Translations, from Portuguese, are automatic. If you notice any errors in the text, help us identify them, clicking here.

Subscribe to our Newsletters and receive our articles directly in your email.

Janet was a contemporary of Allan Kardec. His works demonstrate, with excellence, the philosophical context in which the coder was inserted, making use of his concepts.

Many, when reading Kardec, suppose that he, due to the words he used in his works, was just reproducing ideas and concepts originating from the Catholic Church. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we will see below, because Kardec was, in fact, using the concepts widely widespread and understood in the midst of French cultured society, which, by the way, was the class that was most interested in the study of Spiritism.

Paulo Henrique de Figueiredo explains:

During the nineteenth century, what we call the human sciences were established from a spiritualist assumption for their constitution. Meanwhile, in the natural sciences, such as Physics and Chemistry, materialism predominated. This condition is very different from what we are used to today, when the university is almost completely guided by materialistic thinking.

This current of thought was known as Rational Spiritualism. For it was completely independent of formal religions and their dogmas. The fundamental basis was psychology, science of the soul, which had as a guideline: “The human being is an incarnate soul”.

As is explained at length in the book Autonomy, the untold story of Spiritism, Allan Kardec made psychology the conceptual basis for developing the Spiritist Doctrine. His monthly newspaper was the Spiritist Magazine, journal of psychological studies.

Rational Spiritualism was taught, since 1830, at the University of Paris, also at the Ecole Normale, where teachers were trained, and also at the Lyceums, in the education of young people. For these, there were manuals, like Paul Janet's. This manual has been translated into several languages and adopted in many countries, including Brazil.

This manual is of fundamental importance to understand the conceptual basis of Kardec's studies, especially regarding spiritist morals.

FIGUEIREDO, Paulo Henrique de. Paul Janet's Treatise on Philosophy. Portal do Espírito, July 22, 2019. Available at . Accessed on May 19, 2022.

Using, we said, the concepts of Rational Spiritualism, which was taught at the University of Paris and at the Escola Normal Superior in Paris, Kardec develops the most diverse philosophical concepts of the Spiritist Doctrine, in the light of the agreed teachings of the Spirits. Thus, it will give a deep development to the ideas of moral treated by these scholars, approaching the concepts of pain and pleasure, good and bad, to owe, disinterested charity, freedom, merit, punishment and reward. Let us, by way of illustration, demonstrate the construction of these last two concepts:

The reward and the punishment

in your work Small Elements of Morals, available for download, in PDF, in this link, Janet builds the various philosophical concepts that will support those of the reward and gives punishment. He expresses himself thus: “pleasure, considered as the consequence due to the accomplishment of good, is called reward, and pain, considered as the legitimate consequence of evil, is called punishment”.

Pleasure, for him, is the quest to experience what life allows, and there would thus be good pleasures and bad pleasures, varying, in this interval, according to certainty, purity, intensity, duration, etc. Thus, the fugitive pleasure of drunkenness would be a bad pleasure, while the lasting pleasure of health would be a good pleasure:

There are pleasures that are very alive, but fleeting and fleeting, like the pleasures of passions.¹. There are others that are durable and continuous, such as health, safety, convenience, consideration. Will these pleasures that last a lifetime be sacrificed to those that last only an hour?

JANET, 1870²

Therefore, morally, the human being should always seek the good pleasures, that do not produce regrets, passing them over to the bad pleasures, which generate regrets and complications:

Experience teaches us that pleasures must not be sought without discernment and without distinction, that it is necessary to use reason to compare them with each other, to sacrifice the uncertain and fleeting present for a lasting future, to prefer simple and peaceful pleasures, not followed. of regrets, to the tumultuous and dangerous pleasures of passions, etc., in a word, to sacrifice the pleasant to the useful.

ibid.

It is clear, therefore, that the concept of reward, used in this context, is linked to the understanding of the joy of having performed an action linked to the good, while the punishment is the pain generated as legitimate consequence from evil. There is no attribution, therefore, to a mechanical imposition of a supposed “law of return” or “law of reparation”, by God or by the “Universe”, for bad deeds, as many insist on proclaiming, nor are there any prizes given for good deeds. action. Everything is a consequence moral, from the individual to himself, which necessarily depends on the knowledge of the Law:

In morals, as in legislation, no one takes advantage of ignorance of the law. There is, therefore, in every man a certain knowledge of the law, that is, a natural discernment of good and evil: this discernment is what is called conscience or sometimes the moral sense.

ibid.

However, for the individual to act morally, he must have free will:

It is not enough for man to know and distinguish between good and evil, and to experience different feelings for one and the other. It is also necessary, in order to be a moral agent, for man to be able to choose between one and the other.³; one cannot command him what he could not do, nor forbid what he would be forced to do. That power to choose is freedom, or free will.

ibid.

But it is important to remember that man, as an incarnate soul, is a basic concept of Rational Spiritualism, as defined by Janet, in the same work:

Every law presupposes a legislator. The moral law will therefore presuppose a moral lawgiver: this is how morality elevates us to God. Every human or earthly sanction being shown to be insufficient by observation, the moral law needs a religious sanction. This is how morality leads us to the immortality of the soul.

From all this, the understanding of vice and virtue is born:

Human actions, we said, are sometimes good and sometimes bad. These two qualifications have degrees, because of the importance or difficulty of the action. This is how an action is convenient, estimable, beautiful, admirable, sublime, etc., on the other hand, bad action is sometimes a simple fault, sometimes a crime. It is reprehensible, base, hateful, execrable, etc.

If, in an agent, the habit of good deeds be regarded as a constant tendency to conform to the law of duty, that constant habit or tendency is called virtue, and the contrary tendency is called vice.

ibid.

Evil, however, is a judgment of oneself (no one can harm another⁴), which depends on the awareness of what is done:

The judgment that is made from yourself differs according to the principle of the action that is admitted. He who lost in the game may grieve with himself and his recklessness⁵; but he who is conscious of having cheated in the game (even if he has won by that means) must despise himself when he judges himself from the point of view of the moral law.⁶.

ibid.

And then, a little further on, still in the same work, Janet develops the understanding of moral satisfaction and repentance:

Regarding our own actions, feelings change depending on whether the action is to be done or already done. In the first case, we feel, on the one hand, a certain attraction to the good (when the passion is not strong enough to suffocate it), on the other, a repugnance or aversion to evil (more or less attenuated according to circumstances by the habit or violence of the desire). These two feelings were not usually given particular names.

When, on the contrary, the action has been performed, the pleasure that results from it, if we act well, is called moral satisfaction, and if we act badly, remorse or regret..

Remorse is the burning pain, and, as the word indicates, the wound that tortures the heart after a reprehensible action. This suffering can be found in the very ones who have no regrets for having done wrong and would do it again.. It has, therefore, no moral character, and must be regarded as a kind of punishment inflicted on crime by its very nature. “Malice, said Montaigne, poisons itself with its own poison. Addiction leaves as it were an ulcer in the flesh, a regret in the soul, which is always scratching and bleeding itself.”

Repentance is also, like remorse, a suffering born of wrongdoing; but there is added to it the regret for having carried it out, and the desire (or the firm resolution) not to carry it out any more..

For Janet, then, remorse would not yet be the suffering generated by repentance, but only a certain torture for performing the reprehensible action. In other words, one does not suffer because evil has been done, but only because what has been done is reprehensible. And then, Kardec, in Heaven and Hell⁷, talking about punishment, which has, for Janet, the same meaning as punishment⁸, expressed as follows:

The duration of the punishment is subject to the improvement of the guilty spirit. No condemnation for a fixed time is pronounced against him. What God requires to put an end to suffering is the repentance, expiation and reparation – in short: a serious, effective improvement, as well as a sincere return to the good.

KARDEC, Allan. Heaven and hell. Translation by Emanuel G. Dutra, Paulo Henrique de Figueiredo and Lucas Sampaio. 2021.

In other words: God does not pronounce punishments or punishments against the individual. It is he himself who punishes himself, through legitimate consequences of the evil done. So, to end this suffering, you need to repent, in the first place, that is, identify that you have done something reprehensible (remorse) and add to that the regret of having done it (repentance, which is moral), as well as the desire to no longer do it. In order to reach this understanding, it is necessary for the Spirit to advance in intelligence and, in order to repair the harm done (which it is already clear that he has committed against himself, and not against others, from which it follows that he must repair in itself the origin of this evil), Spiritism demonstrates, without the possibility of error, the existence of the law of reincarnation.

All this, in short, to understand the concepts of punishment and reward. Behold, in accordance with all the above, Kardec says, in an excerpt prior to the one mentioned above:

Punishment is always the natural consequence of the fault committed. The spirit suffers for the evil it has done, so that, as its attention is incessantly focused on the consequences of this evil, it better understands its inconveniences and is motivated to correct itself.

And so, because of all this, Kardec begins chapter IV this work – The hell:

Man has always intuitively believed that the future life should be more or less happy in the ratio of good and evil practiced in this world. But the idea he has of this future life is in proportion to the development of his moral sense and the more or less just notion he has of good and evil. The penalties and rewards are a reflection of the instincts that predominate in him..

But it is worth remembering that, using these philosophical concepts of his time, Kardec, at the same time, developed them for the moral consequences of spirit science.

O spiritualism in Kardec

It is worth, before closing, to remember that Allan Kardec several times used the word spiritualism in your work. It is to Rational Spiritualism that he refers:

Whoever believes that there is something more in himself than matter is a spiritualist. It does not follow from this, however, that he believes in the existence of spirits or in their communications with the visible world. instead of the words spiritual, spiritualism, we use, to indicate the belief to which we refer, the terms spiritist and spiritualism, whose form recalls the origin and the radical meaning and which, for that very reason, have the advantage of being perfectly intelligible, leaving the word spiritualism its own meaning. We will say, therefore, that the doctrine spiritist or the spiritism its principle is the relations of the material world with the Spirits or beings of the invisible world. The adepts of Spiritism will be the spiritists, or, if you like, the spiritists.

As a specialty, the Book of Spirits contains the doctrine spiritist; in general, it is linked to the doctrine spiritualist, one of whose phases presents. This is the reason why it has the words in the header of its title: spiritual philosophy.

KARDEC, Allan. The Spirits' Book. 1857

This is, finally, proved by the following excerpt from the Spiritist Magazine of 1868:

The work of Mr. Chassang is the application of these ideas to art in general, and to Greek art in particular. We are happy to reproduce what the author of the Patrie review says about it, because it is further proof of the energetic reaction that takes place in favor of spiritualist ideas and which, as we said, every defense of rational spiritualism opens the way to Spiritism, which is its development, fighting its most tenacious adversaries: materialism and fanaticism.

KARDEC, Allan. Spiritist Magazine, November 1868

Conclusion

Here is clearly presented proof that we cannot know and understand Kardec's philosophy without understanding the philosophy and morals of his time, fully inserted in the context of French Rational Spiritualism, just as we cannot fully understand the spiritist science without understanding the sciences of Magnetism [by Mesmer] and Psychology (the latter also included in the ER, under the division of moral sciences).

It was clearly evidenced that Kardec no he used dogmatic religious concepts, but only words that, found in these concepts, were first re-signified under the philosophy of the time and, later, under the spiritist philosophy.

Therefore, it is very necessary to study and disseminate this knowledge. Once again, we invite the reader to study and distribute, in all possible spiritist media, the work referred to in this article, as well as the present text, which is the result of an effort made in this direction as well.

---

Reading Recommendations (Books)

• Free PDFs by Kardec – https://bit.ly/3sXXBxk
• Autonomy – The Untold History of Spiritism: https://amzn.to/3PIvbyy
• Allan Kardec's Legacy: https://amzn.to/3RIn2gv
• Final point – the reunion with spiritualism with Allan Kardec: https://amzn.to/48PLaE7
• Neither Heaven nor Hell – The Laws of the Soul According to Spiritism: https://amzn.to/3F2voYO
• Genesis – Miracles and Predictions According to Spiritism (unadulterated): Free PDF or https://amzn.to/3RM91hF
• Heaven and Hell: Or divine justice according to Spiritism (unadulterated): Free PDF or https://amzn.to/3ZGrcal
• Spiritist Revolution. Allan Kardec's forgotten theory: https://amzn.to/3t7HIUH
• Mesmer. The denied science of animal magnetism: https://amzn.to/3PYc1X2
• The Book of Mediums: https://amzn.to/3PDNTHK
• The Spirits' Book: https://amzn.to/3QkcFx9
• Spiritist Magazine – complete collection: https://amzn.to/48Uxh7s
• Practical Instructions on Spiritist Manifestations: https://amzn.to/3QiR8Gc
• Spiritism in its Simplest Expression: https://amzn.to/3M6fXT5

1. This is how the Oxford dictionary defines it: Kantianism, violent emotional inclination, capable of completely dominating human behavior and keeping it away from the desirable capacity for autonomy and rational choice.”. That's the meaning of passion, used by Kardec and the philosophers of his time [↩]
2. JANET, Paul. Small Elements of Morals. Translation by Maria Leonor Loureiro. Paris, 1870 [↩]
3. Here, the studies of Spiritism lead us to another understanding: in fact, man does not choose between good and evil, because, deep down, if he chooses badly, it is because he does not yet know the law. The Spirit that really knows and understands the Law of God only does good, always. [↩]
4. By the rational principle of autonomy, developed so far, the individual can only do physical harm against another, but never moral harm. A subject can steal someone else's belongings, which will cause him some difficulties, but, in fact, he does harm to himself, because he violates the moral law, for which he will suffer depending on his state of conscience. The victim, in turn, apart from the material mishap, may or may not do harm to himself, as he clings or not to what happened and generates some suffering for himself. This will also depend on your awareness of the moral law. [↩]
5. That is, he may realize that he has done himself harm, losing money in the game [↩]
6. Because, when he becomes aware of what he has done, he realizes that he has harmed the other, and that makes him feel remorseful. [↩]
7. Always remembering that this work was tampered with and mutilated from the fourth French edition, which served as the basis for all other editions and translations. The topics covered in this article were the ones that suffered the most from these adulterations. [↩]
8. Says Janet: “The idea of punishment or punishment would also not be explained if the good were only the useful. You don't punish a man for being unskillful; punishes himself for having been guilty” [↩]