence), but then the non-existent will absolutely randomly and senselessly wanted to want and thus passed from potency to act, dragging the passive idea there too. Real being, posited according to G. exclusively by will - an irrational principle - is itself therefore distinguished by the essential character of irrationality or meaninglessness; it is what should not be. In practice, this unreasonableness of existence is expressed as disaster and suffering to which everything that exists is inevitably subjected. If the original origin of existence itself - the causeless transition of blind will from potency to act - is an irrational fact, an absolute accident (der Urzufall), then the rationality, or purposefulness, of the world process recognized by G. has only a conditional and negative meaning; it consists in gradual preparation for the destruction of what was created by a primary irrational act of will. A rational idea, which has a negative attitude towards the actual existence of the world as a product of a meaningless will, cannot, however, directly and immediately abolish it, being essentially powerless and passive: therefore, it achieves its goal in an indirect way. By controlling the blind forces of will in the world process, she creates conditions for the emergence of organic beings with consciousness. Through the formation of consciousness, the world idea or world mind (in German and mind - feminine: die Vernunft) is freed from the dominion of blind will, and everything that exists is given the opportunity, through the conscious negation of the vital desire, to return again to the state of pure potency, or non-existence, which constitutes the latter the goal of the world process. But before reaching this highest goal, the world consciousness, centered in humanity and continuously progressing in it, must pass through three stages of illusion. On the first, humanity imagines that bliss is achievable for the individual in the conditions of earthly natural existence; on the second it seeks bliss (also personal) in a supposed afterlife; on the third, having abandoned the idea of personal bliss as the highest goal, it strives for general collective welfare through scientific and socio-political progress. Having become disillusioned with this last illusion, the most conscious part of humanity, having concentrated in itself the greatest amount of the world's will (?!), will decide to commit suicide, and through this destroy the entire world. Improved methods of communication, G. notes with incredible naivety, will provide enlightened humanity with the opportunity to instantly accept and carry out this suicidal decision.

The “philosophy of the unconscious” written by a 26-year-old youth, replete in its first part with correct and important instructions, witty combinations and broad generalizations, showed great promise. Unfortunately, the author's philosophical development stopped at the first steps. Despite the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies of his metaphysical system, he did not try to correct it and in his numerous subsequent writings he developed only certain particular issues or adapted various areas of life and knowledge to his point of view. The most important of these works: “Kritische Grundlegung des transscendentalen Realismus”, “Ueber die dialektische Methode Neukantianismus, Schopenhauerianismus und Hegelianismus”, “Das Unbewusste vom Standpunkt der Physiologie und Descendenztheorie”, “Wahrheit und Irrthum im Darwinismus”, “Phänomenologie de s sittlichen Bewusstseyns" , "Zur Geschichte und Begründung des Pessimismus", "Die Selbstzersetzung des Christenthums und die Religion der Zukunft", "Die Krisis des Christenthums in der modernen Theologie", "Das religiöse Bewusstseyn der Menschheit", "Die Religion des Geistes", "Die "Aesthetik". G. also wrote about spiritualism, the Jewish question, German politics and education. G.'s philosophy has generated a fairly extensive literature. His main work has been translated into many foreign languages. In Russian there is a slightly abbreviated translation of it by A. A. Kozlov, under the title: “The Essence of the World Process.” Of the authors of individual works about G. - for and against him - the following can be mentioned: Weis, Bahnsen, Stiebeling, J. S. Fischer, A. Taubert (G.'s first wife), Knauer, Volkelt, Rehmke, Ebbinghaus, Hansemann, Venetianer, Heman, Sonntag, Huber, Ebrard, Bonatelli, Carneri, O. Schmid, Plümacher, Braig, Alfr. Weber, Kober, Schüz, Jacobowski, book. D. N. Tsertelev (modern pessimism in Germany). A chronological list of literature about G. is attached to Plümacher's work "Der Kampf ums Unbewusste". See also in history new philosophy Iberwega-Heinze (Russian translation by J. Kolubovsky).

Vlad. Soloviev.

Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - S.-Pb.: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

See what "Hartmann Eduard" is in other dictionaries:

Eduard Hartmann (1842 1906) German. philosopher, creator of the “philosophy of the unconscious”, which arose as an opposition to the prevailing in Deut. floor. 19th century positivism. G. considered Plato, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer his predecessors. His… … Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

- (1842 1906) German philosopher, proponent of panpsychism. He considered the absolute unconscious spiritual principle of the world will to be the basis of existence (Philosophy of the Unconscious). In ethics, following A. Schopenhauer, he developed the concept of pessimism... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

- (1842 1906), German philosopher, supporter of panpsychism. He considered the absolute unconscious spiritual principle of the world will to be the basis of existence (“Philosophy of the Unconscious”). In ethics, following A. Schopenhauer, he developed the concept of pessimism. * * * HARTMANN... encyclopedic Dictionary

Hartmann Eduard (23.2.1842, Berlin, 5.6.1906, Großlichterfelde), German idealist philosopher. The sources of G.'s philosophy were the voluntarism of A. Schopenhauer and the “philosophy of identity” of Schelling. Works by G. “Philosophy of the Unconscious” (1869, 12... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

- (Hartmann), (February 23, 1842 – June 5, 1906) – German. idealist philosopher. The ideological sources of G.'s philosophy were Schopenhauer's voluntarism and Schelling's philosophy of identity. His Philosophy of the Unconscious (Philosophie des Unbewussten, 1869; 12th ed. 1923)… … Philosophical Encyclopedia

Hartman Eduard- famous German. pessimistic philosopher. At the age of 26, he gained worldwide fame thanks to his work Philosophy of the Unconscious... Complete Orthodox theological encyclopedic Dictionary History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia

Eduard (1842 1906), German philosopher, proponent of panpsychism. He considered the absolutely unconscious spiritual principle of the world to be the basis of existence (Philosophy of the Unconscious, 1869). In ethics, following A. Schopenhauer, he developed the concept of pessimism... Modern encyclopedia

.

He wrote two large works directly devoted to the problems of aesthetics: “German Aesthetics Since Kant” (1886) and “Philosophy of the Beautiful” (1887), as well as several aesthetic experiments in which an analysis of specific works of art is given - “Ideological Content in Faust “Goethe” (1871), “Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet” (1873), “Schiller’s poems “Ideal and Life” and “Ideals” (1873), etc.

The content of artistic works is analyzed Eduard Hartmann from the standpoint of the “philosophy of the unconscious” and the place that he assigned to art in the universe. His aesthetic views were largely determined by the need to build a philosophy, with the help of which he hoped to overcome the contradictions in the systems of his predecessors, and primarily Schopenhauer's, which he considered a necessary addition to Hegel's, noting their simultaneous emergence.

One-sidedness and insufficiency of philosophy Schopenhauer Hartmann sees not in the general opposition of will and idea, which he also accepts, but in the unovercomeed dualism of this opposition. His objections are raised by Schopenhauer's interpretation of the principle of individuality, as well as the consequences that follow from it for practical philosophy. Accepting the generally pessimistic conclusions of this philosophy, Eduard Hartman introduces the principle of identity and unity into Schopenhauer's system.

Will and representation are initially identical: wherever there is representation, there is will. This original identity is the unconscious, about which consciousness cannot know anything.

Hartmann characterizes the unconscious as a single substance of both attributes: “The need for a substantial identity of will and idea, in my opinion, is inevitable... In the unconscious there are not two boxes, in one of which lies an unreasonable will, in the other a powerless idea: but these are the essence of two poles of one magnet with opposite properties; The world is based on the unity of these opposites.”

Nothing in the unconscious can be distinguished using the categories of consciousness.

It makes no difference what you call it: an absolute subject or an absolute object, matter or spirit. This is the closest thing, the basis of all things, the essence of life, forever eluding the limited human mind.

The unconscious is outside of space and time, it is all-one. It contains healing life force, it is it that makes all the most important choices in life, it is wise. Hartmann, choosing a middle path between pessimism Schopenhauer and optimism Leibniz, joins the latter, who argued that of all possible worlds the existing one is the best. However, making an amendment to this optimistic assessment, Hartmann believed that suffering and sorrow prevail over pleasures and misfortunes increase with “progressively increasing intelligence in the world” and that “it would be wiser to prevent the development of the world, and the sooner the better, and the best of all it would be to prevent its occurrence.”

We cannot judge the unconscious and do not know the reasons for the emergence of the world, but based on the visible course of its evolution, we can assume the purpose of the world.

The goal of human history, according to Hartmann, is to increase consciousness, which is necessary to comprehend the sorrow of the “best of worlds”; it is necessary to achieve the final goal of the universe - painlessness, serenity, equal to non-existence.

Depending on this last goal of the universe, the goal of man in the world is determined: “All instincts that are not aimed at preserving the individual and the breed belong to the third main goal in the world, the improvement and ennoblement of the breed, and are especially found in the human race.”

Simultaneously with the anthropological development of the race, there is also progress in the spiritual wealth of humanity. This is precisely where Hartmann saw the meaning of beauty - in an uninterrupted connection with the unconscious and in a reminder of the purpose of the universe. However, this goal - the cessation of the action of the will and its crazy desires, serenity - is not achieved by individual negation of the will, as it was assumed Schopenhauer, but only universal and cosmic. The evolution of the world inevitably strives towards this negation; and humanity, developing consciousness within itself, ultimately contributes to the cessation of the world process.

In this regard, Hartmann wrote about the beautiful and about creative inspiration: “Since further inspiration appears the more easily, the deeper the interest deepens and descends from the illuminated heights of consciousness into the dark depths of the heart, that is, into the unconscious, then undoubtedly we have the right to In these cases, recognize the unconscious will. In a simple understanding of the beautiful, we must, of course, recognize the instinct relating to the third main goal, the improvement of the race: for one has only to imagine what would become of the human race, what it would have achieved in the happiest case at the end of history, and how much more miserable it would become Human life would already be poor if no one experienced the feeling of beauty.”

In general, the existence of beauty and art does not change the general pessimistic assessment human life, although “the dark night of struggle and suffering should be illuminated by a caressing ray of sun when we enter the field of science and art!”

Hartmann did not accept the statement Schopenhauer that aesthetic pleasure is a state of “complete positive satisfaction.” It is not practical everyday interest that is satisfied here, but the desire for knowledge and beauty. True, the moments of ecstatic delight that constitute the goal of a work of art are rare and accessible only to selected natures. Art is the only area of life where the preponderance is on the side of pleasure. And yet the importance of art for the happiness of the world is not very great.

Art is a kind of exception to the rule: “At the same time, it should be noted that this excess of pleasure is distributed among those individuals who feel the sorrows of existence incomparably more painfully than others, so much more painfully that this excess of pain is absolutely not rewarded with that pleasure. Finally, this kind of pleasure, more than any other kind of spiritual pleasure, is limited to the present time, while others are anticipated in hope. In this pleasure the above-mentioned feature is found, that the same sensory perception both serves to satisfy the will and causes this will.”

All this, according to Eduard Hartmann, defines both aesthetic pleasure and artistic creativity.

It is the absence of distance between the emergence of desire and its satisfaction that explains the perception of beauty. The reason for this unity is the unconscious. After all, there is no time in it, so the perception of beauty is closed in the present moment; in the unconscious there is no division into subject and object, therefore, perceiving the beautiful, a person forgets himself: “ The unconscious makes a person happy in the sense of beauty and in artistic creativity.”

People search for and create beauty only due to unconscious processes, the result of which is the feeling of beauty and the ideas of artistic creativity, that is, the idea of beauty.

The rootedness of the sense of beauty in the unconscious does not mean that they are more unclear compared to cognitive ideas and discursive concepts. Although aesthetic sensations originate in the area of the unconscious and it is impossible to finally realize their meaning, they still cannot be considered as a step preceding cognition; they have nothing in common with discursive thinking, but are completely different from it.

This is a special, intuitive knowledge, unmistakable and instantaneous, like the unconscious itself. Moreover, aesthetic sensations are not direct sensory perceptions of things, which themselves are nothing more than detections of “unconscious thoughts.” This is “the reaction of the soul to ready-made sensory sensations, so to speak, a reaction of the second order.” Aesthetic judgments are built on top of aesthetic sensations with the help of consciousness. In assessing the natural beauty and beauty of works of art, in the very process of artistic creation, with the exception of the moment of the emergence of a plan, the work of consciousness is constantly present.

The process of artistic creativity is characterized, according to Hartmann, by two important points - the unconscious origin of the concept, the idea of a work of art, and the conscious embodiment of the idea in the work, the work of consciousness upon its completion.

According to the predominance of one of these moments, it distinguishes Eduard Hartman genius and talent.

If at the moment the idea arises there is practically no influence of conscious will, then during the subsequent process of implementing the idea it begins to play an important role. The ability of aesthetic judgment as an element of the life of consciousness turns out to be more important in artistic creativity than in the passive perception of beauty.

Talent differs from genius by the predominance of conscious activity and, accordingly, by the inability to create true beauty, to create an original.

Ordinary talent, guided by its aesthetic judgment, creates a work of art through rational choice and combination. He lacks divine madness, the life-giving breath of the unconscious, which for consciousness appears to be the highest inspiration, whose origin is inexplicable.

“In a genius, his idea (concept) arises involuntarily, passively. A brilliant idea cannot be forced by any effort; it falls into the soul, as if from heaven... A brilliant plan is given the whole at once, without any labor, as a gift from the gods; if there is anything it lacks, it is precisely the details... A brilliant plan always presents such unity in its creations that they can only be compared with the organisms of nature; for both the former and the latter are the work of one and the same unconscious.”

In fact, it is the unconscious, this unknown subject of creativity, who chooses. The choice is always expedient. Before consciousness, the illusion of choice or preference arises, since for it the will is separated from the idea. Perfect beauty is found primarily in nature, since it is nature, and especially its organism, that is the objective “thoughts” of the unconscious.

The unconscious permeates the world, and only the illusion of consciousness obscures from a person his wisdom, which manifests itself, in particular, in love. Since the third main goal of evolution is the improvement of the species, then love, the purpose of which, according to Hartmann, is to carry out the correct selection of individuals on the basis of beauty, serves precisely this goal. Its origins and law are completely in the area of the unconscious, therefore it is omnipotent. And therefore it is the only true theme and subject of art and should be so even to a greater extent than is usually believed.”

History of aesthetic thought in 6 volumes, Volume 4, Second half of the 19th century, M., “Iskusstvo”, 1987, p. 145-149.

News

Starts on January 20, 2019 VII season of Sunday online lectures by I.L. Vikentieva
at 19:59 (Moscow time) about creativity, creativity and new developments in TRIZ. Due to numerous requests from non-resident Readers of the portal site, since the fall of 2014 there has been a weekly Internet broadcast free lectures I.L. Vikentieva O T creative individuals/teams and modern creative techniques. Parameters of online lectures:

1) The lectures are based on Europe's largest database on creative technologies, containing more than 58 000 materials;

2) This database was collected over the course of 40 years and formed the basis of the portal website;

3) To replenish the portal database website, I.L. Vikentyev works daily 5-7 kg(kilograms) scientific books;

4) Approximately 30-40% during online lectures, answers to questions asked by Students during registration will be compiled;

5) The lecture material does NOT contain any mystical and/or religious approaches, attempts to sell something to the Listeners, etc. nonsense.

6) Part of the video recordings of online lectures can be found at

(1842-1906) - German. philosopher. Philosophy G.'s system, which he characterized as “concrete monism,” was mainly expounded in “Philosophy of the Unconscious”, and then comprehensively presented in a number of works, the culmination of which was “System of Philosophy” (1906-1909) in 8 volumes. Philos. G.'s system is a dynamic metaphysics based on the concept of the unconscious. Fundamental, ultimate reality, according to G., is actually unconscious. A single unconscious principle has two correlated and irreducible attributes - will and idea, respectively - two coordinated functions. G. believed that he had achieved a synthesis of the philosophy of G.V.F. Hegel, F.W.Y. Schelling and A. Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer's "will" (without an idea) could never carry out a teleological world process, and Hegel's "idea" (without a will) could not be objectified in the existing world. The discord between the two sides of the unconscious absolute determines the life of human consciousness. The intellectual-rational side is opposed to the voluntaristic side. The sharper the consciousness, the more obvious to it is the fragmentation of all existing things, and accordingly, the more obvious is the need to renounce the will to be and return to the unconscious basis of all existing things. The manifestation of the unconscious absolute as will provides the basis for pessimism, and its manifestation as an idea - for optimism. Optimism and pessimism must be reconciled. The principle of practical philosophy is to expose the pseudo-morality oriented towards happiness, and to transform the goals of the unconscious - ridding the world of the poverty of the will - into the goals of consciousness. G. aesthetics is adjacent to the aesthetics of German. idealism.

Philosophie des UnbewuBten. Berlin, 1869; Das UnbewuBte vom Standpunkt der Physiologie und Deszendenztheorie. Berlin, 1873; Ashetik. Berlin, 1887. Bd 2; Das Grundproblem der Erkenntnistheorie. Berlin, 1889; Kategorienlehre. Berlin, 1896; Geschichte der Metaphysik. Berlin, 1900. Bd 2; System der Philosophie im GrundriB. Berlin, 1906-1909. Bd 8.

(1842-190 6) - German philosopher, one of the representatives of ideological pessimism and irrationalism of the second half of the 19th century. He was forced to abandon his military career and took up philosophy. In 1869, G. published a work that made him famous: “Philosophy of the Unconscious,” which went through many editions during the author’s lifetime (tenth edition - 1890). This is G.'s main work, although it was followed by almost 30 larger and smaller works. G.'s most important philosophical works: “Neo-Kantianism, Schopenhauerianism, Hegelianism” (1877), “Phenomenology of Moral Consciousness” (1878), “Religious Consciousness of Humanity in its Consistent Development” (1881), “Religion of the Spirit” (1882), “Aesthetics” (in two volumes, 1886-188 7), “The Main Problem of the Theory of Knowledge” (1890), “The Doctrine of Categories” (1896), “History of Metaphysics” (in two volumes, 1899-190 0), “Modern Psychology” ( 1901), “The Worldview of Modern Physics” (1902), “The Problem of Life” (1906), etc. After G.’s death, his “System of Philosophy” was published in eight volumes. G. also wrote about spiritualism, the Jewish question, German politics, etc. The complete collection of his works contains about 40 volumes. For the formation itself philosophical views G. was significantly influenced by the ideas of Schopenhauer and Schelling, which he intended to combine with the concept of Hegel. However, if Schelling and Hegel, when constructing philosophical systems, attached secondary importance to scientific data, then G. has a new feature: he sought to achieve consistency between the speculative data obtained and scientific knowledge , obtained inductively. G. defined the essence of his philosophy as “a synthesis of Hegel and Schopenhauer, with a decisive predominance of Hegel and the concept of the unconscious, present in Schelling’s system; the abstract results of this synthesis are combined with Leibniz's individualism and with modern natural scientific realism into concrete monism. The elimination of speculative deduction and the complete rejection of apodictic certainty distinguishes my philosophy from all previous rationalistic systems.” Thus, the basis of G.'s philosophical system was based on the seemingly incompatible ideas of Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and contemporary achievements in the field of natural and historical sciences. G.’s work “Philosophy of the Unconscious” represents the first attempt to generalize previously existing ideas about the phenomenon of the unconscious, as well as its further study based on a synthesis of diverse points of view of rationalistic and irrationalistic types. This approach to the unconscious was carried out by G. through the prism of recognition of its absolute value, since the unconscious is necessary for a person and “woe to that person who, exaggerating the goal of the conscious-reasonable and wanting exclusively to support its value, forcibly suppresses the Unconscious.” So, according to G., the basis of everything that exists is the unconscious beginning. By putting forward arguments in favor of recognizing the unconscious, G. seeks to determine its enduring value. These are the arguments: the unconscious shapes the organism and maintains its life; the unconscious serves the purpose of self-preservation of every human being (this is a kind of instinct); thanks to sexual desire and maternal love, the unconscious serves as a means not only of preserving human nature, but also of ennobling it in the process of the history of the development of the human race; the unconscious guides a person in cases where his consciousness is not able to give useful advice; the unconscious contributes to the process of cognition and leads people to revelation; the unconscious is a stimulus for artistic creativity and gives satisfaction in the contemplation of beauty. “The conscious mind acts negatively, critically, controlling, correcting, measuring, comparing, combining, ordering and subordinating, deducing the general from the particular, bringing a particular case to a general rule, but it never acts productively, creatively, never invents. In this respect, a person is completely dependent on the unconscious, and if he loses the unconscious, then he loses the source of his life, without which he will drag out his existence monotonously in the dry schematism of the general and the particular.” Recognizing the value of the unconscious, G. also talks about the disadvantages that are characteristic of this phenomenon: guided by it, you always wander in the dark, not knowing where it will lead; following the unconscious, you always make yourself dependent on chance, because you don’t know in advance whether inspiration will come to you or not; there are no criteria for identifying inspiration through the unconscious, since only the results of human activity make it possible to judge their value; unlike consciousness, the unconscious seems to be something unknown, vague, alien; consciousness is a faithful servant of man, while the unconscious contains something terrible, demonic; one can be proud of conscious work, and unconscious activity is like a gift from the gods; the unconscious is always prepared, but consciousness can be changed depending on acquired knowledge and social conditions of life; unconscious activity leads to results that cannot be perfected, while the results of conscious activity can continue to be worked on, improving and perfecting them; the unconscious depends exclusively on the affects, passions and interests of people, consciousness is guided by reason, it can be oriented in the right direction. And the conclusion that G. makes: “From this comparison it undoubtedly follows that consciousness is more important for us...”. It would seem that the conclusion about the importance of consciousness in human life leads to the idea of the need to master the unconscious and expand the sphere of conscious activity. However, every step on the path to the victory of consciousness over the unconscious is regarded by G. not as a triumph of the human mind, but as a progression from life to Nothing, when the “mad carnival of existence” turns into “world sorrow.” This is the main conclusion arising from Hartmann's philosophy of the unconscious. The conclusion substantiates the importance of the unconscious in the life of every person and the human race, and, at the same time, the intertwined relationships between consciousness and the unconscious that exist in the inner world of a person, but are not always realized by him. In the same metaphysical spirit, G. reflects on the goals of the development of the world and the human spirit, on the values of the world and life. According to G., initially the spirit was in a state of rest: the existence of will and reason was conditioned only potentially. However, at a certain point in time, the absolute enters an active state and is revealed. The result of all this is the creation of the world, which begins with the causeless and random transition of the will to life from potency to act, dragging the mind with it. Thus the world comes into being. What is nature, for whom does the starry sky shine, what do we, strictly speaking, care about the objectively real unified nature? - G. poses questions. She would not concern us at all if her actions did not encourage the spirit to create the subjective world of phenomena. All the wonders of nature, which from time immemorial poets have praised in thousands of ways in all languages, are only miracles of the spirit that it produces within itself. Just as an electric spark comes from the touch of electrified bodies, so the life of the spirit flows from its interaction with this, in itself, silent nature. She (nature) awakens in the spirit the dormant Promethean spark of self-awareness; she also opens him to communication with other spirits. The “miracle of nature” is that it, naked, poor in content, alien to poetry and apparently devoid of spiritual content, reveals to the spirit its infinite wealth and with its pressure encourages it (the spirit) to create subjective worlds. The “miracle of nature” is resolved only if the spirit itself unconsciously created this harmony of the external mechanical world with inner world subjective phenomena, i.e. through teleology. Knowledge of nature is only a mediating inferential transitional stage for the self-awareness of the spirit, which has value for us only as a means, and not as an end. From spirit to spirit through nature - this is the motto with which G. ends his analysis of nature as a means for the spirit. But then the question arises: what is the purpose of the world process? The goal of the process cannot be freedom, because it is only a passive concept, i.e. no coercion. If anywhere to look for the goal of the world process, then it is on the paths of development of consciousness. Why on the path of consciousness? Because it is here that we clearly record decisive and constant progress, a gradual increase (from the emergence of the primary cell to the modern state of humanity). But one more question remains: consciousness is really the ultimate goal, i.e. a purpose in itself, or does it in turn serve only another purpose? Consciousness itself, of course, cannot be a goal, because consciousness, according to G., is suffering, in the sense that it is already born through pain, not to mention the fact that through difficulties and torment consciousness supports your existence. Each new stage in the development of consciousness is filled and redeemed by pain. And what does it (consciousness) give in return for this pain? Empty self-reflection? In this sense, there is no doubt that the ultimate goal of the world process, to which consciousness serves as a means, is to realize the greatest possible state of happiness, i.e. painlessness. So, the ultimate goal of the world process is the absence of world suffering and evil. But how is this possible? Considering that the order of the world is expedient, the blind will will ultimately be defeated and destroyed. This will happen through the growth of consciousness. Consciousness will enter into a struggle with will and redeem the existence of the world through the collective suicide of all humanity. So, through the development of consciousness and the increase in the number of conscious individuals, most of the spirit manifesting in the world will be concentrated in humanity, and then the disappearance of humanity will destroy the entire world. Thus, reason must correct what the irrational will has spoiled. So, the complete victory of the logical over the non-logical (consciousness over will) must coincide, according to G., with the temporary end of the world process - with the end of the world. In other words, our world can be considered as the best possible, but it does not follow from this that this world is good, on the contrary, there is so much evil in it that its existence should be considered as a matter of unreasonable will, and therefore it must be destroyed. Thus, G.’s assessment of real existence ultimately turned out to be completely pessimistic, and his ethics declared any desire of people for happiness to be an unattainable illusion. In his later works, G. repeatedly returned to clarifying the substantive meaning of the unconscious, speaking about the need to consider several meanings of this concept. It is necessary to distinguish, according to G., the physically, epistemologically, mentally and metaphysically unconscious. “Physically unconscious” refers to the sphere of human physiological activity, “epistemologically unconscious” is considered in the plane of human cognitive abilities, “metaphysically unconscious” is the prerogative of “absolute consciousness”. In addition, G. distinguishes between the “relative” and “absolute” unconscious. G.'s philosophy of the unconscious had a noticeable influence on the further study of this issue. Eg, comparative analysis G.'s theoretical positions and Freudian constructs show that Hartmann's philosophy contains many elements that were later included in Freud's psychoanalytic teaching. What is important in this case is that G. put forward the concept of the “mentally unconscious,” which became the main concept of Freud’s psychoanalytic teaching. In this regard, G.'s theoretical postulates and statements about the unconscious are often considered one of the important philosophical sources of the emergence of psychoanalytic ideas.

, Arthur Schopenhauer, Georg Hegel, Friedrich Schelling, Charles Darwin

Not to be confused with another philosopher - Nikolai Hartmann (1882-1950).

Carl Robert Eduard von Hartmann(German) Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann ; February 23 ( 18420223 ) , Berlin, Germany - June 5, Grosslichterfelde) - German philosopher.

Biography

Son of General Robert Hartmann. Studied at the artillery school; in 1860-1865 he was in military service, which he left due to illness. In 1867 he received his doctorate from the University of Rostock.

Creation

The main work is “Philosophy of the Unconscious” (Russian translation, published in 2010 by the publishing house “URSS”), in which he attempted to combine into a coherent theory and analyze various ideas about the phenomenon of the unconscious.

Repeatedly published in the French magazine " Philosophical Review» (« Revue philosophique"") edited by academician Théodule Ribot.

Philosophical teaching

The starting point for the philosophy of the unconscious is Arthur Schopenhauer's view of will as the true essence of all being and the metaphysical basis of the entire universe. Schopenhauer, who in the title of his main work combined the will with the idea (Welt als Wille und Vorstellung), in fact considered only the will (the real-practical element of being) to be an independent and original essence, while the idea (the intellectual element) was recognized only as a subordinate and secondary product of the will, understanding it, on the one hand, idealistically (in the sense of Kant) as a subjective phenomenon determined by the a priori forms of space, time and causality, and on the other hand, materialistically, as determined by the physiological functions of the body, or as a “brain phenomenon” (Gehirnphänomen).

Against such a “primacy of will,” Hartmann thoroughly points out the equally primary significance of representation. “In every desire,” he says, “what one wants is the actual transition of a known present state into another. The present state is given every time, be it simply peace; but in this one present state there could never be a desire, if there were not at least an ideal possibility of something else. Even such a desire, which strives for the continuation of the present state, is possible only through the representation of the cessation of this state, therefore, through double negation. There is no doubt, therefore, that for volition, two conditions are necessary first of all, of which one is the present state as the starting point; the other, as the goal of desire, cannot be a present state, but there is some future whose presence is desired. But since this future state, as such, cannot really be in the present act of volition, and yet must somehow be in it, for without this the volition itself is impossible, then it must necessarily be contained in it ideally, i.e. .as a performance. But in the same way, the present state can become the starting point of desire only insofar as it enters into representation (as distinguished from the future). Therefore, there is no will without representation, as Aristotle already says: όρεκτικόν δε ούκ άνευ φαντασίας.” In reality there is only the representing will.

But does it exist as a universal principle or metaphysical essence? Direct will and idea are given only as phenomena of the individual consciousness of individual beings, variously determined by their organization and the influences of the external environment. Nevertheless, in the field of scientific experience we can find data suggesting an independent, primary existence of the spiritual principle. If there exist in our world such phenomena that, being completely inexplicable from material or mechanical causes alone, are possible only as the actions of the spiritual principle, i.e., the representing will, and if, on the other hand, it is certain that no individual conscious will and representation (i.e., the will and representation of individual individuals), then it is necessary to recognize these phenomena as the actions of some universal representing will located outside of individual consciousness, which Hartmann therefore calls unconscious (das Unbewusste) (feeling, however , the unsatisfactoriness of such a purely negative or defective designation (which can be applied with equal justice to a stone or a piece of wood as to the absolute beginning of the world), Hartmann in subsequent editions of his book allows for its replacement by the term superconscious (das Ueberbewusste)). And indeed, going through (in the first part of his book) various spheres of experience, both internal and external, Hartmann finds in them the main groups of phenomena that can only be explained by the action of a metaphysical spiritual principle; on the basis of undoubted factual data, through the inductive natural-historical method, he tries to prove the reality of this unconscious or superconscious primary subject of will and idea.

Hartmann expresses the results of his empirical research in the following provisions:

the “unconscious” forms and preserves the organism, corrects its internal and external damage, purposefully directs its movements and determines its use for the conscious will;
The “unconscious” gives in instinct to every creature what it needs for its preservation and for which its conscious thinking is not enough, for example, for a person - instincts for understanding sensory perception, for the formation of language and society, and many others. etc.;
the “unconscious” preserves childbirth through sexual desire and maternal love, ennobles them through choice in sexual love and leads the human race in history steadily towards the goal of its possible perfection;
the "unconscious" often controls human actions through feelings and premonitions where full conscious thought could not help;
The “unconscious”, with its suggestions in the small as well as in the great, promotes the conscious process of thinking and leads a person in mysticism to a premonition of higher supernatural unities;
it finally gives people a sense of beauty and artistic creativity.

In all these actions, the “unconscious” itself is characterized, according to Hartmann, by the following properties: painlessness, tirelessness, the non-sensual nature of its thinking, timelessness, infallibility, immutability and indissoluble internal unity.

Since, therefore, both the physical and mental poles of phenomenal existence - both matter and the private consciousness conditioned by organic matter - turn out to be only forms of the phenomenon of the “unconscious”, and since it is certainly non-spatial, since space itself is posited by it (ideal representation, will - real), then this “unconscious” is an all-encompassing individual being, which is all that exists; it is absolute, indivisible, and all the multiple phenomena of the real world are only actions and aggregates of actions of an all-unified being. The inductive justification of this metaphysical theory constitutes the most interesting and valuable part of the “philosophy of the unconscious.”

Having first recognized the inextricable connection of will and representation (or idea) in a single superconscious subject possessing all the attributes of the Divine, Hartmann then not only isolates will and idea, but also personifies them in this isolation as the male and female principles (which is convenient only in German : der Wille, die Idee, die Vorstellung). The will itself has only the power of reality, but is certainly blind and unreasonable, while the idea, although bright and reasonable, is absolutely powerless, devoid of any activity. At first, both of these principles were in a state of pure potency (or non-existence), but then the non-existent will absolutely randomly and senselessly wanted to want and thus passed from potency to act, dragging the passive idea there too. Real being, which according to Hartmann is posited exclusively by will - an irrational principle - is itself therefore distinguished by the essential character of irrationality or meaninglessness; it is what should not be. In practice, this unreasonableness of existence is expressed as disaster and suffering to which everything that exists is inevitably subjected.

If the original origin of existence itself - the causeless transition of blind will from potency to act - is an irrational fact, an absolute accident (der Urzufall), then the rationality, or purposefulness, of the world process recognized by Hartmann has only a conditional and negative meaning; it consists in gradual preparation for the destruction of what was created by a primary irrational act of will. A rational idea, which has a negative attitude towards the actual existence of the world as a product of a meaningless will, cannot, however, directly and immediately abolish it, being essentially powerless and passive: therefore, it achieves its goal in an indirect way. By controlling the blind forces of will in the world process, she creates conditions for the emergence of organic beings with consciousness. Through the formation of consciousness, the world idea or world mind (in German and reason - feminine: die Vernunft) is freed from the dominion of blind will, and everything that exists is given the opportunity, by the conscious negation of the vital desire, to return again to the state of pure potency, or non-existence, which constitutes the latter the goal of the world process.

But before reaching this highest goal, the world consciousness, concentrated in humanity and continuously progressing in it, must pass through three stages of illusion. On the first, humanity imagines that bliss is achievable for the individual in the conditions of earthly natural existence; on the second it seeks bliss (also personal) in a supposed afterlife; on the third, having abandoned the idea of personal bliss as the highest goal, it strives for general collective welfare through scientific and socio-political progress. Having become disillusioned with this last illusion, the most conscious part of humanity, concentrating in itself the greatest amount of the world's will, will decide to commit suicide, and through this destroy the entire world. Improved methods of communication, Hartmann believes, will provide enlightened humanity with the opportunity to instantly accept and carry out this suicidal decision.

Thoughts on the relationship between Germans and Jews

Hartmann believed that “Jews should abandon their tribal feelings and be imbued with only a patriotic feeling of sincere love and devotion to the interests of the nation among which they live” and only then can they be given access to those areas where they were not previously allowed - for example, in the civil service.

Write a review of the article "Hartmann, Eduard von"

Notes

Sources

// Orthodox Encyclopedia. Volume X. - M.: Church and Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2005. - P. 438-440. - 752 s. - 39,000 copies. - ISBN 5-89572-016-1
// Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
// Jewish Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron. - St. Petersburg. , 1908-1913.
// Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. L. Ilyicheva and others - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1983.

Excerpt characterizing Hartmann, Eduard von

- Don’t you love Ali? - said a laughing voice; and, moderating the sounds of voices, the soldiers moved on. Having got out of the village, they spoke again just as loudly, peppering the conversation with the same aimless curses.
In the hut, past which the soldiers passed, the highest authorities had gathered, and over tea there was a lively conversation about the past day and the proposed maneuvers of the future. It was supposed to make a flank march to the left, cut off the viceroy and capture him.
When the soldiers brought the fence, kitchen fires were already flaring up from different sides. Firewood crackled, snow melted, and the black shadows of soldiers scurried back and forth throughout the occupied space trampled in the snow.
Axes and cutlasses worked from all sides. Everything was done without any orders. They hauled firewood for the night's reserves, erected huts for the authorities, boiled pots, and stored guns and ammunition.
The fence dragged by the eighth company was placed in a semicircle on the north side, supported by bipods, and a fire was laid out in front of it. We broke the dawn, made calculations, had dinner and settled down for the night by the fires - some mending shoes, some smoking a pipe, some stripped naked, steaming out lice.

It would seem that in those almost unimaginably difficult conditions of existence in which Russian soldiers found themselves at that time - without warm boots, without sheepskin coats, without a roof over their heads, in the snow at 18° below zero, without even the full amount of provisions, it would not always be possible to keeping up with the army - it seemed that the soldiers should have presented the saddest and most depressing sight.
On the contrary, never, in the best material conditions, has the army presented a more cheerful, lively spectacle. This happened because every day everything that began to despondency or weaken was thrown out of the army. Everything that was physically and morally weak had long been left behind: only one color of the army remained - in terms of strength of spirit and body.
The largest number of people gathered at the 8th company, which bordered the fence. Two sergeants sat down next to them, and their fire burned brighter than others. They demanded an offering of firewood for the right to sit under the fence.
- Hey, Makeev, what are you... disappeared or were you eaten by wolves? “Bring some wood,” shouted one red-haired soldier, squinting and blinking from the smoke, but not moving away from the fire. “Go ahead and carry some wood, crow,” this soldier turned to another. Red was not a non-commissioned officer or a corporal, but he was a healthy soldier, and therefore commanded those who were weaker than him. A thin, small soldier with a sharp nose, who was called a crow, obediently stood up and went to carry out the order, but at that time the thin, beautiful figure of a young soldier carrying a load of firewood entered the light of the fire.
- Come here. That's important!
They broke the firewood, pressed it, blew it with their mouths and overcoat skirts, and the flames hissed and crackled. The soldiers moved closer and lit their pipes. The young, handsome soldier who had brought the firewood leaned his hands on his hips and began to quickly and deftly stamp his chilled feet in place.
“Ah, mamma, the cold dew is good, and like a musketeer...” he chanted, as if hiccupping on every syllable of the song.
- Hey, the soles will fly off! – the red-haired man shouted, noticing that the dancer’s sole was dangling. - What poison to dance!
The dancer stopped, tore off the dangling skin and threw it into the fire.
“And that, brother,” he said; and, sitting down, took a piece of French blue cloth from his knapsack and began to wrap it around his leg. “We’ve had a couple of hours,” he added, stretching his legs towards the fire.
- New ones will be released soon. They say, we'll beat you to the last ounce, then everyone will get double goods.
“And you see, son of a bitch Petrov, he’s fallen behind,” said the sergeant major.
“I’ve noticed him for a long time,” said another.
- Yes, little soldier...
“And in the third company, they said, nine people were missing yesterday.”
- Yes, judge how your feet ache, where will you go?
- Eh, this is empty talk! - said the sergeant major.
“Ali, do you want the same thing?” - said the old soldier, reproachfully turning to the one who said that his legs were chilling.
– What do you think? - suddenly rising from behind the fire, a sharp-nosed soldier, who was called a crow, spoke in a squeaky and trembling voice. - He who is smooth will lose weight, but the skinny will die. At least I would. “I have no urine,” he suddenly said decisively, turning to the sergeant major, “they told me to send him to the hospital, the pain has overcome me; otherwise you will still fall behind...
“Well, yes, yes,” the sergeant major said calmly. The soldier fell silent and the conversation continued.
“Today you never know how many of these Frenchmen they took; and, to put it bluntly, none of them are wearing real boots, just a name,” one of the soldiers began a new conversation.
- All the Cossacks struck. They cleaned the hut for the colonel and took them out. It’s a pity to watch, guys,” said the dancer. - They tore them apart: so the living one, believe it, babbles something in his own way.
“They’re pure people, guys,” said the first. - White, just like a birch is white, and there are brave ones, say, noble ones.
- How do you think? He has recruited from all ranks.
“But they don’t know anything our way,” the dancer said with a smile of bewilderment. “I say to him: “Whose crown?”, and he babbles his own. Wonderful people!
“It’s strange, my brothers,” continued the one who was amazed at their whiteness, “the men near Mozhaisk said how they began to remove the beaten, where the guards were, so after all, he says, theirs lay dead for almost a month.” Well, he says, it lies there, he says, theirs is how the paper is white, clean, and doesn’t smell of gunpowder.
- Well, from the cold, or what? - one asked.
- You're so smart! By cold! It was hot. If only for the cold, ours wouldn’t have gone rotten either. Otherwise, he says, when you come up to ours, he’s all rotten with worms, he says. So, he says, we’ll tie ourselves with scarves, and, turning our muzzle away, we’ll drag him; no urine. And theirs, he says, is as white as paper; There is no smell of gunpowder.
Everyone was silent.
“It must be from the food,” said the sergeant major, “they ate the master’s food.”
Nobody objected.
“This man said, near Mozhaisk, where there was a guard, they were driven away from ten villages, they carried them twenty days, they didn’t bring them all, they were dead. What are these wolves, he says...
“That guard was real,” said the old soldier. - There was only something to remember; and then everything after that... So, it’s just torment for the people.
- And that, uncle. The day before yesterday we came running, so where they won’t let us get to them. They quickly abandoned the guns. On your knees. Sorry, he says. So, just one example. They said that Platov took Polion himself twice. Doesn't know the words. He’ll take it: he’ll pretend to be a bird in his hands, fly away, and fly away. And there is no provision for killing either.
“It’s okay to lie, Kiselev, I’ll look at you.”
- What a lie, the truth is true.
“If it were my custom, I would have caught him and buried him in the ground.” Yes aspen stake. And what he ruined for the people.
“We’ll do it all, he won’t walk,” said the old soldier, yawning.
The conversation fell silent, the soldiers began to pack up.
- See, the stars, passion, are burning! “Tell me, the women have laid out the canvases,” said the soldier, admiring the Milky Way.
- This, guys, is for a good year.
“We’ll still need some wood.”
“You’ll warm your back, but your belly is frozen.” What a miracle.
- Oh my God!
- Why are you pushing, is the fire about you alone, or what? See... it fell apart.
From behind the established silence, the snoring of some who had fallen asleep was heard; the rest turned and warmed themselves, occasionally talking to each other. A friendly, cheerful laugh was heard from the distant fire, about a hundred paces away.
“Look, they’re roaring in the fifth company,” said one soldier. – And what a passion for the people!
One soldier got up and went to the fifth company.
“It’s laughter,” he said, returning. - Two guards have arrived. One is completely frozen, and the other is so courageous, dammit! Songs are playing.
- Oh oh? go have a look... - Several soldiers headed towards the fifth company.

The fifth company stood near the forest itself. A huge fire burned brightly in the middle of the snow, illuminating the tree branches weighed down with frost.
In the middle of the night, soldiers of the fifth company heard footsteps in the snow and the crunching of branches in the forest.
“Guys, it’s a witch,” said one soldier. Everyone raised their heads, listened, and out of the forest, into the bright light of the fire, two strangely dressed human figures stepped out, holding each other.
These were two Frenchmen hiding in the forest. Hoarsely saying something in a language incomprehensible to the soldiers, they approached the fire. One was taller, wearing an officer's hat, and seemed completely weakened. Approaching the fire, he wanted to sit down, but fell to the ground. The other, small, stocky soldier with a scarf tied around his cheeks, was stronger. He raised his comrade and, pointing to his mouth, said something. The soldiers surrounded the French, laid out an overcoat for the sick man, and brought porridge and vodka to both of them.
The weakened French officer was Rambal; tied with a scarf was his orderly Morel.
When Morel drank vodka and finished a pot of porridge, he suddenly became painfully cheerful and began to continuously say something to the soldiers who did not understand him. Rambal refused to eat and silently lay on his elbow by the fire, looking at the Russian soldiers with meaningless red eyes. Occasionally he would let out a long groan and then fall silent again. Morel, pointing to his shoulders, convinced the soldiers that it was an officer and that he needed to be warmed up. The Russian officer, who approached the fire, sent to ask the colonel if he would take the French officer to warm him up; and when they returned and said that the colonel had ordered an officer to be brought, Rambal was told to go. He stood up and wanted to walk, but he staggered and would have fallen if the soldier standing next to him had not supported him.
- What? You will not? – one soldier said with a mocking wink, turning to Rambal.
- Eh, fool! Why are you lying awkwardly! It’s a man, really, a man,” reproaches to the joking soldier were heard from different sides. They surrounded Rambal, lifted him into his arms, grabbed him, and carried him to the hut. Rambal hugged the necks of the soldiers and, when they carried him, spoke plaintively:
- Oh, nies braves, oh, mes bons, mes bons amis! Voila des hommes! oh, mes braves, mes bons amis! [Oh well done! O my good, good friends! Here are the people! O my good friends!] - and, like a child, he leaned his head on the shoulder of one soldier.
Meanwhile, Morel sat in the best place, surrounded by soldiers.
Morel, a small, stocky Frenchman, with bloodshot, watery eyes, tied with a woman's scarf over his cap, was dressed in a woman's fur coat. He, apparently drunk, put his arm around the soldier sitting next to him and sang a French song in a hoarse, intermittent voice. The soldiers held their sides, looking at him.
- Come on, come on, teach me how? I'll take over quickly. How?.. - said the joker songwriter, who was hugged by Morel.
Vive Henri Quatre,
Vive ce roi vaillanti –
[Long live Henry the Fourth!
Long live this brave king!
etc. (French song) ]
sang Morel, winking his eye.
Se diable a quatre…
- Vivarika! Vif seruvaru! sit-down... - the soldier repeated, waving his hand and really catching the tune.
- Look, clever! Go go go go!.. - rough, joyful laughter rose from different sides. Morel, wincing, laughed too.
- Well, go ahead, go ahead!
Qui eut le triple talent,
De boire, de batre,
Et d'etre un vert galant...
[Having triple talent,
drink, fight
and be kind...]
– But it’s also complicated. Well, well, Zaletaev!..
“Kyu...” Zaletaev said with effort. “Kyu yu yu...” he drawled, carefully protruding his lips, “letriptala, de bu de ba and detravagala,” he sang.
- Hey, it’s important! That's it, guardian! oh... go go go! - Well, do you want to eat more?
- Give him some porridge; After all, it won’t be long before he gets enough of hunger.
Again they gave him porridge; and Morel, chuckling, began to work on the third pot. Joyful smiles were on all the faces of the young soldiers looking at Morel. The old soldiers, who considered it indecent to engage in such trifles, lay on the other side of the fire, but occasionally, raising themselves on their elbows, they looked at Morel with a smile.
“People too,” said one of them, dodging into his overcoat. - And wormwood grows on its root.
- Ooh! Lord, Lord! How stellar, passion! Towards the frost... - And everything fell silent.
The stars, as if knowing that now no one would see them, played out in the black sky. Now flaring up, now extinguishing, now shuddering, they busily whispered among themselves about something joyful, but mysterious.

X
The French troops gradually melted away in a mathematically correct progression. And that crossing of the Berezina, about which so much has been written, was only one of the intermediate stages in the destruction of the French army, and not at all a decisive episode of the campaign. If so much has been and is being written about the Berezina, then on the part of the French this happened only because on the broken Berezina Bridge, the disasters that the French army had previously suffered evenly here suddenly grouped together at one moment and into one tragic spectacle that remained in everyone’s memory. On the Russian side, they talked and wrote so much about the Berezina only because, far from the theater of war, in St. Petersburg, a plan was drawn up (by Pfuel) to capture Napoleon in a strategic trap on the Berezina River. Everyone was convinced that everything would actually happen exactly as planned, and therefore insisted that it was the Berezina crossing that destroyed the French. In essence, the results of the Berezinsky crossing were much less disastrous for the French in terms of the loss of guns and prisoners than Krasnoye, as the numbers show.
The only significance of the Berezina crossing is that this crossing obviously and undoubtedly proved the falsity of all plans for cutting off and the justice of the only possible course of action demanded by both Kutuzov and all the troops (mass) - only following the enemy. The crowd of Frenchmen fled with an ever-increasing force of speed, with all their energy directed towards achieving their goal. She ran like a wounded animal, and she could not get in the way. This was proven not so much by the construction of the crossing as by the traffic on the bridges. When the bridges were broken, unarmed soldiers, Moscow residents, women and children who were in the French convoy - all, under the influence of the force of inertia, did not give up, but ran forward into the boats, into the frozen water.