A Moment in Mamardashvili's Conception of Non

DANIEL REGNIER A MOMENT IN MAMARDASHVILI’S CONCEPTION OF NON-CLASSICAL RATIONALITY: HIS RECEPTION OF UZNADZE’S PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY OF SET In the following article I examine a reference made by Merab Mamardashvili in his book Classical and Non-classical Ideals of Rationality to the work of the Georgian psychologist Dimitri Uznadze (1886-1950). Indeed, Uznadze’s very important work is interesting in its own right and I hope to introduce some of his ideas to those unfamiliar with them. Yet in the present context I am particularly interested in the contribution that an examination of Uznadze’s overall project as represented by his theory of “set” can make to a better understanding of certain basic intentions of Mamardashvili’s philosophy. Mamardashvili’s concept of “non-classical rationality,” formulated as it is by way of a privative prefix, is difficult to grasp in positive terms and is, in fact, quite susceptible to misinterpretation. It seems that Mamardashvili himself intended his reference to Uznadze in Classical and Non-classical Ideals of Rationality to illuminate a certain aspect of his own intentions insofar as Uznadze’s work could be considered a sort of parallel attempt to discover a non-classical mode of rationality in the context of another discipline. Nevertheless, Mamardashvili’s philosophical work ultimately follows its own characteristic path of inquiry so that reference to Uznadze’s work cannot ultimately disclose the full meaning with which Mamardashvili invests the concept of non-classical rationality. Not only was he immensely interested in the personalities of the historical figures of philosophy to whom he devoted his lectures, but the philosopher Merab Mamardasvhili had a more formal relationship with the discipline of psychology. First of all, in general, his lectures and writings demonstrate a very impressive knowledge of the social sciences, which is not surprising given the fact that in the Soviet Union, Marx was seen both as a founder of the social sciences and an authority in philosophy. In any case, Marmardashvili makes frequent reference to sociologists such as, for example, Max Weber or Talcott Parsons. But his relationship with psychology was even more intimate than that with sociology (the social science which was perhaps most closely related to philosophy1). In fact, after having been forced to leave the Institute of Philosophy in Moscow, Mamardashvili lectured – if on philosophy – at the Institute of Psychology. Indeed, he lectured there on the “methodology of psychology” in the early 1970s. Apart from such external reasons why he might be said to have entertained a special relationship with psychology, there is a much more compelling philosophical reason why Mamardashvili was interested in psychology. Mamardashvili was in an important sense an isolated figure who consciously had to abstract himself from what we might call in a sociologically inspired formulation the “normal socialization processes” in 1 One might compare, for example, Adorno’s work in the cadre of the “Frankfurt school.” order to become an independent thinker.2 Thus, since his own development did not follow the path which might otherwise be dictated by social and political conditions, he was particularly interested in the development of individual consciousness. Moreover, Soviet psychology had developed original and characteristic approaches to problems of consciousness which gave an important place to ideas which might without hesitation be called philosophical. One might mention in this context Lev Vygotsky and his Kharkov school of Psychology (a thinker whom Mamardashvili did not value highly), or Alexander Luria. Both of these became relatively well- known in the West. For whatever reason, academic psychology in the Soviet Union hosted many brilliant and original minds, so that indeed Mamardashvili could find some worthy interlocutors in these departments and institutes.3 Dimitri Uznadze’s Theory of Psychological “Set” One important figure in Soviet Psychology who is not well known in the West was Dimitri Uznadze (1886-1950). At the time when the Institutes of Sociology and Psychology were being founded in Europe and the United States, Uznadze was a student of philosophy and psychology at the University of Leipzig under the tutelage of, amongst others, Wilhelm Wundt, creator of the first psychological laboratory in Germany.4 Uznadze, who was awarded a prize for his work on Leibniz, was granted his doctorate in 1909 for a dissertation entitled “Vladimir Soloviev: his Epistemology and Metaphysics,” at which time he returned to Georgia, working most notably in organizing educational institutions. He was involved in the founding of the Georgian National University in 1918, while the Soviet Union’s first psychological society was founded in 1927 under his direction. He is chiefly known for his theory of “set,” the label of which in its English translation is unfortunately rather misleading, since the Russian ustanovka and the German Einstellung are not nearly as equivocal as the English word “set.” The English term, in its most immediate senses in normal usage do not connote what the Russian term does, which, 2 See, for example, Merab Mamardashvili, “Начало всегдa исторично,” Вопросы методологии, № 1, (1991), pp. 44-53. One might also consult the interview with Uldis Tirons, “Одиночество – моя профессия...” in: Конгениальность мысли. О философе Мерабе Мамардашвили. (Мoskva: Прогресс - Культура, 1994), pp. 59-79, as well as the interview with Pilar Bonet, “Мой опыт нетипичен,” (1988) in M. Mamardashvili’s Raboty [Works], Vol. XIX (Моckва:Logos/Логос, 2004), pp. 207-216. Reference to this edition of MM’s Works will be given as volume number in Roman numerals, plus page number. 3 Mamardashvili’s interest in psychology is attested to in the article “Проблема объективного метода в психологии,” written together with Vladimir Zinchenko and A.N. Leontiev, and published in Voprosy filosofii No. 7(1977), p. 109-125. A further work, also co-authored with Vladimir Zinchenko, and based on papers read at the Tbilisi World Conference on theUnconscious (1978) is “Изучение высших психических функций и эволюция категорий бессознательного” (1979). A reprint with minor revisions appeared after Mamardashvili’s death in Voprosy filosofii No. 10 (1991), pp. 34-40, under the title “Изучение высших психических функций и категория бессознательного.”[“The Study of Higher Psychic Functions and the Category of the Unconscious”]. In fact, Mamardashvili’s relationship with psychology was not unequivocal. According to Lidiia Voronina, Mamardashvili struggled for and against psychology (see her introduction to Simvol i soznanie [Symbol and Consciousness], Moscow, Shkola “Iaziki Russkoi Kulturi,” p. 22. I am indebted to Tapani Laine for pointing out these references to me. 4 For an excellent overview of Uznadze’s life and work see Georgy Ketschuashvili “Dimitri Uznadze,” in the UNESCO publication, Prospects: the Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, Vol . 24, no. 3/4(1994), pp. 687-701. The article is reprinted in this volume with permission of the Georgy Ketschuashvili family and general permission of use of the UNESCO article subject to acknowledgement. .

Load more