Historicizing Hermann von Helmholtz’s Psychology of Differentiation

Liesbet De Kock

Abstract


Nineteenth-century scientist Hermann von Helmholtz’s peculiar wavering between empiricism and transcendentalism in his philosophy of science in general, and in his theory of perception in particular, is a much debated and well-documented topic in the history and philosophy of science. This contribution aims at providing a fresh angle on this classical issue, by considering Helmholtz’s account of differential consciousness against the background of a centuries-old philosophical debate between the (strict) empiricist tradition and the tradition of transcendental idealism. By placing Helmholtz’s psychology against the background of a historical narrative stretching from Hume to Fichte, one can gain insight into the possible merits of his empirico-transcendentalism with regard to the problem of differentiation. More particularly, it is argued that Helmholtz’s psychology tilted towards transcendentalism when met with the classical theoretical problems of strict empiricism in dealing with the foundation of consciousness, most notably circularity and infinite regress. Without claiming that Helmholtz’s theorizing presented a self-conscious attempt to overcome the latter issues, his well-known wavering between perspectives in general, and his appropriation of the a priori in particular, might have served him well in avoiding the deadlocks of empiricism. As noted at the end, however, Helmholtz’s account produced complex philosophical problems of its own.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Boring, Edwin G., 1950. A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.

Cahan, David, ed., 1993. Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cassirer, Ernst, 1922. Das Erkenntnisproblem. Berlin: Verlag Cassirer.

De Kock, Liesbet, 2014a. “Hermann von Helmholtz’s Empirico-Transcendentalism Reconsidered: Construction and Constitution in Helmholtz’s Psychology of the Object.” Science in Context 27: 709–44.

———, 2014a. “Voluntarism in Early Psychology: the Case of Hermann von Helmholtz.” History of Psychology 17: 105–28.

———, 2016. “Helmholtz’s Kant Revisited (Once More). The All-Pervasive Nature of Helmholtz’s Struggle with Kant’s Anschauung.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 56: 20–32.

DiSalle, Robert, 1993. “Helmholtz’s Empiricist Philosophy of Mathematics: Between Laws of Perception and Laws of Nature.” In Cahan (1993), pp. 498–521.

Fichte, J. G., 1794/1797–1798. The Science of Knowledge (with the First and Second Introductions), translated by P. Heath and J. Lachs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

———, 1796–1797. Foundations of Natural Right, translated by M. Baur. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

———, 1798. The System of Ethics, translated by D. Breazeale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

———, 1796/1799. Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy. Wissenschaftslehre Nova Methodo, translated by D. Breazeale. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992.

———, 1800. The Vocation of Man, translated by W. Smith. London: John Chapman, 1858.

———, 1817. Facts of Consciousness, translated by A. E. Kroeger. Berkshire: Dodo Press, 2008.

Frank, Manfred, 2007. “Non-Objectal Subjectivity.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 14: 152–73.

Fraser, A. C., 1865. “Mill’s Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy.” North British Review 43: 1–58.

Fullinwider, Simon P., 1990. “Hermann von Helmholtz: the Problem of Kantian Influence.” Studies in the History of the Philosophy of Science 21: 41–55.

Goldschmidt, Ludwig, 1898. Kant und Helmholtz. Hamburg: Leopold Voss.

Hamilton, Andy, 1998. “Mill, Phenomenalism, and the Self.” In The Cambridge Companion to Mill, edited by John Skorupski, pp. 139–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hatfield, Gary, 1990. The Natural and the Normative. Theories of Spatial Perception from Kant to Helmholtz. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Heidelberger, Michael, 1993. “Force, Law and Experiment. The Evolution of Helmholtz’s Philosophy of Science.” In Cahan (1993), pp. 461–97.

———, 1994. “Helmholtz’ Erkentniss- und Wissenschaftstheorie im Kontext der Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Universalgenie Helmholtz, edited by Lorenz Krüger, pp. 168–85. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Heimann, P. M., 1974. “Helmholtz and Kant. Metaphysical Foundations of ‘Über die Erhaltung der Kraft’.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 5: 205–38.

Helmholtz, Hermann von, 1855. “Ueber das Sehen des Menschen.” Reprinted in Vorträge und Reden, vol. I, pp. 85–119. Braunschweig: Holzstiche, 1896.

———, 1856–1866. Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik, 3 vols. Leipzig: Leopold Voss.

———, 1862. “On the Relation of Natural Science to Science in General.” In Helmholtz (1995), pp. 76–95.

———, 1868. “The Recent Progress of the Theory of Vision.” In Helmholtz (1995), pp. 127–203.

———, 1869. “On the Aim and Progress of Physical Science.” In Helmholtz (1995), pp. 204–25.

———, 1878. “The Facts in Perception.” In Helmholtz (1995), pp. 342–80.

———, 1892. “Goethe’s Presentiments of Coming Scientific Ideas.” In Helmholtz (1995), pp. 393–412.

———, 1894. “The Origin of the Correct Interpretation of our Sensory Impressions.” Translated in Helmholtz on Perception: Its Physiology and Development, edited by Richard Warren and Roslyn Warren, pp. 247–60. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969.

———, 1896. Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik, 2nd rev. ed., 3 vols. Hamburg: Leopold Voss.

———, 1925. Helmholtz’s Treatise on Physiological Optics, translated by J. P. C. Southall. Menasha, WI: George Banta.

———, 1995. Science and Culture: Popular and Philosophical Essays, edited and translated by David Cahan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hochberg, Julian, 2007. In the Mind’s Eye, edited by Mary Peterson, Barbara Gillam and H. A. Segdwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hume, David, 1739–1740. A Treatise of Human Nature. Reprint. London: Penguin Books, 1969.

———, 1740. An Abstract of a Treatise of Human Nature. Reprint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Hyppolite, Jean, 1959. “L’idée fichtéenne de la doctrine de la science et le projet husserlien.” In Husserl et la Pensée Moderne, edited by H. L. van Breda and J. Taminiaux, pp. 173–89. The Hague: Nijhoff.

Inukai, Yumiko, 2007. “Hume’s Labyrinth: The Bundling Problem.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 24: 255–74.

Jeannerod, Marc, 2006. “The Origin of Voluntary Action. History of a Physiological Concept.” Comptes Rendus: Biologies 329: 354–62.

James, William, 1890. The Principles of Psychology, vol. I. London: Macmillan and Co.

Kant, Immanuel, 1781/1787. Critique of Pure Reason, translated by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

———, 1821. Lectures on Metaphysics, translated by K. Ameriks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Kemp Smith, Norman, 1923/1962. A Commentary on Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”. New York: Humanities Press.

Kitcher, Patricia, 1982. “Kant on Self-Identity.” The Philosophical Review 91: 41–72.

———, 1990. Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———, 2011. Kant’s Thinker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koenigsberger, Leo, 1902–1903. Hermann von Helmholtz. Braunschweig: Verlag von Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.

Krause, Albrecht, 1878. Kant und Helmholtz. Lahr: Moritz Schauenburg.

Lange, F. Albert, 1881. History of Materialism, translated by E. C. Thomas. London: Trübner & Co.

Liebmann, Otto, 1869. Ueber den objectiven Anblick. Stuttgart: Carl Schober.

Lloyd, Genevieve, 1993. Being in Time. New York: Routledge.

Mill, J. S., 1843/1882. A System of Logic, 8th ed. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882. First published 1843.

———, 1859. “Bain’s Psychology.” Reprinted in Dissertations and Discussions, vol. III, pp. 97–152. London: Longmans, 1867.

———, 1865/1878. An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, 5th ed. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1878. First published 1865.

Müller, Johannes, 1833/1840. Elements of Physiology, vol. 2, translated by W. Baly. London: Taylor and Walton.

Natorp, Paul, 1888. Einleitung in die Psychologie nach kritischer Methode. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr.

Patton, Lydia, 2009. “Signs, Toy Models, and the A Priori.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 281–89.

Reid, Thomas, 1764. “Inquiry into the Human Mind.” Reprinted in The Works of Thomas Reid, 3rd ed., edited by William Hamilton, pp. 95–214. Endinburgh: Maclachlan and Stewart, 1852.

Riehl, Alois, 1904. “Helmholtz in seinem Verhältnis zu Kant.” Kant Studien 9: 261–85.

Roth, Abraham S., 2000. “What was Hume’s Problem with Personal Identity?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61: 91–114.

Ryan, Alan, 1974. J. S. Mill. London: Routledge.

Schiemann, Gregor, 2009. Hermann von Helmholtz’s Mechanism: the Loss of Certainty. New York: Springer Verlag.

Schulz, Reinhard, 2004. Naturwissenschaftshermeneutik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

Schwertschlager, Joseph, 1883. Kant und Helmholtz. Freiburg: Herder’sche Verlagshandlung.

Singer, Ira, 2000. “Nature Breaks Down: Hume’s Problematic Naturalism in Treatise I iv.” Hume Studies 26: 225–43.

Steege, Benjamin, 2012. Helmholtz and the Modern Listener. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strawson, Galen, 2011. The Evident Connexion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stirling, James H., 1865. Sir William Hamilton. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

Stroud, Barry, 2006. “The Constraints of Hume’s Naturalism.” Synthese 152: 339–51.

Turner, R. S. 1977. “Hermann von Helmholtz and the Empiricist Vision.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 13: 48–58.

Waxman, Wayne, 1992. “Hume’s Quandary Concerning Personal Identity.” Hume Studies 18: 233–53.

Westheimer, Gerald, 2008. “Was Helmholtz a Bayesian?” Perception 37: 642–50.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15173/jhap.v6i3.3432


Liesbet De Kock
Vrije Univeriteit Brussel

--