Written: 1903
Source: Lenin’s Collected Works,
4th Edition, Moscow, 1976, Volume 38, pp. 53 - 55
Publisher: Progress Publishers
First Published: 1930 in Lenin Miscellany XII
Translated: Clemence Dutt
Edited: Stewart Smith
Original Transcription & Markup: R. Cymbala &
Marc Szewczyk
Re-Marked up & Proofread by: Kevin Goins (2007)
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2003). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Remarks on Fr. Paulsen’s
book “Einleitung in die Philosophie,”
1899 (Fr. Paulsen, Introduction to
Philosophy, 1899) are contained in the
same notebook in which the note on the book by
Überweg is recorded (entries made in Geneva in
1903). After the remarks in the notebook on
Paulsen’s book, there follows: “Note on
the Position of the New Iskra.”
(See Lenin, pres. ed., Vol. 7.)
Note that this document has undergone special formating to ensure that Lenin’s
sidenotes fit on the page, marking as best as possible where they were
located in the original manuscript.
1899 |
|||||
Highly characteristic is the frank formulation
of the The author also says directly that modern
philosophy Up to p. 10 ...“Peace between science and faith...” And p. 11: “The real corner-stone of
Kant’s philoso- “What is capable of disappointing this
hopeful” (the hope |
|||||
radicalism that is at present
becoming widespread in the |
|||||
echism turned inside out. And like
the old dogmatism, |
? | ||||
insofar as by its dogmas it puts
fetters on the spirit of Refuting materialism
and defending the theory
of All- Ⅹ Cf. p. 126.
“A force ... is nothing but a
tendency to (Ergo—Seelenvorgänge und
Kraft[5]
are by no means Pp. 112-116: Why could not the Weltall[8] be the |
|||||
When Paulsen criticises materialists—he
counterposes |
NB | ||||
Cf. especially pp. 106-107, where Paulsen
opposes The author seems to dispose too lightly of the con- Quite stupid are the author’s arguments that a
physiol- One who has fallen in love does not speak to
“his lady- Paulsen considers that the statement that thought
is Be- When Paulsen declares that his parallelism is
“not local” |
[1] Paulsen, Fr., Einleitung in die Philosophie, Berlin, 1899.—Ed.
[2] purely mechanical, physical, etc.—Ed.
[3] anti-clericalism—Ed.
[4] universal soul embodiment—Ed.
[5] soul processes and force—Ed.
[6] incompatible—Ed.
[7] und folgende—et seq.—Ed.
[8] universe—Ed.
[9] universal spirit—Ed.
[10] forces—Ed.
[11] thought is motion—Ed.
[12] motion—Ed.
[13] senseless—Ed.
[14] accompanying phenomenon—Ed.
[15] conceptual confusion—Ed.
Ⅹ Contra p. 86: “Motion has absolutely nothing of thought in it....”
| | | | | |