Hans Larsson and our time

"Those who have experienced the wealth

of intuition , will never value the coarse,
sparse and poorly woven world of
syllogisms".
Hans Larsson

Hans Larsson (1862-1944), was a farmer’s son from the plains of Skåne, and began his
academic career studying medicine in Lund. After a short time he switched to philosophy. At
the age of 22, he began working as a teacher at a folk high school in Småland, where he
stayed for six years. He then resumed his philosophy studies at the university. In 1892, two
years after his return, Larsson published his first work, Intuition. A few words on poetry and
science.
After completing his dissertation and after a few years as a private tutor, Larsson,
now 39 years old, was appointed professor of theoretical philosophy at his home university.

Throughout his life, Larsson made himself known as a committed social philosopher and
debater. It is no coincidence that he is the author of the book titled Platon och vår tid [Plato
and our time]. Should his colleagues approach the same subject matter, they would likely
have written something about Plato and his time.
When Gustaf Fröding was threatened with being charged for indecency for his
collection of poems, Stänk och flikar, in 1896, Larsson was quick to denounce the charges in
a newspaper article.
At an advanced age, he joined the anti-Nazism cause in articles published in the
newspaper Göteborgs Handels- och Sjöfartstidning.
To a friend, Hans Larsson described the background to his book on intuition. He had
fallen seriously ill; it eventually turned out that he was suffering from a serious form of
tuberculosis, which seemed life-threatening. He decided to write a book with a subject
matter close to his heart. He regarded the book as a farewell to life.
Criticism of science’s mastery over art is a recurring theme in the book. In the
first chapter, he writes:
"In our time, intuitive ability is underappreciated and unutilised. Methodical work is the motto
of our time, and during this collective work in close quarters, the individual may forget to use
his finest and individual gifts, and that the mind becomes busy with what is closest to and most
easily accessible for this methodical work, and loses its sensitivity to things that are less
apparent and hard to discern, losing the freedom necessary to take on certain tasks" (p. 7).
Larsson's conclusion regarding science holding domain over intuitive ability, the attention to
individual properties, recalls Gadamer's reasoning half a century later, regarding the
dominance of methods in scientific thinking and the consequences it has for our exploration
of life’s issues.
Hans Larsson describes intuition as “the refined form of intelligence”. In this book, he intends
to show that it forms the synthesis of thought and emotion. But just as in our day, intuition
was vaguely defined. He notes: "Intuition has been viewed as a lower form of
thinking, indiscriminate and less educated, more female and illogical. It may occasionally
arrive at the right destination, but it cannot be relied on. And above all, intuition has been
viewed as a product of emotions rather than thoughts” (p. 9 f).
However, Larsson saw the conflict between intuition and the laws logic as a mere illusion.
Instead, intuition represented a finer and stricter application of these laws. Intuition’s close link
to emotions is due to how rich and uniform it is, not due to its obscurity. Larsson
therefore demands a stricter logic and is opposed to certain rules that he believes to be
too broadly formulated and therefore fundamentally illogical.
What he touches upon, are the various logics required in scientific and practical
work. Where scientific logic wishes to transcend space and time, the logic of practice exists in
the here and now, in uncertainty and with responsibility in practical action.
Emotion is generally met with distrust, Larsson notes; it has been regarded as female in its
nature and is thus a lower form of thinking. Intuition has been viewed as an outlet for emotion
and not for thought. There is an assumption that emotion belongs to lower stages of life and
will disappear during the course of development. What are the roots of such thinking? An
observation in historical development is required to understand this assessment according
to Larsson.
In its primitive state, he writes, mankind was prey to its emotions; she was a slave to her
whims and desires. At this point, the mind then had no freedom and no autonomy. It
needed schooling to be freed from these bonds. Plato and his contemporaries made
important contributions to this liberation, but their philosophy came to form
an aristocracy of the mind; it sought to show how worthless the thinking of ordinary
people was and how incapable they are to rise to the truth. They are bound by their
habits and low interests. Plato also dislikes fiction, poetry, as it appeals to our
emotions. Its language is lower standing than that of philosophy and is suited to ordinary
people. (p.14.
Progress within a culture rests on the idea of freeing oneself from emotions. Larsson
returns to this idea. This means that the mind temporarily loses connection with
emotions. It leads an abstract and isolated life. However, the mind must return from this
isolation if it is to become perfect. Once it has reached an overview and conceptual
clarity, it must once again relate to life with its multitude of individualities. Thought and
emotion must be reunited with each other, otherwise they become “dry years for the
soul”, writes Larsson. Meanwhile, the union of thought and emotion “is like rain on
parched roots and is the true delight of the soul”.
How is the union of thought and emotion expressed through science?
Larsson chooses historical research as an example. In history, there is a collection of data
that is tested by historical criticism so that it is reliably accurate. However, this is just
preparatory work. The events must be presented in their context. Therefore, they must
have tangible clarity. You cannot relate to the causes through abstraction. One must
understand them, feel the momentum behind them and the atmosphere that triggered
them. The idea must originate from a number of concrete examples. The task of the
historical researcher is to gather these images so that we may get a sense of their impact.
This is impossible for a historian who lacks artistry. He cannot justify an event with all
his meticulous investigations.
Two historical investigations serve as examples in Larsson's writing. You can suspect
that they were plucked from Larsson’s contemporary academic world.
One work concerns events which have been discussed many times before. And
yet something new is presented. The historical figures appear as individuals, the events
are injected with the spirit of the time, and you get a clear sense of what people of the
time valued in life. A small word may occasionally create a bridge between different
centuries. The author succeeds in raising us to a vantage point from which we can
consider the wanderings of mankind.
However, the second work is “precise and proficient”, but nothing more.
Larsson finds it surprising that critics have not been able to distinguish the work
of genius from the good historical handbook. It only happens once, when the author of
the first work receives recognition for the form of their work - “its language truly shines”.
But the form is where you can sense the superiority of this work, Larsson argues. By not
recognising this, the critic deprives the work of its scientific value.
What distinguishes the artistic historian is that he waits until he can
capture a snapshot of his period, even if he has already understood the causal
relationships. Not until he has processed his material, cleaned it up, structured it,
operated with it, so thoroughly that it no longer provides any resistance, can he offer us
a text that will make our soul vibrate. This happens when we catch a glimpse of the depth
of life.
For Larsson, the artist is the archetype of intuitive ability. “A poetic expression
presents itself to us, so complete and fully cast, that we can no longer see the traces of
his toil” (p. 16). Yet there is considerable thought behind the work. The mind of an artist
is finer and faster than those of others, and the poem takes precedence over science.
In his writing, Hans Larsson touches upon the relationship between intuition
and scientific thought. He emphasises that analysis and intuition are two currents
that constantly meet "as two threads in a tapestry.” They require each other and interact
with each other “just as inhaling and exhaling”, each synthesis simultaneously
becomes an analysis, an isolation and vice versa. You can always observe
these directions simultaneously, and yet ”sometimes one will take precedence, and
sometimes the other."
Now it may seem that the synthesis breaks down and is destroyed when subjected to
analysis. According to Larsson, this is true. But it is incorrect to assume that this is due to
the idea being investigated and exposed to daylight. Instead, the reason is that we are
unable to retain the bigger picture, which is possessed while maintaining an overall view.
Larsson views this as a transitional period. When all details are all clear, all investigated
and examined, we may - if our good work has been good in nature - turn back and “assess
it all over again. Will not then the bird of spirit return and settle down beside us?”