Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Hermann von Helmholtz's Empirico-Transcendentalism Reconsidered: Construction and Constitution in Helmholtz's Psychology of the Object

  • Liesbet De Kock (a1)
Abstract
Argument

This paper aims at contributing to the ongoing efforts to get a firmer grasp of the systematic significance of the entanglement of idealism and empiricism in Helmholtz's work. Contrary to existing analyses, however, the focal point of the present exposition is Helmholtz's attempt to articulate a psychological account of objectification. Helmholtz's motive, as well as his solution to the problem of the object are outlined, and interpreted against the background of his scientific practice on the one hand, and that of empiricist and (transcendental) idealist analyses of experience on the other. The specifically psychological angle taken, not only prompts us to consider figures who have hitherto been treated as having only minor import for Helmholtz interpretation (most importantly J.S. Mill and J.G. Fichte), it furthermore sheds new light on some central tenets of the latter's psychological stance that have hitherto remained underappreciated. For one thing, this analysis reveals an explicit voluntarist tendency in Helmholtz's psychological theory. In conclusion, it is argued that the systematic significance of Helmholtz's empirico-transcendentalism with respect to questions of the mind is best understood as an attempt to found his empirical theory of perception in a second order, normative account of epistemic subjectivity.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Jüri Allik , and Kenn Konstabel . 2005. “G. F. Parrot and the Theory of Unconscious Inferences.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 41 (4):317330.

Saulo de Freitas Araujo . 2012. “Why Did Wundt Abandon His Early Theory of the Unconscious?History of Psychology 15 (1):3349.

Ernst Cassirer . 1944. “The Concept of Group and the Theory of Perception.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 5 (1):136.

Olivier Darrigol . 2003. “Number and Measure: Hermann von Helmholtz at the Crossroads of Mathematics, Physics and Psychology.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 34 (3):515573.

Liesbet De Kock . 2014. “Voluntarism in Early Psychology: The Case of Hermann von Helmholtz.” History of Psychology 17 (2):105128.

Stanley Finger , and Nicholas Wade . 2002b. “The Neuroscience of Helmholtz and the Theories of Johannes Müller, Part 2: Sensation and Perception.” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 11 (3):234254.

Michael Friedman . 2009. “Einstein, Kant, and the Relativized A Priori.” In Constituting Objectivity, edited by Michel Bitbol , et al., 253267. New York: Springer.

Simon P. Fullinwider 1990. “Hermann von Helmholtz: the Problem of Kantian Influence.” Studies in the History of the Philosophy of Science 21 (1):4155.

William Hamilton . 1859. Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, 2nd volume, edited by Henry L. Mansel . Boston: Gould and Lincoln.

Gail Hamner . 2003. American Pragmatism: a Religious Genealogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

William James . 1890. Principles of Psychology, vol. 1. London: Macmillan.

Marc Jeannerod , et al.1979. “Corollary Discharge: Its Possible Implications in Visual and Oculomotor Interaction.” Neuropsychologia 17:241258.

Nico Kohls , and Roland Benedikter . 2010. “The Origins of the Modern Concept of ‘Neuroscience’.” In Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives in Neuroethics, edited by James Giordano and Bert Gordijn , 3765. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

David E. Leary 1980. “German Idealism and the Development of Psychology in the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 18:299317.

Patrick J. McDonald 2003. “Demonstration by Simulation: The Philosophical Significance of Experiment in Helmholtz's Theory of Perception.” Perspectives on Science 11 (2):170207.

Matthias Neuber . 2012. “Helmholtz's Theory of Space and Its Significance for Schlick.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (1):163180.

Mary A. Peterson , Barbara Gillam , and H. A. Sedgwick , eds. 2007. In the Mind's Eye: Julian Hochberg on the Perception of Pictures, Films, and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robert Rieber , and David K. Robinson . 2001. Wilhelm Wundt in History. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Geoffrey Scarre . 1989. Logic and Reality in the Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Eckhart Scheerer . 1989. “On the Will: A Historical Perspective.” Advances in Psychology 62:3960. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Gregor Schiemann . 2009. Hermann von Helmholtz's Mechanism: The Loss of Certainty. New York: Springer.

Henning Schmidgen . 2003. “Wundt as Chemist? A Fresh Look at His Practice and Theory of Experimentation.” American Journal of Psychology 116 (3):469476.

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

Laura Snyder . 2006. Reforming Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Steven Turner . 1977. “Hermann von Helmholtz and the Empiricist Vision.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 13:4858.

Steven Turner . 1993. “Vision Studies in Germany: Helmholtz versus Hering.” Osiris 8:80103.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Science in Context
  • ISSN: 0269-8897
  • EISSN: 1474-0664
  • URL: /core/journals/science-in-context
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 10 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 202 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.