Skip to main content

Mach’s “Sensation”, Gomperz’s “Feeling”, and the Positivist Debate About the Nature of the Elementary Constituents of Experience. A Comparative Study in an Epistemological and Psychological Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook ((VCIY,volume 22))

Abstract

In the present article, I compare Ernst Mach’s and Heinrich Gomperz’s contributions to the German-speaking positivist tradition by showing how, in trying to refound epistemology on the basis of one definite category of experiential element, namely, sensation (Empfindung) and feeling (Gefühl), respectively, they each epitomized one major trend of Immanenzpositivismus. I demonstrate that, besides Mach’s “sensualist” conception of positivism – in light of which historians have tended thus far to interpret all German-speaking positivist research of that period – there also existed an “affectivist” conception of positivism, which originated in Avenarius’s empiriocriticism and culminated in Gomperz’s pathempiricism (Pathempirismus). Here I aim to provide a new perspective on the history of positivism by highlighting the role played in it by psychological concerns. First, I revisit the notion of Immanenzpositivismus, the form of positivism that prevailed in both Germany and Austria between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: in addition to addressing the definition of this philosophical school of thought, I discuss the issue of “pure experience”, from which the positivists tried to reinterpret the foundations of knowledge. Second, I deal with Mach’s sensation-based approach to Immanenzpositivismus by commenting on his ontological and typological analysis of the constitutive elements of experience and emphasizing the fact that his concept of Empfindung is a relatively ill-defined notion in light of contemporary psychological standards. Moreover, I show that, despite his pretense of confining his epistemological developments to the analysis of sensations, Mach did not deny the involvement of feelings in epistemology, as clearly evidenced by some passages of Erkenntnis und Irrtum. Third, I analyze Gomperz’s feeling-based conception of Immanenzpositivismus, that is, pathempiricism, by highlighting how he strove to radically refound epistemology on the basis of the most recent advances of affective psychology. Focusing on the question of language sciences, I also discuss how he considered the role of feelings in the various forms of theoretical knowledge, the only field of investigation that he revisited in detail in his unfinished book, the Weltanschauungslehre. Fourth and last, I contrast Gomperz’s with Mach’s positivist model and argue that the former is more coherent and has a higher explanatory power than the latter. In conclusion, I insist on the importance of revisiting pathempiricism within the broader framework of affective epistemology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gomperz remains a neglected figure in the history of Austrian philosophy and has given rise to a limited number of publications: Wolfhart Henckmann, “Bewußtsein und Realität bei Külpe und Gomperz”: Zwei Alternativen in der philosophischen Grundlegung der Semasiologie”, Zeitschrift für Semiotik, 4, 1988, 377–397; Karl-Friedrich Kiesow, “Aussageinhalt bei Gomperz, Bühler und Popper”, in: Achim Eschbach (Ed.), Karl Bühler’s Theory of Language. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Viennese Heritage/Wiener Erbe, John Benjamins, 1988, pp. 349–367, “Das sprachphilosophische Werk von Heinrich Gomperz”, in: Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 15, 1990, pp. 19–42; Clemens Knobloch, Geschichte der psychologischen Sprachauffassung in Deutschland von 1850 bis 1920. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988; Martin Seiler, “Heinrich Gomperz (1873–1942), Philosophie und Semiotik”, in: Ludwig Nagl/Elisabeth List/Jeff Bernard/Gloria Withalm (Eds.), Philosophie und Semiotik. Wien: ÖGS/ISSS, 1991, pp. 101–124; Martin Seiler/Friedrich Stadler (Eds), Heinrich Gomperz, Karl Popper und die österreichische Philosophie, Beiträge zum internationalen Forschungsgespräch des Instituts “Wiener Kreis” aus Anlaß des 50. Todestages von Heinrich Gomperz (1873–1942) und des 90. Geburtstages von Sir Karl Popper (*1902), 8. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Wien. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi, 1994; Malachi Hacohen, Karl Popper: The Formative Years. Politics and Philosophy in Interwar Vienna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 149–155; Friedrich Stadler, Der Wiener Kreis. Ursprung, Entwicklung und Wirkung des Logischen Empirismus im Kontext. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts Wiener Kreis. Wien: Springer, 2015, pp. 241–283, 531–534.

  2. 2.

    Heinrich Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Ein Versuch die Hauptprobleme der allgemeinen theoretischen Philosophie geschichtlich zu entwickeln und sachlich zu bearbeiten. Erster Band: Methodologie. Jena-Leipzig: Diederichs, 1905, ibid., Zweiter Band: Noologie, Erste Hälfte: Einleitung und Semasiologie. Jena-Leipzig: Diederichs, 1908. The 1908 book was in reality the first part of the second volume of the Weltanschauungslehre, the Noologie, whose second part, the so-called Alethologie, was never published. The Weltanschauungslehre was supposed to consist of two further (never published) volumes entitled “Ontologie” and “Kosmologie”.

  3. 3.

    Karl Acham, “Immanenzpositivismus”, in: Joachim Ritter/Karlfried Gründer (Eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Band 4. Basel-Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1976, pp. 238–240. The term “Immenzpositivismus” is sometimes said to have been coined by Schlick, who, although using cognate expressions such as “Immanenzgedanken”, “Immanenzphilosophie”, or “Immanenzstandpunkt”, does not seem to have used it. See in particular: Moritz Schlick, Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre. Berlin: Springer, 1925 (second edition).

  4. 4.

    Hartmut Przybylski. “Positivismus”, in: Ibid., Bd. 7, 1989, pp. 1118–1122.

  5. 5.

    Alois Riehl, “Logik und Erkenntnistheorie”, in: Paul Hinneberg (Ed.), Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Teil 1, Abteilung 6, Systematische Philosophie. Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner,1921, pp. 68–97.

  6. 6.

    Riehl, ibid.; Traugott Konstantin Oesterreich, “Die philosophische Strömungen der Gegenwart”, in: Ibid., pp. 352–395; Acham, “Immanenzpositivismus”; op. cit.; Wolfgang Röd, “Empiriokritizismus und Konventionalismus”, in: Pierfrancesco Basile/Wolfgang Röd (Eds.), Geschichte der Philosophie, Band 11, Die Philosophie des ausgehenden 19. und des 20. Jahrhunderts, 1, Pragmatismus und analytische Philosophie. München: Beck, 2014, pp. 39–55.

  7. 7.

    Richard Avenarius, Kritik der reinen Erfahrung, 2 vol. Leipzig: Reisland, 188–1890. On the uses of the term “Empiriokritizismus”, see: Chiara Russo Krauss, Il sistema dell’esperienza pura. Struttura e genesi dell’empiriocriticismo di Richard Avenarius. Firenze: Le Cáriti Editore, 2013.

  8. 8.

    Rudolf Eisler, “Positivismus”, Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe, historisch-quellenmässig bearbeitet, Band 2. Berlin: Mittler, 1910 (third edition), pp. 1031–1041.

  9. 9.

    Auguste Comte, Cours de philosophie positive, 6 vol. Paris: Bachelier, 1830–1842.

  10. 10.

    Acham, “Immanenzpositivismus”, op. cit.; Przybylski, “Positivismus”, op. cit.

  11. 11.

    Eisler, “Positivismus”, op. cit.; Riehl, “Logik und Erkenntnistheorie”, op. cit.; Jürgen Blühdorn/Joachim Ritter (Eds.), Positivismus im 19. Jahrhundert. Beiträge zu seiner geschichtlichen und systematischen Beudeutung. Frankfurt/Main: Klostermann, 1971; Acham, Ibid.; Przybylski, Ibid.

  12. 12.

    Eisler, Ibid.

  13. 13.

    On the nature of “pure experience”, see: Russo Krauss, Il sistema dell’esperienza pura, op. cit., especially pp. 48–56.

  14. 14.

    On the notion of “immediate” (“inner”) and “mediate (outer) experience” (or “perception”) in the German-speaking psychology and philosophy, see: David Romand, “La théorie herbartienne de la représentation: une dialectique de l’acte et du contenu”, in: Anton Hügli/Janette Friedrich/Guillaume Fréchette (Eds.), Intentionalität und Subjektivität – Intentionnalité et subjectivité, Studia Philosophica, 75, 2016, pp. 175–188.

  15. 15.

    Acham, op. cit., p. 239. All translations are mine.

  16. 16.

    For a historical and conceptual survey of the concept of Empfindung, see: Eisler, “Empfindung”, in: Wörterbuch, op. cit., Band 1, pp. 271–281.

  17. 17.

    In line with a number scholars of his time, Mach used “Vorstellung” in its restrictive sense, referring to internally generated mental contents, that is, sensory data or complexes or sensory data as they are reproduced in consciousness. For the double (generic and restrictive) acceptation of the term “Vorstellung” in the German-speaking psychological tradition and a historical-theoretical survey of the corresponding concept, see: Eisler, “Vorstellung”, in: Ibid., Band 3., pp. 1690–1699. See also: Romand, “La théorie herbartienne de la représentation”, op. cit.

  18. 18.

    Eisler, “Gefühl”, in: Ibid., Band 1, pp. 391–400; David Romand, “Külpe’s affective psychology: The making of a science of feeling (1887–1910)”, in: Chiara Russo Krauss (ed.), La scienza del pensiero. Il realismo filosofico di Oswald Külpe, Discipline Filosofiche, 27, 2, pp. 177–204.

  19. 19.

    On the difference between cognitive and affective processes in a German-speaking context, see: David Romand, “Theodor Waitz’s theory of feelings and the rise of affective sciences in the mid-19th century”, History of Psychology, 18, 4, 385–400, “Külpe’s affective psychologie: The making of a science of feeling (1887–1910)”, op. cit.

  20. 20.

    Mach, “Analyse”, op. cit., pp. 14–15.

  21. 21.

    See in particular: Ibid., pp. 23–24, 40, 46–49; Mach, “Erkenntnis und Irrtum”, op. cit., pp. 14–22,~28.

  22. 22.

    Mach, “Die Analyse der Empfindungen und das Verhältnis des Physichen zum Psychischen”, in: Gereon Wolters (Ed.), Ernst-Mach-Studienausgabe, Band 1 (reprint of the 1911 eleventh edition). Berlin: Xenomoi, 2008, pp. 17–18, 20–24, 38–40.

  23. 23.

    See note 17.

  24. 24.

    Wolters (Ed.), “Einleitung”, in: Ernst-Mach-Studienausgabe, op. cit., p. XVII.

  25. 25.

    Ernst Mach, “Erkenntnis und Irrtum”, in: Elisabeth Nemeth/Friedrich Stadler (Eds.), Ernst-Mach-Studienausgabe, Band 2 (reprint of the 1906 second edition). Berlin: Xenomoi, 2011.

  26. 26.

    Eisler, “Empfindung”, op. cit.; Eduard von Hartmann, “Die moderne Psychologie. Eine kritische Geschichte der deutschen Psychologie in der zweiten Hälfte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts”, Ausgewählte Werke von Eduard von Hartmann, Band 13. Leipzig: Haacke, 1900, pp. 174–279.

  27. 27.

    Eisler, “Sensualismus”, in: Wörterbuch, op. cit., Band 3, pp. 1324–1325.

  28. 28.

    Mach, “Erkenntnis und Irrtum”, op. cit.

  29. 29.

    Wolters (Ed.), Ernst-Mach-Studienausgabe, op. cit., “Einleitung”.

  30. 30.

    Mach, “Analyse”, op. cit., pp. 27–28.

  31. 31.

    Edward Bradford Titchener, Lectures on the Elementary Psychology of Feeling and Attention. New York: Macmillan, 1908.

  32. 32.

    Mach, “Erkenntnis und Irrtum”, op. cit., p. 196 (my emphasis).

  33. 33.

    Ibid., p. 226 (my emphasis).

  34. 34.

    Ibid., p. 256 (my emphasis).

  35. 35.

    Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Erster Band, op. cit., p. 305.

  36. 36.

    See note 17 and Eisler, “Vorstellung”, op. cit.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p. 378.

  38. 38.

    In the Methodologie, Gomperz identifies four types of “characterizations”, namely, “endopathy”, “adjection”, “determination”, and “concomitance”, whose analysis is beyond the scope of the present article. Cf. Gomperz, Weltanchauunsglehre, Erster Band, op. cit., pp. 378–394. Here it is worth emphasizing that the capacity of feelings to modify the experiential significance of representations depends not only on the modalities of interactions between the two categories of affective states, but also and above all, as we will see in the next section, on the qualitative property of each kind of affective state.

  39. 39.

    e.g. Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Erster Band, op. cit., pp. 285, 303, 378–379.

  40. 40.

    Gomperz, Weltanschauungsehre, Erster Band, op. cit., pp. 2–43, 395–412. See also: Seiler/Stadler, Heinrich Gomperz, op. cit.

  41. 41.

    Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Erster Band, op. cit., pp. 395–412.

  42. 42.

    Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Erster Band, op. cit.

  43. 43.

    Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Zweiter Band, op. cit.

  44. 44.

    The reason that Gomperz abandoned his pathempiricist project is probably to be found in the fact that he changed his mind about epistemology after 1908, within the context of a growing disinterest of German-speaking philosophers in psychology and the rise of logicist concerns, especially among the Austrian milieu that he belonged to. For some clues about this question, see: Seiler/Stadler, Heinrich Gomperz, op. cit. and Stadler, Der Wiener Kreis, op. cit.

  45. 45.

    Romand, “Theodor Waitz’s theory of feelings”, op. cit. and “Külpe’s affective psychology”, op. cit.

  46. 46.

    Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Erster Band, op. cit, pp. 344–394.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., pp. 344–378.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., p. 379–380.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., pp. 378–394. On the metacognitive function of feelings in German-speaking psychology and epistemology, see: David Romand, “La théorie herbartienne de la représentation”, op. cit, “Sentiments épistémiques et épistémologie affective chez Theodor Lipps”, in: David Romand/Serge Tchougounnikov (Eds.), Theodor Lipps. Philosophie, psychologie, esthétique. Dijon: Editions Universitaires de Dijon (forthcoming).

  50. 50.

    Romand, “Külpe’s affective psychology”, op. cit.

  51. 51.

    Avenarius, Kritik, op. cit.

  52. 52.

    Joseph Petzoldt, Einführung in die Philosophe der reinen Erfahrung, Erster Band: Die Bestimmheit der Seele. Leipzig: Teubner, 1900.

  53. 53.

    Theodor Lipps, Vom Fühlen, Denken und Wollen. Eine psychologische Skizze. Leipzig: Barth, 1902. See also: Romand, “Sentiments épistémiques”, op. cit.

  54. 54.

    Wilhelm Wundt, Grundriss der Psychologie. Leipzig: Engelmann,1896, Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie, Band 2. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1902 (fifth edition).

  55. 55.

    The issue of epistemic feelings in German-speaking psychology and epistemology is discussed at length in: Romand, “Sentiments épistémiques”, op. cit.

  56. 56.

    Romand, “Theodor Waitz’s theory of feelings”, op. cit. and “Sentiments épistémiques”, op. cit.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Erster Band, op. cit., pp. 158–178, 274–283, 300–304, Weltanschauungslehre, Zweiter Teil, op. cit., pp. 258–266.

  59. 59.

    Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Zweiter Band, op. cit., pp. 2–53.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., pp. 55–56, 65.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., p. 75.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., pp. 61–78; see also: Henckmann, “Bewußtsein und Realität bei Külpe und Gomperz”, op. cit.; Knobloch, Geschichte der psychologischen Sprachauffassung, op. cit.; Kiesow, “Aussageinhalt bei Gomperz, Bühler und Popper”, op. cit. and “Das sprachphilosophische Werk von Heinrich Gomperz”, op. cit.; Seiler, “Heinrich Gomperz (1873–1942), Philosophie und Semiotik”, op. cit.

  63. 63.

    See in particular: Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, Zweiter Band, op. cit., pp. 91, 206, 220.

  64. 64.

    As a matter of fact, Gomperz explicitly championed “an approach of language based on affective psychology” (eine gefühlspsychologische Bearbeitung der Sprache). Cf. Ibid., p. 238.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., p. 227.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., p. 220.

  67. 67.

    See in particular: Ibid., pp. 229–232, 236–237.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., pp. 231–232.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., pp. 228–232.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., pp. 230–232.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., pp. 6–43.

  72. 72.

    Georg Brun/Dominique Kuenzle, “Introduction. A new role for emotions in epistemology?”, in: Georg Brun/Ulvi Doğuoğlu/Dominique Kuenzle (Eds.), Epistemology and Emotions. Aldershot-Burlington: Ashgate, 2008, pp. 1–31.

  73. 73.

    Romand, “Theodor Waitz’s theory of feelings”, op. cit. and “Sentiments épistémiques”, op. cit.

  74. 74.

    Avenarius, Kritik, op. cit.

  75. 75.

    Petzoldt, Einführung, op. cit.

  76. 76.

    Theodor Lipps, Vom Fühlen, op. cit.

  77. 77.

    Romand, “Sentiments épistémiques”, op. cit.

  78. 78.

    Friedrich Eduard Beneke, Skizzen zur Naturlehre der Gefühle, in Verbindung mit einem erläuternden Abhandlung über die Bewußtwerdung der Seelenthätigkeiten herausgegeben. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1825.

  79. 79.

    Brun/Doğuoğlu/Kuenzle (Eds.), Epistemology and Emotions., op. cit.

  80. 80.

    Kornblith (Ed.), Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism, Malden-Oxford: Blackwell, 2001; Goldberg (Ed.), Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology, Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Acknowledgments

I thank Friedrich Stadler for having encouraged me to submit a presentation proposal on Mach and Gomperz on the occasion of the Ernst Mach Centenary Conference and to pursue my investigations on Gomperz and pathempiricism, and Martin Seiler for his thoughtful comments on Gomperz and the Weltanschauungslehre.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Romand, D. (2019). Mach’s “Sensation”, Gomperz’s “Feeling”, and the Positivist Debate About the Nature of the Elementary Constituents of Experience. A Comparative Study in an Epistemological and Psychological Context. In: Stadler, F. (eds) Ernst Mach – Life, Work, Influence. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04378-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics