The problem of the unconscious in German post-Hegelian theism, French Spiritualism, Russian religious philosophy in the context of the anthropological turn

Ezri Grigorii Konstantinovich ORCID: 0000-0001-9747-1586 Senior Lecturer; Department of Pedagogy and Psychology; Blagoveshchensk State Pedagogical University 104 Lenin str., room 341, Blagoveshchensk, Amur region, Russia, 675000 grigoriyezri@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Currently, there are no works in the scientific literature that consider the connection between the formation of a psychological interpretation of the unconscious and an anthropological turn. Also of particular interest is the study of the non-psychoanalytic tradition of studying the unconscious. An example of such a tradition is German post-Hegelian theism, French spiritualism, and Russian religious philosophy, which are an integral part of the religious philosophy of the XIX – first half of the XX century.

German post-Hegelian theism is a branch of German religious philosophical thought that originated in Germany in the 1830s. (after the death of G. Hegel). Its representatives include, in particular, G. Fechner, G. Lotze, G. Teichmuller. This term is used to describe the above-mentioned philosophical trend in their works, for example, S.V. Pishun ^[1], V.E. Lutsenko ^[2]. French spiritualism is a trend of French religious philosophy in the XIX century, the founder of which was Men de Biran, and one of the last representatives was A. Bergson (his philosophy continued the traditions of spiritualism in the form of neo-spiritualism in the first half of the XX century). The term "French spiritualism" is used in their works in particular by S.V. Pishun ^[1], I.I. Blauberg ^[3], V.E. Lutsenko ^[2]. Russian religious philosophy, as shown by A.V. Serebrennikov ^[4], existed for more than a century – from 1831 to 1951. Russian Russian neo-Leibnizianism (the so-called Yuriev school, the philosophy of which was studied in particular by A.Y. Berdnikov ^[5]), and Russian spiritual and academic theism of the XIX century are considered as parts of Russian religious philosophy. (Philosophy, which developed in Russian theological academies; studied, for example, by S.V. Pishun ^[1], V.E. Lutsenko ^[2]). In itself, the fact of the influence of the views of German post-Hegelian theists and French spiritualists on representatives of the so-called Yuriev philosophical school and domestic spiritual and academic theists is shown, including S.V. Pishun ^[1], V.E. Lutsenko ^[2], A.Y. Berdnikova ^[5]. Although it would be more accurate to talk about the reception of the views of European theists and spiritualists in Russian religious philosophy, but reception itself is a topic for another study. The issue of reflecting the philosophical views of European theists and spiritualists on the problem of the unconscious in Russian religious philosophy has not been considered in the scientific literature. Russian Russian religious philosophy, the study of German post-Hegelian theism, French spiritualism, and Russian religious philosophy in the framework of one article is based on the practice existing in the national history of philosophy of joint consideration of these areas of philosophy (the study of the influence of the European religious philosophy of the XIX century on Russian).

So, the purpose of this article is to study the problem of the unconscious in religious philosophy of the XIX – first half of the XX century (using the example of German post-Hegelian theism, French spiritualism, Russian religious philosophy) in the context of an anthropological turn. The novelty lies in the fact that the problem of psychologizing the unconscious in a historical and philosophical context as a consequence of an anthropological turn is considered on the example of religious philosophy of the XIX - first half of the XX century and models of the unconscious are retrospectively substantiated; in addition, the reflection of the doctrine of the unconscious of European theists and spiritualists in Russian religious philosophy is studied.

Theoretical and methodological basis of the study. The theoretical basis of the research was the work of M. Heidegger, in which he investigated the transition of metaphysics into anthropology. This transition can be interpreted as the essence of an anthropological turn, which will be shown below. The following methods were used to achieve the purpose of the study. The method of historical and philosophical reconstruction allowed us to consider meaningfully the interpretation of the unconscious in the religious philosophy of the XIX century. Using the system-structural method, options for understanding the unconscious and their genesis were considered. The comparative method is necessary to carry out a comparative analysis of the understanding of the unconscious in religious and psychoanalytic philosophy. The hermeneutical method is used to study philosophical texts that have been analyzed in this article.

An anthropological twist

The anthropological turn is usually attributed to the XX century. (for example ^{[6; 7]}). The situation in Western European philosophy of the 19th century was interpreted by M. Heidegger as the transition of ontology into anthropology: "Philosophy itself meanwhile managed to turn into anthropology and along the way became the prey of branches of metaphysics, i.e. physics in the broadest sense, including the physics of life and man, biology and psychology" ^{[8, p. 244]}. He characterized this phenomenon as a transition from the ontological Self to the psychological, individually substantial Self, a continuation of the process of "forgetting being". The individual subject became possible due to the psychological reflection of the personal Self, which acquired a dialogical character, which means its formation and existence only in dialogue with other Selves. In addition, as the German thinker argues, being acquired a value character – existence began to be perceived from the point of view of its value for the individual Self ^{[8; 9, p. 56]}. In many ways, M. Heidegger associated the antroologization of philosophy with the German post-Hegelian theist G. Lotze: "Value apparently assumes that people who conform to it are engaged in the most valuable things; in fact, value just turns out to be a weak and leaky cover for the lost volume and background of the objectivity of existence. ... It is necessary to pay attention, in order to clarify the XIX century, to the peculiar intermediate position of Hermann Lotze, who simultaneously reinterpreted Platonic ideas into values, and under the title "Microcosm" undertook the "Experience of Anthropology" ^{[9, p. 56]}. Thus, M. Heidegger linked the anthropologization of philosophy with German post-Hegelian theism and noted that there had been a transition to a value-based, psychological, dialogical, individually substantial interpretation of the Ego.

Continuing his discussions on the anthropologization of philosophy and the completion of metaphysics, M. Heidegger noted: "Under the heading of the theory of knowledge lies the growing fundamental inability of New European metaphysics to see its own being and its foundation. Conversations about the "metaphysics of knowledge" get bogged down in the same misunderstanding. In essence, we are talking about the metaphysics of an object, i.e., being as an object, an object for a certain subject" ^{[8, p. 234]}. In fact, a person learns not the truth of being, but the objective world around him, individual things that are perceived from the point of view of their value. Further, the German thinker argued: "The completion of metaphysics begins with the Hegelian metaphysics of absolute knowledge as the will of the spirit" ^{[8, p. 234]} and wondered: "Why is this metaphysics only the beginning of completion, and not the end? Has not absolute certainty returned to itself as absolute reality?" ^{[8, p. 234]}. The point is that in the case of transcendental and absolute idealism, there was a position of an "Absolute Subject" (in terms of G. Hegel), the results of whose cognition were universal, objective and true. For the "completion of metaphysics", it was necessary to interpret each individual as a personality-substance and the inability to carry out cognitive activity from the position of an "Absolute subject". So, if we follow the logic of M. Heidegger, the ontological (absolute) can be characterized as objective and universal, and the anthropological, psychological – as subjective and individual.

The rejection of the Absolute subject in favor of the personality-subject was carried out during the change of the pantheistic (G. Hegel et al.) paradigm to the theistic (German post-Hegelian theism) within the framework of German speculative idealism (it was the pantheistic and theistic stages in German idealism of the XIX century that V.V. Zolotukhin highlighted ^[10]). The logic is as follows: within the framework of pantheism, the identity of the Absolute and the world is assumed, therefore, individual-personal existence is assumed to be the moment of His being, the identity of the universal and individual will, the self–knowledge of the individual is the self-knowledge of the Absolute (G. Hegel called it "the cunning of the World Spirit"), the individual is illusory. In theism, the non-identity of God and the world is asserted. German post-Hegelian theists justified individual-personal existence using G. Leibniz's teaching about monads and their ability to apperception and perception: monads are capable of reflecting their individual selves, by virtue of which they are independent and are not the moment of being of the Absolute, the individual turns out to be real in this case.

If we follow the well-established opinion in philosophical science that the anthropological turn took place in the XX century, then M. Heidegger described the process preceding it. In other words, the second half of the 19th century was the time of preparation for the anthropological turn. However, we tend to do more than just consider anthropologism in the philosophy of the second half of the XIX-XX centuries. as a single process (preparation and revolution), and to attribute the anthropological turn itself to the second half of the XIX century, because it was during this period that a situation developed in philosophy in which "the question of man determines the question of being" ^{[6, p. 93]}, a sufficient ontological basis for an individually substantial study of man appeared. An individual person began to be considered outside the context of the category of "Absolute Spirit" and personalism was justified in different ways. V.S. Shilkarsky ^[11] showed this by the example of German post-Hegelian theism, and N.O. Lossky considered ways to justify it ^[12]). One should also not forget that in the fourth quarter of the 19th century, psychoanalytic philosophy also arose, in which special attention is paid to the analysis of the functioning of the human psyche, the Ego, and the unconscious. In many ways, these intentions determined the philosophical and anthropological thought of the first half of the 20th century. (in the second half of the 20th century, for example, postmodernism was born, which offered a different interpretation of man).

The essence of the psychological unconscious

N.S. Autonomova gave examples of understanding the ontological and psychological unconscious that took place in the history of philosophy ^[13]. Based on these examples, let's consider the essence of the unconscious of each of the species. Examples of the ontological unconscious: the incomprehensible essence of being; the principle that creates the world; the will underlying the world; the spiritual principle of the universe. Consequently, the ontology of the unconscious means that the unconscious is universal, connected with the existence of the world – the existence of the world manifests itself in a person and denies his individual origin. Examples of the psychological unconscious: affects and vague ideas; imperceptible perceptions; the principle of free human activity; intuitive ideas and perceptions. The psychological nature of the unconscious shows its individual character, as well as the lack of connection with any external force and the existence of the world. The unconscious of a person is self-sufficient and exists ontologically independently of the unconscious of other people and the world. Thus, one of the essential points of the concept of the unconscious is the definition of its character (ontological or psychological). Without understanding this, it is impossible to define the unconscious.

In any definition of the unconscious, it is assumed that a person is capable of performing any actions, thinking, feeling without conscious control, awareness. But the difference lies in whether consciousness or the unconscious plays a primary role in the structure of personality. Some philosophers (G. Leibniz, F. Beneke, G. Lotze, G. Fechner, etc.) believed that consciousness dominates in the human personality, although the activity of the unconscious is characterized by a lack of conscious regulation and control, the involuntary occurrence and course of mental processes, their irresponsibility and complete disappearance from memory. Other philosophers (A. Schopenhauer, E. von Hartmann, 3. Freud, etc.) believed that the unconscious is the main and primary regulator of human actions in social reality ^[14]. Thus, another basic basis of the concept of the unconscious is its role, its place in the structure of the human personality. Depending on the definition of its location, different definitions are possible.

Also, thinkers who studied the problem of the unconscious gave different answers to the question of the existence of God, the ideal beginning of the world and its interaction with man. A. Schopenhauer and E. von Hartmann from pantheistic positions determined the essence of the interaction of the Absolute and man – the universal impersonal unconscious manifests itself through people. Z. Freud adhered to atheistic views, in his teaching man As a person, he is presented as a self-sufficient and unconsciously determined being. And, for example, G. Leibniz, G. Lotze, G. Teichmuller believed that God and people are personal and ontologically self-sufficient beings, God exists ontologically independently of the unconscious. Thus, the third essential point of the concept of the unconscious is the answer to the question of the nature of human interaction with the world and its ideal and material origin. In other words, it is necessary to solve the problem of man's place in the world.

Continuing to explore the essence of the unconscious, it should also be noted that the ontological unconscious and the ontology of the unconscious are non–identical concepts. Otherwise, the first and third questions become almost identical. Clarifying the nature of the unconscious (ontological or psychological) immediately implies an appropriate ontology. In this sense, and in the case of understanding the unconscious as psychological, an ontology is assumed that takes this circumstance into account. For example, I.V. Danilevsky considered the human psyche and the unconscious from the standpoint of philosophical anthropology and justified his own version of the ontology of the unconscious ^[15]. At the same time, the researcher was not interested in the problems of the essence (psychological or ontological) of the unconscious. And V.V. Buzadzhi carried out an explication of the ontological approach to the problem of consciousness and the unconscious ^[16]. Thus, a distinction was made between psychological and ontological approaches to the problem of the unconscious.

That is, the ontological self-sufficiency of a personality is possible only if the unconscious is recognized as having a psychological character, otherwise the personality turns out to be actually a weak-willed conductor of the will of the pantheistic Absolute. This is the anthropological significance of the psychological unconscious – it is one of the guarantors of ontological self-sufficiency, the substantiality of personality. The personality is ontologically guaranteed the individuality of its will, freedom of thought and feeling. The psychological unconscious is ontologically connected with the individual-substantial Self. Only such a Self can have something that it has not been realized and has not been subjected to reflection. In this case, the psychologization of the unconscious is a consequence of an anthropological turn.

So, the definition of the unconscious, as shown above, depends on three circumstances. First, what is the nature of the unconscious – ontological or psychological. Secondly, what dominates the personality and controls human activity in the first place – consciousness or the unconscious. Thirdly, what is the place of man in the world, how does man interact with the world, what is the nature of man's interaction with the Absolute, or is His existence not recognized. Based on the answers to the questions posed by the three essential points in understanding the unconscious, it is necessary to conclude that there are three models of the unconscious. First. The unconscious is ontological, the unconscious has a universal and objective character, an impersonal force of nature manifests itself in man (the Absolute is pantheistic), which has ontological primacy over any individual principle. The unconscious determines a person's actions, thoughts and feelings, because it is a manifestation of the power of the pantheistic God. The individual is eliminated in favor of the universal. The second one. The unconscious is psychological, the unconscious of every person is self-sufficient and subjective, the Super-being and man are personalities, God does not impose his will through the unconscious. Consciousness dominates the unconscious. Such a situation is possible within the framework of theistic philosophy. Third. The unconscious is psychological, the unconscious of each person is self-sufficient and subjective, atheism is postulated, the unconscious determines the external and internal life of the individual. This model is typical for psychoanalytic philosophy.

Thus, the psychological unconscious is a part of the personality, which is based on the individual-substantial Self. By its nature, the Self is not unconscious or conscious, it attributes experiences and perceptions to a specific subject. The psychological unconscious is that part of the inner life of the personality that is experienced by the Ego, but is not realized by it.

The Unconscious in German post-Hegelian Theism, French Spiritualism

German theists and French Spiritualists of the 19th century . As heirs of the tradition of Augustine the Blessed and Leibniz, they were interested in the problems of the individual Self and its reflection. Augustine justified personalistic psychology, which is based on the recognition of the self-reliance of inner experience and self-awareness as the only source of the concept of spiritual substance. Leibniz made spiritualist psychology the basis of spiritualist ontology ^{[11, pp. 340-342]}. European theists continued their research, systematizing spiritualist philosophy and substantiating personalism.

G. Fechner ^[17] believed that individual consciousness is formed in the process of reflection of the unconscious, after which an individual human Self appears. He defended the primacy of the conscious over the unconscious in the human personality. Exploring the unconscious, he used a natural science method – experiment. He understood the unconscious as the result of processes that are insufficient to cause real sensations, because they are below the threshold of perception. This position was followed by other German theists. He believed that without the participation of thinking, generalizing processes in perception and sensation take place – "unconscious conclusions". That is, in this case, the unconscious, like the entire human personality, is self-sufficient.

A clear and consistent position was taken by G. Lotze and G. Teichmuller. In their philosophy, the pre-reflexive Self appears (in fact, the same as the unconscious Self), which is the ontological guarantor of the individual character of human existence as a person. The pre-reflexive Self of G. Lotze's philosophy is represented as the initial self-awareness given in the form of well-being. Well-being forms the necessary basis for self-awareness and self-knowledge ^{[11, p. 280]}. The self, the essence of any personality, consists in a direct being-for-oneself, a direct feeling of well-being, which makes possible the juxtaposition of Self and non-Self. At the same time, there is no need for reflection to adjoin feeling or consciousness, the foundation of the self ^{[18, p. 126]}. That is, the Ego can remain on a pre-reflexive unconscious level, in which case it retains an immediate character.

As shown by G. Teichmuller, the Ego can be located both in a person's consciousness and in his unconscious. This state of affairs is connected with the third kind of being ("Being in itself", or "Self"), which is the main condition of knowledge: its essence is not in knowledge, but in the production of the condition of knowledge (while it is active, self-knowledge occurs, when inactive, the Ego disappears into the unconscious) ^{[5, pp. 38-48]}. Characterizing the essence of the unconscious, G. Teichmuller noted: "So all our thoughts that we can remember are always in us unconsciously, although they do not come to our memory at the moment. In this way, our past feelings and past deeds unconsciously constitute our property. This is our character, our faith and hope, the whole structure of our soul; for all this is rarely present in conscious thinking, but still constitutes the ever-present soul of all actions in us, only in an unconscious way" ^{[19, p. 90]}. So, the German theist showed the dynamic nature of the interaction of the conscious and unconscious in the human personality, the importance of the unconscious in human activity, the individuality and subjectivity of the functioning of the unconscious. He connected the unconscious with memory, referring to the area of the unconscious the forgotten, that which cannot be remembered or is possible, but with great effort. In this regard, the conclusion made by G. Teichmuller looks logical: "The function of the soul, which captures the most extensive area, is in unconscious existence" ^{[19, p. 91]}.

The French spiritualist Men de Biran attributed dreams during dreams and automatic actions during wakefulness to the realm of the unconscious. To explain the constancy of the Ego during sleep or unconsciousness, he introduced the concept of "soul", which cannot be known and is an object of faith ^[20]. That is, this European religious philosopher of the XIX century adhered to the psychological interpretation of the unconscious. He assigned the dominant role in personality to consciousness – the individual Self and its reflection, the inner effort that the Self makes when interacting with the non-Self.

A. Bergson also recognized the existence of the unconscious. He proposed to distinguish consciousness in philosophical and psychological senses: "a psychological state cannot, as it seems to us, cease to be conscious without thereby ceasing to exist at all. But in psychological terms, it is not a synonym for existence, but for real action or immediate readiness for action, and with such a limitation of the limits of this term, it is not so difficult to imagine an unconscious – that is, ultimately inactive – psychological state" (^{[21, p. 554]}). But, despite the inactivity of the unconscious, if necessary, it can be extracted from memory and compared with the present perception. Thus, the ideas about the unconscious of the neo-spiritualist A. Bergson are close to the views of the German post-Hegelian theists. In his understanding, the unconscious also has a psychological character, and consciousness ontologically and psychologically dominates the unconscious. He connected the unconscious, like the German post-Hegelian theists, with the forgotten, i.e., with memory. The French neo-spiritualist also has an Absolute in his philosophy, as he showed, for example, in his work "Two Sources of Morality and Religion" ^[22]. In addition, N.S. Autonomova showed that from the point of view of A. Bergson, intuitive ideas and perceptions belong to the unconscious ^[13]. This formulation of the question suggests that intuition also refers to unconscious phenomena.

The Unconscious in Russian Religious Philosophy

According to B.V. Yemelyanov, Russian philosophy can be called human studies ^[23]. Indeed, Russian philosophy was characterized by personalism and the study of various approaches to solving human problems, and questions related to the unconscious also aroused interest.

N.A. Berdyaev ^[24], G. Teichmuller's followers – neo-Leibnizians of the Yuriev philosophical school (for example, ^{[5; 25]}), Orthodox personologists (for example, Mikhail Gribanovsky ^[26]) showed direct interest in the problem of the unconscious. However, this does not mean that Russian thinkers did not study the problems of the unconscious in a different terminology. A.A. Andreev showed by the example of the teachings of V.S. Solovyov and F.M. Dostoevsky that the Russian pre-revolutionary philosophers "Considering the unconscious in philosophical and religious aspects ... showed its metaphysical and spiritual depth. ... Russian philosophers explored the unconscious in the full context of the human spiritual world, which includes all possible aspects of human existence. Thus, they made a great contribution to the cognition of the unconscious" ^{[27, p. 65]}. Thus, in Russian philosophy, the unconscious was studied within the framework of moral discourse on the basis of idealistic philosophy. However, this circumstance does not exhaust the depth of comprehension of the unconscious by Russian religious philosophers.

N.A. Berdyaev defined consciousness as an intuitive action of the human Self, as a result of which there is awareness of oneself and the distinction between Self and non-Self. In defining the essence of the unconscious, the Russian thinker agreed with C.G. Jung: the unconscious is an unconscious mental process, i.e. such a content of the psyche that is not perceived by the Ego. In the structure of the unconscious, N.A. Berdyaev distinguished the preconscious (unconscious in lower forms) and the superconscious (the highest part of the unconscious). Considering the problem of psychology of the unconscious, the Russian thinker mentioned the French spiritualists P. Janet, F. Ravesson, A. Bergson, as well as the Russian writer F. Dostoevsky, and not only the "classics" of psychoanalytic philosophy. Freud, K. Jung, A. Adler, noting the great contribution of each of the above-listed thinkers to the development of this field of knowledge ^{[24, pp. 74-86]}. Researcher T.I. Barmashov noted that the teaching of the Russian philosopher on the issue of interaction between conscious and unconscious is dialectical in nature (the dynamics of ascent from unconsciousness to consciousness, in the pursuit of perfection, in approaching the Super-Existent), shows the unity of conscious and unconscious within the human personality. The unconscious is considered as a self-sufficient entity and is associated with memory (an active repository of information in which its selection is performed) ^{[28, pp. 182-195]}. Thus, N.A. Berdyaev considered the unconscious as a psychological phenomenon associated with memory and unconscious mental processes, argued that in the dialectic of consciousness and the unconscious there is a process of awareness and ascension to God.

The Russian neo-Leibnizian L.M. Lopatin considered the problem of the unconscious psyche to be serious. He considered unconscious mental processes as a process of the constant emergence of mental formations that exist outside and in addition to consciousness, are not realized (fully or partially) and have a subjective content. Unconscious mental work, according to the Russian philosopher, is found in the following phenomena: memory, imagination, unconscious mental processes, unaccountable inspiration and insight. The interaction of the conscious and unconscious is possible due to the existence of the conscious Self (connected to the brain) and the higher Self (not biologically). The Higher Self is a creative and formative principle for consciousness. L.M. Lopatin explained the effect of the unconscious on consciousness by the peculiarities of the interaction of spiritual and bodily monads – monads are able to mutually reflect each other's inner content ^{[25, pp. 171-178]}. The Russian philosopher was also interested in the problem of the passage of finite beings from Absolute substance ^{[29, p. 264]}. Thus, L.M. Lopatin defends in fact the same understanding of the unconscious as European theists and spiritualists and other Russian religious philosophers.

L.M. Lopatin's position is complemented by the postulation of the ontological primacy of consciousness over the unconscious neo-Leibnizian of the Yuriev school A.A. Kozlov. L.M. Lopatin and A.A. Kazlov argued that there is no area of being in which there would be no psyche, therefore, there is absolutely no unconscious. P.E. Astafyev, a domestic follower of G. Teichmuller, insisted on this point of view, who did not agree with the doctrine of the "unconscious will" of A. Schopenhauer and E. von Hartmann ^{[5, pp. 66, 69, 102-103]}. So, Russian religious philosophers denied the idea of the ontological unconscious, denying the idea of the absolutely unconscious and the "unconscious will", asserting the absence of such a place in existence where there would be no psyche, therefore, and consciousness.

Characterizing the attitude of the philosophers of the Yuriev school about the boundary between the conscious and the unconscious, V.S. Shilkarsky argued that "it is impossible to draw a fundamental boundary between conscious and unconscious mental life: in essence, they are the same thing, differing from each other only in degree of intensity" ^{[11, p. 318]}. That is, G. Fechner's idea of the threshold of perception was accepted.

The Russian spiritual and academic theists of the XIX century, who thought in the same monadological-substantial discourse, justified Orthodox personology ^[1]. Within its framework, the possibility of the existence of the unconscious was also justified. Mikhail Gribanovsky argued that "The existence and independence of unconscious mental processes are obvious to everyone: that unconscious acts occur in us is a generally recognized fact" ^{[26, p. 187]}. Speaking about the boundaries of the unconscious, he argued that "Volitional movements in most cases are performed unconsciously: the process of walking, etc., is performed unconsciously, and yet it is the movement of our will. Thus, the facts show that there are unconscious mental processes of mind, feeling and will in a person" ^{[26, pp. 187-188]}. Considering the boundary between the conscious and the unconscious, Mikhail Gribanovsky came to the following conclusion: "If we look into our consciousness, we will see that it cannot be deduced in any way from unconscious mental movements. It is impossible to find a limit in our mental life, where it was possible to indicate the source of our consciousness, where the mind, feeling and will are illuminated by consciousness. ... If we look from a metaphysical point of view, we will also see that there is no way to take our self-consciousness out of mental processes" ^{[26, p. 188]}. Continuing this thought, he reproduced G. Fechner's statement without reference to it – unconscious phenomena are realized when they reach a certain strength, intensity. But this state of affairs does not mean the origin of consciousness from the unconscious, but suggests that in order to realize any content of the psyche, the sensation must grow to a certain level of intensity ^{[26, p. 188]}. The Russian theist called G. Leibniz the founder of the doctrine of the unconscious ^{[26, p. 186]}. Mikhail Gribanovsky also explored the interaction of God and man within the framework of theistic discourse. Thus, the Russian religious philosopher asserted the independence of consciousness and self-consciousness from the unconscious, the impossibility of deducing the first from the second. Despite the assertion of the superiority of the conscious over the unconscious, he emphasized the importance of the unconscious for the individual.

Thus, in German post-Hegelian theism, French spiritualism and Russian religious philosophy, a model of the unconscious was studied, suggesting that the unconscious has a psychological character, it is self-sufficient and subjective within the framework of a human personality, a Perfect Being does not impose its will through the unconscious. The conscious psychologically takes precedence over the unconscious within the framework of the human personality. The possibility of reflection, which makes it possible to realize the content of the unconscious, was emphasized. Moreover, the unconscious was investigated with the help of psychophysiological experiments, its existence was an indisputable fact for German post-Hegelian theists. The boundary between the conscious and the unconscious was determined by the intensity of the sensation, the experience. Fechner's idea was adopted by other German theists, Russian spiritual and academic theists and neo-Leibnizians of the Yuriev school. The idea of the individual-substantial Self was received by Russian religious philosophers from German theism, which made it possible to analyze the unconscious in neo-Leibnizian categories.

The Unconscious in Religious and psychoanalytic philosophy (comparative analysis)

Psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic philosophy – the direction of philosophical and psychological thought, as well as the doctrine of man and the practice of psychological counseling (however, such practice is not the subject of this article), which arose in the XIX century and are changing to the present day. Representatives of psychoanalytic philosophy have not formed a common doctrine about man and his psyche, personality, culture, etc. It is not possible to talk about the whole of psychoanalysis in one article due to the complexity and diversity of concepts and ideas of psychoanalysts. However, one can try to consider more or less well-established positions that are more or less common to all psychoanalysis. But even with this approach, as the author is aware, the conclusions he comes to will be rather and for the most part his opinion than the generally accepted opinion, although his opinion will be based on the texts of primary sources on psychoanalysis and the results of a number of studies on the problems of psychoanalytic philosophical anthropology.

There is still no clear opinion in the scientific literature on the religious and psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious. Let's consider several points of view. V.M. Leibin in his work "Psychoanalysis and Religion" ^{[30, pp. 192-196]} showed that there are differences between religious and psychoanalytic thinking that determine the difference in interpretations of the unconscious. First, psychoanalysis considers religious experience as psychopathology, exploring the unconscious motives of religious people. For example, Z. Freud identified religiosity with obsessive-compulsive neurosis and an illusion that must be overcome. Secondly, the problem of mental determinism. From a religious point of view, a person is self–determined and free to choose, and from a psychoanalytic point of view, the behavior of an individual is strictly determined by the unconscious. Thirdly, the question of teleology and causality. Religious thinking is based on teleology, and psychoanalytic thinking is based on the causality of an individual's behavior. However, as V.M. Leibin noted, contradictions soften over time. Firstly, religious experience reflects the dynamics of personality development, similar in spirit to psychoanalysis. Secondly, modern psychoanalysts soften Freud's ideas about determinism. Thirdly, modern psychoanalysts focus not on the causality of an individual's behavior, but on the semantic orientation of the personality ^{[30, pp. 192-196]}. Similar views can be found among modern Western researchers, in particular ^{[31, pp. 537-552; 32; 33]}.

Thus, it is necessary to talk about mitigating the contradiction between the religious and psychoanalytic interpretation of the unconscious, and not about overcoming it. Fundamental contradictions have not been eliminated – the religious and philosophical understanding of the unconscious presupposes the primacy of consciousness over the unconscious, the interaction of a Perfect Being and a person, orientation towards moral values. These characteristics are not elements of a psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious.

How do the determinism of human actions by the unconscious and the freedom of the human personality relate? How true is this opposition from the point of view of psychoanalytic philosophy? This contrast is not entirely true. Freedom in psychoanalysis is precisely the ability to manifest the unconscious part of the psyche, first of all – desires, needs, feelings. So Z. Freud argued that culture suppresses the natural component of human existence, in other words, being cultured, civilized requires limitations in the realization of unconscious impulses. F. Freud also believed that it is necessary to accept the situation as it is and try to find a way out in the current situation. Such a solution, in his opinion, is sublimation – the manifestation of unconscious impulses in a socially acceptable form, primarily in the format of creative activity ^{[34; 35]}. However, psychoanalysts cannot agree on the nature of unconscious impulses. For example, Z. Freud believed that we are talking primarily about sexual energy ^{[34; 35]}. A. Adler, in turn, insisted on the aggressive nature of such energy ^[36]. And K.G. Jung believed that we are talking about mental energy in general, which initially has a creative rather than any other character ^[37]. J. Lacan, characterizing the essence of the unconscious, developed the concept of "desire", i.e. showed that the unconscious strives to realize the need to get something that the personality does not have at the moment ^[38]. Other positions can be cited, but in all cases we are talking about impulses that originate in the unconscious and are not controlled by consciousness until the moment of their realization.

Within the framework of this study, it seems problematic due to the limited scope of its scope to consider the structure and boundaries of personality, the ratio of conscious and unconscious, the possibility of awareness of the unconscious in psychoanalytic philosophy. It is also not possible to identify the nuances of various interpretations of the concepts of "consciousness", "conscious", "personality". All these issues need a separate study, which will allow us to explore more deeply the essence of changes in the understanding of personality and the unconscious in the philosophy of the XIX century.

When comparing the interpretation of the unconscious in religious philosophy and psychoanalysis, P.S. Gurevich took the Jungian version of the unconscious as a basis, concluding that the two understandings were close. K.G. Jung included God in his teaching about the unconscious and was able to explain mystical experience within the framework of his theory without analyzing internal conflicts. The integral character of the personality is emphasized as the unity of its conscious and unconscious components. Both traditions involve an appeal to the transpersonal principle, which gives rise to the universality of personality and reveals its purpose, which determines the personal status of a person. These provisions are reflected in the Russian religious philosophy and psychology of C.G. Jung ^[39]. Thus, the psychoanalytic interpretation of a person can explain the personal nature of human existence, but is not able to abandon the thesis of the dominance of the unconscious in the structure of personality, although emphasis is placed on the unity of the conscious and unconscious in the structure of personality.

The unity of the conscious and unconscious components of personality in Jungian philosophy and psychology is largely determined by the formation of the Ego-Self axis. K.G. Jung studied the interaction of the conscious and unconscious both on examples from his analytical practice ^[40] and on the plots of myths of the peoples of the world ^[41]. He showed how to discover the Self as the highest part of the unconscious in the projections of the inner world of the personality on reality. In a similar way, through projections of the unconscious into the external world from the point of view of personal existence, the modern psychoanalyst N. McWilliams also proposed to explore the inner world of personality ^[42]. Only she talked about exploring the unconscious roots of a person's character, and K.G. Jung talked about finding the meaning of life and the purpose of a person.

E.M. Spirova also paid attention to the problem of the correlation of religious-philosophical and psychoanalytic interpretation of the unconscious. She showed the difficulty of defining the essence of the soul due to the fact that many meanings are embedded in this concept and no interpretation is complete, taking into account all the meanings. The researcher also showed that the concept of "soul" went through the process of desacralization and was replaced by the terms "psyche", "consciousness", "self-awareness", "mind", "information", having lost its sacred meaning and connection with the Super-Being ^[43]. The researcher also studied the symbolic aspect of the existence of the unconscious, showing the possibility of interpreting the unconscious using the symbols it uses. At the same time, the symbols correspond to culture, and therefore are universal ^[44]. A similar interpretation of symbols can be found in Russian religious philosophy, in which they help to spiritually master the world and can also be interpreted ^[45]. So, the religious-philosophical and psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious presuppose the possibility of a symbolic reading of the unconscious, which becomes relevant in the context of the desacralization of the existence of the soul.

N.N. Rostova actualized the following problem: "Is the feeling of God evidence of a person's awareness, or, on the contrary, of his unconsciousness? The Russian philosophical tradition tends to the first answer to this question. The Western philosophical tradition – to the second" ^{[45, p. 153]}. The Western tradition assumes that unconsciousness is a condition of religion, because the sacred is produced by unconscious mechanisms of repression and disgust. In this way, it is possible to displace violence. The Russian tradition presupposes the conscious nature of religious faith, the education of the mind through conversion to God. The absolute can only be accepted freely – one of the main postulates. Limited human subjectivity finds its fullness in interaction with God ^{[46, pp. 153-159]}. So, in this case, the psychoanalytic interpretation of the unconscious with its protective mechanisms and the religious-philosophical one with its idea of awareness and free acceptance of morality and morality are contrasted. The latter are the conditions of interaction with a Perfect Being.

A.A. Andreev contrasted the interpretations of the understanding of the unconscious in Russian religious philosophy and psychoanalysis. Russian philosophers revealed the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of the unconscious, showed its various manifestations in human life and depth. The psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious is characterized by fragmentation, physicalism and reductionism ^{[27, pp. 64-65]}. Thus, in this case, it is emphasized that the religious and philosophical understanding of the unconscious presupposes the interaction of God and man, but while preserving the freedom and ontological self-sufficiency of man, and the basis of the psychoanalytic concept of the unconscious is its dominance in the structure of personality, while the unconscious is understood purely materialistically.

Sh. Ferenczi compared views on the unconscious Z. Freud with the teachings of G. Lotze. He found several similarities. Firstly, Z. Freud and G. Lotze believed that not all previous memories are constantly in consciousness, but they can appear in it without an external stimulus. Secondly, the psyche does not annul the idea imposed on it, but transforms it from a conscious perception into an unconscious state. Thirdly, representations and perceptions are not just born in the psyche, but are lived as states of pleasure or displeasure, depending on the values of a person, in this sense, the "pure psychology" of consciousness has a shaky character. Fourthly, awareness is not an obligatory quality of the mental, the content of the psyche is unconscious for itself, a person is guided by the principle of pleasure. Fifth, the problem of the objectifying role of introjection and projection, the individual begins to distinguish between his Self and the objective world, recognition of the value (pleasure) of this distinction. Sixth, a person is able to expand his spiritual essence beyond the boundaries of the body, in other words, the Ego absorbs some part of the external world ^{[47, pp. 197-201]}.

Thus, religious philosophers and psychoanalysts recognize the self-sufficiency of the unconscious, its personal, subjective, psychological character. Religious philosophy considers consciousness as the dominant part of the personality, and psychoanalytic – the unconscious. Religious philosophy recognizes the free will of man, and from the point of view of psychoanalysis, man is determined by his unconscious. However, the latter does not mean that a person is not free from the point of view of psychoanalysis – in religious philosophy, human freedom is associated with conscious activity, consciousness, conscious choice, and in psychoanalytic philosophy - with the unconscious, with a person's ability to spontaneity, expression of unconscious impulses, feelings, desires, needs (preferably in a socially acceptable form, through sublimation for example). From the point of view of religious philosophy, the interaction of a Perfect Being and a person is assumed, and within the framework of psychoanalytic philosophy, the interaction of a person with his unconscious on symbolic and archetypal levels.

Conclusion

In the 19th century, there was a significant change in philosophy in understanding the nature of the human personality. The spiritualistic psychology and ontology of Augustine and Leibniz became the basis of the personalistic perception of human existence. Personality began to be considered as an individual-substantial Self of a psychological nature. The metaphysical paradigm has been replaced by the anthropological one. This circumstance actualized Leibniz's monadology and his doctrine of unconscious perception within the framework of neo-Leibnizianism. On this basis, within the framework of religious philosophy of the 19th century, there was a change in the understanding of the interaction of man and the world, which made it possible to describe the interaction of man and a Perfect Being in substantial monadological terms. The doctrine of the Absolute of the Hegel model (the Absolute as universal Reason dictating its will to people and the world) or Schopenhaur (the Absolute as the World Will of an unconscious nature governing man) was replaced by the theistic one, assuming a personal God and man as an ontologically self-sufficient personality. German post-Hegelian theists, French spiritualists, and Russian religious philosophers built their philosophical teachings within the framework of an individual-substantial discourse. The psychologization of the being of the Self and the formation of psychology as an empirical science in the works of Fechner (psychophysics) made it possible to study the conscious and unconscious within the framework of the human personality. Fechner's teaching on the threshold of perception became the basis for defining the boundary between the conscious and the unconscious in German theism and Russian religious philosophy. Also in the 19th century, psychoanalysis appeared, which was based on the doctrine of the individual psychological Self, but denied the existence of a Perfect Being. The correlation of the conscious and the unconscious was also of interest to psychoanalytic philosophy. Religious philosophers considered consciousness to be the dominant part of the personality, while psychoanalytic philosophers considered the unconscious. So, the main trend in the study of the nature of the unconscious in the 19th century was the replacement of the ontological paradigm of its consideration with a psychological one, which led to the assertion of the individual unconscious. The paradigm shift took place within the framework of an anthropological turn.

Issues related to the psychologization of the interpretation of personality in the history of philosophy require additional research. As is the problem of the psychological unconscious. Special attention should also be paid to the study of the importance of the formation of psychology as an independent science. In other words, it is necessary to consider the history of philosophy of the XIX-XX centuries. not just from an anthropological, but from a personalistic, personal point of view, i.e. to explore the contribution of thinkers to the philosophy of an individual, ontologically independent personality, I. The use of the term "anthropological turn" in the Heideggerian sense in such studies on the history of philosophical anthropology is quite convenient from a theoretical and methodological point of view points of view. But the trend itself is an increase in the attention of philosophers of the XIX – first half of the XX centuries. to the human personality, the formation of personalism and the psychologization of personality can be considered outside the context of the concept of an "anthropological turn", but in this case it will need another term to denote this historical and philosophical process. However, the author believes that he managed to show the connection between the anthropological turn (or its formation) with the psychologization of the unconscious in Russian and European religious philosophy of the XIX – first half of the XX centuries. And if it was really possible to show such a connection, it means that the logic of the historical development of philosophical anthropology in the XX century was clarified – the historical and philosophical foundation of these processes was determined (the foundation was laid in the XIX century).