Friedrich Paulsen (1846-1908) wrote several influential works on philosophy – with readers from all over the world – but is surprisingly neglected in the historiography of philosophy. When mentioned at all, it is mostly as the philosophy teacher of Edmund Husserl in Berlin or as one among many neo-Kantians. However, there are many aspects of his life and work that make him quite unique and interesting in his own right. For instance, despite coming from a poor farmer family, he became the first professor for pedagogy in Germany in 1877. His 1892 History of Philosophy went through 40+ editions, several major revisions, and multiple translations in English, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Dutch, etc.. The Chinese translation of his System of Ethics seems to have decisively influenced the young Mao in his pre-marxist phase (whose annotations and marginal comments in Paulsen’s book consist of no less than 12.000 words). Moreover, Paulsen compiled the first comprehensive history of the German educational system, including a systematical account of the purpose of universities, from the middle ages to his present time.
Here, I’d like to focus on his account of the value of the humanities, specifically their general formative, educational role. Paulsen considered education as a means of uplifting the working classes and promoting human flourishing. He advocated equal chances for everyone, because a sufficient level of education was required to fully participate as a citizen in society. Paulsen’s egalitarianism is connected to his organicist view of the state, in which “Handarbeit” (“blue collar” manual work) and “Kopfarbeit” (“white collar” knowledge work) were equally needed and valued, each contributing in their own way to the whole. This holistic, organicist view also extended to the universe at large and the sciences which try to understand and explain it. For Paulsen, philosophy (as “love for knowledge”) was simply identical to the unified whole of all sciences, each understood as seeking knowledge in a particular domain. Philosophy would be concerned with the unity of the sciences and how each contributes as part to the whole. Also here the various Natur- and Geisteswissenschaften were equally needed and valued, each contributing in their own way to the whole. In order to introduce the specific contributions of the humanities, I will discuss a speech Paulsen gave about the high-school reforms in Germany (published as “Das Realgymnasium und die humanistische Bildung”, 1889).
The Realgymnasium was a type of secondary school that combined natural sciences and humanities, modern languages as well as Latin, but would not provide access to the university. At the time, the argument was that it lacked sufficient training in the humanities (no Greek, too little Latin). Paulsen tried to argue against the traditionalists that the Realgymnasium was also a “humanistic” school, capable of providing a general Bildung, and should therefore give access to the university. At the same time, in the face of the growing influence of the natural sciences on the curriculum, he had to show that the humanities deserved a central place at the Realgymnasium. Unsurprisingly, given his organicism, Paulsen argued for balance between the humanities and the natural sciences. According to him, the Realgymnasium could ultimately provide the best of both worlds: educated citizens ready for the modern world, with technical-scientific skills as well as humanistic Bildung. Three main points structured Paulsen’s argument.
Firstly: We are humans first and foremost, we should know and understand our place in the world, society, and history as humans: “animals live in nature, humans live in history”. Exploiting nature is just a means to an end: survival. However, the ultimate end is “the complete knowledge of existence”, i.e. philosophy. In a more practical sense, Paulsen argues that “humans are workers, but not just workers”, indeed, we do and have to exploit nature, develop technology, to produce food, shelter, etc., but there is more to life than survival. Precisely this is what makes us human: a human life obtains meaning by profiting from and contributing to the historical and cultural development of society.
Secondly: The humanities have at least the same “formative power” (“formale Bildungskraft”) as the natural sciences. In other words, the humanities, no less than the natural sciences, require discipline, attention to detail, the ability to work methodically, to give proofs and explanations, etc. Actually, the humanities might be even more demanding than the exact sciences. Philologists, linguists, historians, etc. work with a rigorous method and discover laws, but they certainly cannot straightforwardly apply a formula and “calculate” the result, because they have to take into account myriad exceptions. Precisely the humanities teach us that not everything happens according to a fixed system. Therefore, besides teaching rigor, they also broaden our perspectives, fostering intellectual flexibility and creativity. Contrary to the natural sciences, the humanities require taking into account different perspectives, understanding, testing and comparing them, and then to develop one’s own.
Thirdly: The natural sciences deliver pre-packaged information and results that are immediately useful for experts and laymen alike. Everyone can immediately profit from technological breakthroughs without having to understand the relevant scientific theories. Moreover, a scientific law summarizes a natural pattern in such a way that I do not have to reproduce or go through all the relevant experiments in order to understand the law. This is not so with the humanities. Each of us has to experience firsthand paintings, symphonies, statues, poems, etc. to enjoy them. A summary is nothing like the real thing: a review of an opera is entirely unlike experiencing the live performance. The thoughts and feelings that become objectified in art and literature can only be conveyed by experiencing and understanding them. Culture enriches only through effort: the humanities teach us what it takes to become human. In the remainder of the speech, Paulsen repeatedly points out how humanistic and naturalistic disciplines complement and enhance one another. How can we expect young students to believe the unbelievable dogma’s of faith on the one hand and the materialistic determinism of the sciences on the other? With an educational program that integrates sciences and humanities we can show how the two sides of the coin fit together: the material and the spiritual. Otherwise, we will raise a one-sided generation of technologically capable but spiritually impoverished brutes that live productive but meaningless lives, or culturally sophisticated scholars that cannot understand or operate the new-fangled devices that increasingly give shape to our society. Far from being an outdated historical relic, Paulsen’s vision places him side-by-side with contemporary visionaries: “technology alone is not enough—it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing” (Steve Jobs).