Johann Friedrich Herbart

Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841) was a German philosopher, psychologist, and founder of pedagogy as an academic discipline.

He was born at Oldenburg. After studying under Fichte at Jena he gave his first philosophical lectures at Göttingen around 1805, whence he removed in 1809 to occupy the chair formerly held by Kant at Königsberg. Here he also established and conducted a seminary of pedagogy till 1833, when he returned once more to Göttingen, and remained there as professor of philosophy till his death.

Philosophy, according to Herbart, begins with reflection upon our empirical conceptions, and consists in the reformation and elaboration of these, its three primary divisions being determined by as many distinct forms of elaboration. Logic, which stands first, has to render our conceptions and the judgments and reasonings arising from them clear and distinct. But some conceptions are such that the more distinct they are made the more contradictory their elements become; so to change and supplement these as to make them at length thinkable is the problem of the second part of philosophy, or metaphysics. There is still a class of conceptions requiring more than a logical treatment, but differing from the last in not involving latent contradictions, and in being independent of the reality of their objects, the conceptions that embody our judgments of approval and disapproval; the philosophic treatment of these conceptions falls to Aesthetic.

In Herbart's writings logic receives comparatively meagre notice; he insisted strongly on its purely formal character, and expressed himself in the main at one with Kantians such as Fries and Krug.

As a metaphysician he starts from what he terms the higher scepticism of the Hume-Kantian sphere of thought, the beginnings of which he discerns in Locke's perplexity about the idea of substance. By this scepticism the real validity of even the forms of experience is called in question on account of the contradictions they are found to involve. And yet that these forms are given to us, as truly as sensations are, follows beyond doubt when we consider that we are as little able to control the one as the other. To attempt at this stage a psychological inquiry into the origin of these conceptions would be doubly a mistake; for we should have to use these unlegitimated conceptions in the course of it, and the task of clearing up their contradictions would still remain, whether we succeeded in our enquiry or not. But how are we to set about this task? We have given to us a conception A uniting among its constituent marks two that prove to be contradictory, say M and N; and we can neither deny the unity nor reject one of the contradictory members. For to do either is forbidden by experience; and yet to do nothing is forbidden by logic. We are thus driven to the assumption that the conception is contradictory because incomplete; but how are we to supplement it? What we have must point the way to what we want, or our procedure will be arbitrary. Experience asserts that M is the same (i.e. a mark of the same concept) as N, while logic denies it; and soit being impossible for one and the same M to sustain these contradictory positions there is but one way open to us; we must posit several Ms. But even now we cannot say one of these Ms is the same as N, another is not; for every M must be both thinkable and valid. We may, however, take the Ms not singly but together; and again, no other course being open to us, this is what we must do; we must assume that N results from a combination of Ms. This is Herbart's method of relations, the counterpart in his system of the Hegelian dialectic.

In the Ontology this method is employed to determine what in reality corresponds to the empirical conceptions of substance and cause, or rather of inherence and change. But first we must analyse this notion of reality itself, to which our scepticism had already led us, for, though we could doubt whether the given is what it appears, we cannot doubt that it is something; the conception of the real thus consists of the two conceptions of being and quality. That which we arc compelled to posit, which cannot be sublated, is that which is, and in the recognition of this lies the simple conception of being. But when is a thing thus posited? When it is posited as we are wont to posit the things we see and taste and handle. If we were without sensations, i.e. were never bound against our will to endure the persistence of a presentation, we should never know what being is. Keeping fast hold of this idea of absolute position, Herbart leads us next to the quality of the real:

1. This must exclude everything negative; for non-A sublates instead of positing, and is not absolute, but relative to A.
2. The real must be absolutely simple; for if it Contain two determinations, A and B, then either these are reducible to one, which is the true quality, or they are not, when each is conditioned by the other and their position is no longer absolute.
3. All quantitative conceptions are excluded, for quantity implies parts, and these are incompatible with simplicity.
4. But there may be a plurality of reals, albeit the mere conception of being can tell us nothing as to this. The doctrine here developed is the first cardinal point of Herbart's system, and has obtained for it the name of pluralistic realism.

The contradictions he finds in the common-sense conception of inherence, or of a thing with several attributes, will now become obvious. Let us take some thing, say A, having n attributes, a, b, c ...: we are forced to posit each of these because each is presented in intuition. But in conceiving A we make, not n positions, still less n+f positions, but one position simply; for common sense removes the absolute position from its original source, sensation. So when we ask, What is the one posited? we are toldthe possessor of a, b, c or in other words, their seat or substance. But if so, then A, as a real, being simple, must = a; similarly it must = b; and so on. Now this would be possible if a, b, c ... were but contingent aspects of A, as e.g. √64, 4+3+1 are contingent aspects of 8. Such, of course, is not the case, and so we have as many contradictions as there are attributes; for we must say A is a, is not a, is b, is not b, &c. There must then, according to the method of relations, be several As. For a let us assume Ai+Ai+Ai ...; for b, A2+A,+Ai ...; and so on for the rest. But now what relation can there be among these several As, which will restore to us the unity of our original A or substance? There is but one; we must assume that the first A of every series is identical, just as the centre is the same point in every radius. By way of concrete illustration Herbart instances the common observation that the properties of things exist only under external conditions. Bodies, we say, are coloured, but color is nothing without light, and nothing without eyes. They sound, but only in a vibrating medium, and for healthy ears. Colour and tone present the appearance of inherence, but on looking closer we find they are not really immanent in things but rather presuppose a communion among several. The result then is briefly thus: In place of the one absolute position, which in some unthinkable way the common understanding substitutes for the absolute positions of the n attributes, we have really a series of two or more positions for each attribute, every series, however, beginning with the same (as it were, central) real (hence the unity of substance in a group of attributes), but each being continued by different reals (hence the plurality and difference of attributes in unity of substance). Where there is the appearance of inherence, therefOre, there is always a plurality of reals; no such correlative to substance as attribute or accident can be admitted at all. Substantiality is impossible without causality, and to this as its true correlative we now turn.

The common-sense conception of change involves at bottom the same contradiction of opposing qualities in one real. The same A that was a, b, c ... becomes a, b, d ...; and this, which experience thrusts upon us, proves on reflection unthinkable. The metaphysical supplementing is also fundamentally as before. Since c depended on a series of reals A,+A3+A, ... in connection with A, and d may be said similarly to depend on a series A4+A4+A4 ..., then the change from c to d means, not that the central real A or any real has changed, but that A is now in connection with A4, etc., and no longer in connection with Af, etc.

But to think a number of reals in connection (Zusammenseiz) will not suffice as an explanation of phenomena; something or other must happen when they are in connection; what is it? The answer to this question is the second hinge-point of Herbart's theoretical philosophy. What actually happens as distinct from all that seems to happen, when two reals A and B are together is that, assuming them to differ in quality, they tend to disturb each other to the extent of that difference, at the same time that each preserves itself intact by resisting, as it were, the others disturbance. And so by coining into connection with different reals the self-preservations of A will vary accordingly, A remaining the same through all; just as, by way of illustration, hydrogen remains the same in water and in ammonia, or as the same line may be now a normal and now a tangent. But to indicate this opposition in the qualities of the reals A+B, we must substitute for these symbols others, which, though only contingent aspects of A and B, i.e. representing their relations, not themselves, yet like similar devices in mathematics enable thought to advance. Thus we may put A= a + j,~ -y, B m +n +y; ~y then represents the character of the selfpreservations in this case, and a+13+m+n represents all that could be observed by a spectator who did not know the simple qualities, but was hilnself involved in the relations of A to B; and such is exactly our position.

Having thus determined what really is and what actually happens, our philosopher proceeds next to explain synthetically the objective semblance (der objective Schein) that results from these. But if this onstruction is to be truly objective, i.e. valid for all intelligences, ontology must furnish us with a clue. This we have in the forms of Space, Time and Motion which are involved whenever we think the reals as being in, or coming into, connection and the opposite. These forms then cannot be merely the products of our psychological mechanism, though they may turn out to coincide with these. Meanwhile let us call them intelligible, as being valid for all who comprehend the rot! and actual by thought, although no such forms are predicable of the real and actual themselves. The elementary spatial relation Herbart conceives to be the contiguity (Aneinander) of two points, so that every pure and independent line is discrete. But an investigation of dependent lines which are often incommensurable forces us to adopt the contradictory fiction of partially overlapping, i.e. divisible points, or in other words, the conception of Continuity. But the contradiction here is one we cannot eliminate by the method of relations, because it does not involve anything real; and in fact as a necessary outcome of an intelligible form, the fiction of continuity is valid for the objective semblance, and no more to be discarded than say ~ I. By its help we are enabled to comprehend what actually happens among reals to produce the appearance of water. When three or more reals are together, each disturbance and self-preservation will (in general) be imperfect, i.e. of less intensity than when only two reals are together. But objective semblance corresponds with reality; the spatial or external relations of the reals in this case must, therefore, tally with their inner or actual states. Had the self-preservations been perfect, the coincidence in space would have been complete, and the group of reals would have been inextended; or had the several reals been simply contiguous, i.e. without connection, then, as nothing. Hence Herbart gave the name Synechology to this branch of metaphysics, instead of the usual one, Cosmology.

Aesthetics elaborates the ideas involved in the expression called forth by those relations of object which acquire for them attribution of beauty or the reverse. The beautiful is be carefully distinguished from the allied conceptions of the useful or the pleasant, which vary with time, place and person; whereas beauty is predicated absolutely and involuntarily by all who have attained the right standpoint. Ethics, which is but one branch of aesthetics, although the chief, deals with such relations among litions (Willensverhältnisse) as thus unconditionally please or displease. These relations Herbart finds to be reducible to five, which do admit of further simplification; and corresponding to them are as my moral ideas (Musterbegriffe), as follows:

1. Internal Freedom, the underlying relation being that of the individual's will to his judgment of it
2. Perfection, the relation being that of his several volitions each other in respect of intensity, variety and concentration
3. Benevolence, the relation being that between his own will and the thought of another's
4. Right, in case of actual conflict with other
5. Retribution or Equity, for intended good or evil

The ideas of a final society, a system of rewards and punishments, a system of administration, a system of culture and a inanimated society, corresponding to the ideas of law, equity, benevolence, perfection and internal freedom respectively, result when we take account of a number of individuals. Virtue is the perfect conformity of the will with the moral ideas; of this the single virtues are but special expressions. The conception of duty arises from the existence of hindrances to the attainment of virtue. A general scheme of principles of conduct is possible, but the sublimation of special cases under these must remain matter of fact. The application of ethics to things as they are with a view to the realization of the moral ideas is moral technology (Tugendlehre), which the chief divisions are Paedagogy and Politics.

In Theology Herbart held the argument from design to be as valid divine activity as for human, and to justify the belief in a supernsible real, concerning which, however, exact knowledge is neither tamable nor on practical grounds desirable.

Herbart is now remembered amongst the post-Kantian philosophers mostly as making the greatest contrast to Hegel; this in particular in relation to aesthetics. That does not take into account his thought on education.

Bibliography

Herbart's works were collected and published by his disciple G Hartenstein (Leipzig, 1850-1852; reprinted at Hamburg, with supplementary volume, 1883-1893); another edition by K Kehrbach (Leipzig, 1882, and Langensalza, 1887). The following are the most important:

• Allgemeine Pädagogik (1806; new ed., 1894)
• Hauptpunkte der Metaphysik (1808)
• Allgemeine praktische Philosophie (1808)
• Lehrbuch Inc Einleitung in die Philosophie (1813; new ed. by Hartenstein, 1883)
• Lehrbuch der Psychologie (1816,; new ed. by Hartenstein, 1887)
• Psychologie als Wissenschaft (1824-1825)
• Allgemeine Metaphysik (1828-1829)
• Encyktopadie der Philosophie (2nd ed., 1841)
• Umriss padagogischer Voriesungen (2nd ed., 1841)
• Psychologische Untersuchungen (1839-1840).

Some of his works have been translated into English under the following titles:

• Textbook in Psychology, by MK Smith (1891)
• The Science of Education and the Aesthetic Revelation of the World (1892), and Letters and Lectures on Education (1898), by HM and E Felkin
• A B C of Sense Perception and minor pedagogical works (New York, 1896), by WJ Eckhoff and others
• Application of Psychology to the Science of Education (1898), by BC Mulliner
• Outlines of Educational Doctrine, by AF Lange (1901).

There is a life of Herbart in Hartenstein's introduction to his Kleinere philosophische Schriften und Abhandlungen (1842-1843) and by FHT Allihn in Zeitschrift für exacte Philosophie (Leipzig, 1861), the organ of Herbart and his school, which ceased to appear in 1873. In America the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education was originally founded as the National Herbart Society.

Of the large number of writings dealing with Herbart's works and theories, the following may be mentioned:

• HA Fechner, Zur Kritik der Grundlagen von Herbarts Metaphysik (Leipzig, 1853)
• Julius Kaftan, Sollen und Sein in ihrem Verhältnis zueinander: eine Studie zur Kritik Herbarts (Leipzig, 1872)
• MW Drobisch, Über die Fortbildung der Philosophie durch Herbart (Leipzig, 1876)
• KS Just, Die Fortbildung der Kantschen Ethik durch Herbart (Eisenach, 1876)
• Christian Ufer, Vorschule der Pädagogik Herbarts (1883; Eng. tr. by JC Zinser, 1895)
• G Közie, Die pädagogische Schule herbarts und ihre Lehre (Gutersloh, 1889)
• L Strümpell, Das System der Padagogik Herbarts (Leipzig, 1894)
• J Christinger, Herbarts Erziehungslehre und ihre Fortbildner (Zurich, 1895)
• OH Lang, Outline of Herberts Pedagogics (1894)
• HM and E Felkin, Introduction to Herbart's Science and Practice of Education (1895)
• C de Garmo, Herbert and the Herbartians (New York, 1895)
• E Wagner, Die Praxis der Herbartianer (Langensalza, 1897) and Vollständige Darstellung der Lehre Herbarts (ib., 899)
• J Adams, The Herbartian Psychology applied to Education (1897)
• FH Hayward, The Student's Herbert (1902), The Critics of Herbertianism (1903), Three Historical Educators: Pestalozzi, Frobei, Herbert (1905), The Secret of Herbart (1907), The Meaning of Education as interpreted by Herbert (1907)
• W Kinkel, J. F. Herbart: sein Leben und seine Philosophie (1903)
• A Darroch, Herbert and the Herbartian Theory of Education (1903)
• CJ Dodd, Introduction to the Herbartian Principles of Teaching (1904)
• J Davidson, A new Interpretation of Herberts Psychology and Educational Theory through the Philosophy of Leibnitz (1906)
• JM Baldwin, Dictionary of Psychology and Philosophy (1901-1905).

---

de:Johann Friedrich Herbart

ja:ヨハン・フリードリヒ・ヘルバルト pl:Johann Friedrich Herbart sk:Johann Friedrich Herbart