About Us

Executive Editor:
Publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

Editorial Board:
Asgarov S. (Azerbaijan), Alakbarov M. (Azerbaijan), Aliev Z. (Azerbaijan), Babayev N. (Uzbekistan), Chiladze G. (Georgia), Datskovsky I. (Israel), Garbuz I. (Moldova), Gleizer S. (Germany), Ershina A. (Kazakhstan), Kobzev D. (Switzerland), Kohl O. (Germany), Ktshanyan M. (Armenia), Lande D. (Ukraine), Ledvanov M. (Russia), Makats V. (Ukraine), Miletic L. (Serbia), Moskovkin V. (Ukraine), Murzagaliyeva A. (Kazakhstan), Novikov A. (Ukraine), Rahimov R. (Uzbekistan), Romanchuk A. (Ukraine), Shamshiev B. (Kyrgyzstan), Usheva M. (Bulgaria), Vasileva M. (Bulgar).

Additional Information

Authors

Login to Personal account

Home / Issues / № 3, 2017

Psychology

Discussions in scientific and publicistic journals as source of study of development of psychological science in Russia in 19th century
Chuprov L.F., Kostrigin A.A.
There is great interest in the history of psychology at the present stage of the development of psychological knowledge [11; 25]. The books of the 19th century are published now, which were fundamental for that era, deep historical and psychological studies are conducted.

One of the little-studied topics is the study of the importance of journal articles and journalistic criticism in the development of psychological knowledge in the 19th century. Journal articles were a very popular place for discussions. Among the most famous magazines it can be called «Sovremennik», «Otechestvennye zapiski», «Vestnik Evropy», «Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshhenija», «Russkaja mysl», «Pravoslavnyj sobesednik», «Vera i Razum», «Universitetskie izvestija», «Voprosy filosofii i psihologii», etc.

A characteristic feature of journal criticism was that when reviewing someone's work, the author of the review / critical article revealed his own point of view, his own position; The review became an independent work and at times had a larger volume than the work on which the review was written.

Discussions had different structures: one review of someone's work; several reviews of work; "review of each subsequent article" (review of the work, article for review, article on the article, etc.); review of the work, the author's response to the review, the reviewer's response to the author's response, etc.

Here are some examples of the types of discussions we found in journalistic and scientific journals in Russia in the 19th century:

1) One review of the work: K. Uphues [26] - A.A. Kozlov [9];

2) Several reviews on the work: M.M. Troitsky [18] - M.I. Vladislavlev [2], S.S. Gogotsky [5], K.D. Kavelin [7], Vl.S. Soloviev [17];

3) Review of the work, the author's response to the review, the reviewer's answer to the author's answer: M.I. Vladislavlev [3] - A.E. Svetilin [15] - M.I. Vladislavlev [4] - A.E. Svetilin [16];

4) Review of the work and many responses to each subsequent article: P.L. Lavrov [13] - N.G. Chernyshevsky [19; 20] - P.D. Yurkevich [23] - M.N. Katkov [8] - N.G. Chernyshevsky [21] - editorial board of the journal "Otechestvennye zapiski" [6] - N.G. Chernyshevsky [22];

5) Two reviews of the work and criticism of one review by another author: G. Lewis [14] - P.D. Yurkevich [24] - M.A. Antonovich [1].

In these journal discussions, the problems of the subject matter of psychology, the methodological questions of psychological research, general psychology themes, which formed the basis for the development of psychology of the twentieth century, were considered.



References:
1. Antonovich M.A. Sovremennaja fiziologija i filosofija // Sovremennik. 1862. № 2. Pp. 227-266. (inRuss.)

2. Vladislavlev M.I. Zavisimost' nemeckoj filosofii ot anglijskoj (Popovodu sochinenija g. Troickogo: «Nemeckaja psihologija v tekushhem stoletii») // Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshhenija. 1867. Chast'. 135. Pp. 174-208. (in Russ.)

3. Vladislavlev M.I. Logika: Obozrenie induktivnyh i deduktivnyh priemov myshlenija i istoricheskie ocherki: logiki Aristotelja, sholasticheskoj dialektiki, logiki formal'noj i induktivnoj. Sankt-Peterburg, 1881. 288 p. (in Russ.)

4. Vladislavlev M.I. Otvet g-nu Svetilinu // Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshhenija. 1875. Chast' 177. Otdel II. Pp. 479-532. (in Russ.)

5. Gogockij S.S. Neskol'ko myslej po povodu sochinenija: «Nemeckaja psihologija v tekushhemstoletii, istoricheskoe i kriticheskoe issledovanie, s predvaritel'nym ocherkom uspehov psihologii vremen Bjekona i Lokka» M. Troickogo. Moskva, 1867. (in Russ.)

6. [Dudyshkin S.S.] Otechestvennye zapiski. 1861. № 8. Otdel III. Pp. 40-57. (in Russ.)

7. Kavelin K.D. Nemeckaja sovremennaja psihologija // Sobranie sochinenij: v 4 tomah. Sankt-Peterburg, 1899. - Tom 3. - Pp. 365-374. (in Russ.)

8. Katkov M.N. Starye bogi i novye bogi // Russkij Vestnik. 1861. Tom. 31. № 2. Pp. 891-904. (in Russ.)

9. Kozlov A.A. K. Uphues. Ueber die Erinnerung. Untersuchungen zur empirischen Psychologie. Leipzig, 1889 // Voprosy filosofii i psihologii. 1890. Kniga 4. Pp. 109-118. (in Russ.)

10. Kostrigin A.A., KirpichevaJu.V. Publicist M.A. Antonovich ob opredelenii ponjatija «Dusha» v «Filosofskom leksikone» (1861) filosofa S.S. Gogockogo // Istorija rossijskoj psihologii v licah: Dajdzhest. 2016. № 1. Pp. 41-54. (in Russ.)

11. Kostrigin A.A., Chuprov L.F. Mestopsihologii v sisteme filosofskih nauk v trudah russkih bogoslovov XIX v. // Nauka. Mysl'. 2015. № 2. Pp. 30-34. (in Russ.)

12. Kostrigin A.A., Mironenko I.A., Chuprov L.F. Diskussijapostat'e A. Janickogo «Stalinskaja model' nauki: istorija i sovremennost' rossijskoj psihologii» // PEM: Psychology. Educology. Medicine. 2015. № 3-4. Pp. 430-439. (in Russ.)

13. Lavrov P.L. Ocherki voprosov prakticheskoj filosofii. I. Lichnost'. Sankt-Peterburg. 1860. (in Russ.)

14. L'juis G. Fiziologijaobydennojzhizni. Moskva, 1861. 62 p. (in Russ.)

15. Svetilin A.E. Logika. Obozrenie induktivnyh i deduktivnyh priemov myshlenija i istoricheskie ocherki: Logiki Aristotelja, sholasticheskoj dialektiki, logiki formal'noj i induktivnoj M. Vladislavleva // Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshhenija. 1874. Chast' 174. Otdel. II. Pp. 284-298. (in Russ.)

16. Svetilin A.E. Po povodu «otveta» g. Vladislavleva // Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshhenija. 1875. Chast' 179. Otdel II. Pp. 175-239. (in Russ.)

17. Solov'ev Vl. Tri harakteristiki. M.M. Troickij. N.Ja. Grot. P.D. Jurkevich. // VestnikEvropy. 1900. №1. Pp. 319-335. (in Russ.)

18. Troickij M.M. Nemeckaja psihologija v tekushhem stoletii. Istoricheskoei kriticheskoe issledovanie s predvaritel'nym ocherkom uspehov psihologii v Anglii so vremen Bjekonai Lokka. - Moskva, 1867. (in Russ.)

19. Chernyshevskij N.G. Antropologicheskij princip v filosofii // Sovremennik. 1860. № 4. Pp. 329-366. (in Russ.)

20. Chernyshevskij N.G. Antropologicheskij princip v filosofii // Sovremennik. 1860. № 5. Pp. 1-46. (in Russ.)

21. Chernyshevskij N.G. Polemicheskie krasoty. Kollekcija pervaja. Krasoty, sobrannye iz «Russkogo vestnika» // Sovremennik. 1861. № 5. Pp. 447-478. (in Russ.)

22. Chernyshevskij N.G. Polemicheskie krasoty. Kollekcija vtoraja. Krasoty, sobrannyeiz «Otechestvennyh zapisok» // Sovremennik. 1861. № 7. Pp. 133-180. (in Russ.)

23. Jurkevich P.D. Iz nauki o chelovecheskom duhe // Trudy Kievskoj duhovnoj akademii. 1860. T. 4. Pp. 367-511. (in Russ.)

24. Jurkevich P.D. Jazyk fiziologov i psihologov // Russkij Vestnik. 1862. № 4. Pp. 912-934. (in Russ.)

25. Chuprov L.F., Kostrigin A.A. Position of psychology in philosophical sciences in works of Russian theologians of XIX century // International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research. 2015. № 2. P. 142.

26. Uphues K. Ueber die Erinnerung. Untersuchungenzur empirischen Psychologie. Leipzig, 1889.



Bibliographic reference

Chuprov L.F., Kostrigin A.A. Discussions in scientific and publicistic journals as source of study of development of psychological science in Russia in 19th century. International Journal Of Applied And Fundamental Research. – 2017. – № 3 –
URL: www.science-sd.com/471-25236 (17.02.2020).