Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Spread of the New Definition of Psychology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Wundt, Avenarius, and Scientific Psychology

Abstract

Russo Krauss retraces the reception of Richard Avenarius’ ideas about the philosophical foundation of experimental-physiological psychology among former Wundt’s pupils and other leading psychologists of the late nineteenth century, such as Oswald Külpe, Hugo Münsterberg, Hermann Ebbinghaus, James Ward, and Edward B. Titchener (plus a digression on William James). Russo Krauss shows how these thinkers adapted to their own conceptions Avenarius’ definition of psychology by point of view of the dependency upon the individual and the brain.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the publication of the Grundriss, see Wozniak (1999). For a biography of Külpe , see Ogden (1951).

  2. 2.

    This passage is present only in the English edition of the book.

  3. 3.

    On Külpe’s realism, see Russo Krauss (2017), Henckmann (1997), Hammer (1994), Bode (1928), and Balthasar (1916).

  4. 4.

    We had to change the translation because in the English edition Titchener softened Külpe’s statements, leaving open the possibility of a psychical determination of mental contents.

  5. 5.

    On the Würzburg School, see Janke and Schneider (2002), Ogden (1951), and Lindenfeld (1978).

  6. 6.

    “Külpe , more given to philosophical intricacies, favored the difficult Avenarius” (Boring 1950, 400).

  7. 7.

    “Külpe was very familiar with Mach’s writings too, but it is clear that both he and Wundt took Avenarius, a professional philosopher, more seriously than they did Mach whom they must have regarded as something of an amateur in this field ” (Danziger 1979, 210).

  8. 8.

    On Münsterberg’s thought, see Hale (1980) and Massimilla (1994).

  9. 9.

    Münsterberg to Wundt, Marz 26, 1896; Münsterberg to Wundt, August 4, 1902; Münsterberg to Wundt, November 5, 1905 (Fuchs and Meyer 2017, 209, 239–40, 244).

  10. 10.

    Münsterberg to Wundt, May 10, 1890 (Fuchs and Meyer 2017, 184–85).

  11. 11.

    Münsterberg to Wundt, August 4, 1902 (Fuchs and Meyer 2017, 240).

  12. 12.

    It is worth noting that Rickert too was influenced by Avenarius. On the topic see Russo Krauss (2016).

  13. 13.

    Münsterberg to Wundt, November 19, 1890 (Fuchs and Meyer 2017, 194).

  14. 14.

    On the necessity of the “pure I” in an empirical philosophy there were also a little discussion between Schuppe and Avenarius on the pages of the Vierteljahrsschrift (see Schuppe 1893; Avenarius 1894).

  15. 15.

    Avenarius to Münsterberg , January 26, 1896 (Avenarius Archive, box 12).

  16. 16.

    It is worth noting that Münsterberg declares that he does not agree with the results, not with the starting point, of Avenarius’ philosophy. In fact, as we saw, he shared Avenarius’ idea that we need to move from the pure experience , and that the main task of the theory of knowledge is to explain which assumption we need in order to establish science on this ground.

  17. 17.

    Münsterberg to Wundt, August 12, 1896 (Fuchs and Meyer 2017, 226).

  18. 18.

    Münsterberg to Wundt, August 21, 1896 (Fuchs and Meyer 2017, 227).

  19. 19.

    On Ebbinghaus see the collective volumes by Traxel and Gundlach (1986) and Traxel (1987).

  20. 20.

    On Fechner’s influence on Ebbinghaus , see Marshall and Rodway (1987).

  21. 21.

    For more biographical information on Ward , see Basile (2017).

  22. 22.

    Cf. R. Avenarius ([1891] 1905, 11, 13, 64, 66).

  23. 23.

    For more biographical information on Titchener , see Evans (1984, 1990).

  24. 24.

    Alone, or in associations with others, Titchener translated Wundt’s Lectures on Human and Animal Psychology, Ethics, and Principles of Physiological Psychology, as well as Külpe’s Outlines of Psychology, and Introduction to Philosophy.

  25. 25.

    James to Stanley G. Hall, January 16, 1880 (James 1997, 82).

  26. 26.

    James to Stumpf, May 26, 1893 (James 1999, 426).

  27. 27.

    James to Hodgson, June 12, 1900 (James 2001, 227).

  28. 28.

    James to Smith, January 31, 1908 (James 2003, 533–34).

  29. 29.

    Probably, for Titchener , such a historical account was also designed as a reply against the new psychological trend of behaviorism. In his article against John B. Watson’s manifesto, Titchener stresses the “unhistorical character” of Watson’s work. Moreover, he adds that “behaviorism is neither so revolutionary nor so modern as a reader unversed in history might be led to imagine ” (Titchener 1914, 4, 5, emphasis mine). In fact, Titchener remarks that definitions of psychology analogous to that of Watson were already proposed by himself, Ward , Avenarius, Külpe, and Ebbinghaus (Titchener 1914, 1–2). In particular, Avenarius’ reading of mental life in terms of self-preservation of the brain (system C ), without the need to consider psychical contents, was already essentially behavioristic. Titchener seems to acknowledge that when he writes: “Materially, I believe that psychology will be furthered by [behaviorism], since increased knowledge of the bodily mechanisms, of anything that pertains to Avenarius’ System C , means greater stability of certain parts of the system of psychology ” (Titchener 1914, 6, emphasis mine).

  30. 30.

    Titchener to Meyer, April 22, 1918 (Leys and Evans 1990, 201).

  31. 31.

    For this reason, in his coeval translation of Külpe’s Grundriss, Titchener watered down the statements of the colleague that, in the German original, left no space for psychical causality (see above in this chapter, footnote 4).

References

  • Avenarius Archive, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Handschriftenabteilung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avenarius, Richard. 1888. Kritik der reinen Erfahrung. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Leipzig: Fues.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1894. “Anmerkung Zu Der Vorstehenden Abhandlung [R. Willy, Das Erkenntnisstheoretische Ich Und Der Natürliche Weltbegriff].” Vierteljahrsschrift Für Wissenschaftliche Philosophie 18: 29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1894–1895. “Bemerkungen zum Begriff des Gegenstandes der Psychologie.” Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 18: 137–61, 400–20; 19: 1–18, 129–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. [1891] 1905. Der menschliche Weltbegriff. Leipzig: Reisland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balthasar, Nicolas. 1916. “Der kritische Realismus Oswald Külpes und der Standpunkt der aristotelisch-scholastischen Philosophie.” Philosophisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 29: 333–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basile, Pierfrancesco. 2017. “James Ward.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bode, Paul. 1928. Der kritische Realismus Oswald Külpes: Darstellung und Kritik seiner Grundlegung. Berlin: Bode.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boring, Edwin G. 1950. A History of Experimental Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danziger, Kurt. 1979. “The Positivist Repudiation of Wundt.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 15 (3): 205–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus, Hermann. 1885. Über das Gedächtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1902. Grundzüge der Psychologie. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Leipzig: Veit & Comp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Rand B. 1984. “E. B. Titchener and American Experimental Psychology.” Revista de Historia de La Psicología 5 (1–2): 117–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. “The Scientific and Psychological Positions of E. B. Titchener.” In Defining American Psychology: The Correspondence Between Adolf Meyer and Edward Bradford Titchener, edited by Ruth Leys and Rand B. Evans, 1–39. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fechner, Gustav Theodor. 1860. Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Thomas, and Till Meyer, eds. 2017. Wilhelm Wundt im Kreise seiner Schüler: Der Briefwechsel mit Oswald Külpe, Ernst Meumann und Hugo Münsterberg. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Matthew. 1980. Human Science and Social Order: Hugo Münsterberg and Origins of Applied Psychology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, Steffi. 1994. Denkpsychologie - Kritischer Realismus: Eine wissenschaftshistorische Studie zum Werk Oswald Külpes. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckmann, Wolfhart. 1997. “Külpes Konzept Der Realisierung.” In Zur Entwicklung Und Bedeutung Der Würzburger Schulen. Internationale Interdisziplinäre Fachtagung Aus Anlaß Der Berufung Oswald Külpes Nach Würzburg Anno 1894, edited by Wilhelm Baumgartner, Franz Peter Burkard, and Franz Wiedmann, 197–208. Brentano Studien. Dettelbach: H. Röll.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, Lawrence Joseph. 1913. The Fitness of the Environment; An Inquiry into the Biological Dignificance of the Properties of Matter. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, William. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1895. “The Knowing of Things Together.” Psychological Review 2: 105–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1912. Essays in Radical Empiricism. Edited by Ralph Barton Perry. New York: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1988. Manuscript Lectures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. The Correspondence of William James: 1878–1884. Edited by Ignas K. Skrupskelis and Elizabeth M. Berkeley. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999. The Correspondence of William James: 1890–1894. Edited by Ignas K. Skrupskelis and Elizabeth M. Berkeley. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. The Correspondence of William James: 1899–1901. Edited by Ignas K. Skrupskelis and Elizabeth M. Berkeley. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. The Correspondence of William James: April 1905–March 1908. Edited by Ignas K. Skrupskelis and Elizabeth M. Berkeley. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janke, Wilhelm, and Wolfgang Schneider, eds. 2002. 100 Jahre Institut für Psychologie und Würzburger Schule der Denkpsychologie. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesow, Friedrich. 1942. “Autobiografia.” Rivista di Psicologia 38: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Külpe, Oswald. 1893. Grundriss der psychologie; auf experimenteller grundlage dargestellt. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1895. Outlines of Psychology, Based Upon the Results of Experimental Investigation. Translated by Edward Bradford Titchener. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1897. Introduction to Philosophy. Translated by Edward Bradford Titchener. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1898. Einleitung in die Philosophie. 2nd ed. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1912. Die Realisierung. Ein Beitrag zur Grundlegung der Realwissenschaften. Leipzig: Hirzel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leys, Ruth, and Rand B. Evans, eds. 1990. Defining American Psychology: The Correspondence Between Adolf Meyer and Edward Bradford Titchener. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenfeld, D. 1978. “Oswald Külpe and the Würzburg School.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 14 (2): 132–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Marilyn E., and Barbara Rodway. 1987. “Hermann Ebbinghaus and the Legacy of Gustav Fechner.” In Ebbinghaus-Studien 2. Beiträge Zum Internationalen Hermann-Ebbinghaus-Symposion Passau Vom 30. Mai Bis 2. Juni 1985, edited by Werner Traxel, 304–12. Passau: Passavia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massimilla, Edoardo. 1994. Psicologia fisiologica e teoria della conoscenza: Saggio su Hugo Münsterberg. Napoli: Morano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münsterberg, Hugo. 1885. Die Lehre von Der Natürlichen Anpassung in Ihrer Entwickelung, Anwendung Und Bedeutung. Leipzig: Metzger und Wittig.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1888. Die Willenshandlung: Ein Beitrag zur physiologischen Psychologie. Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1891. “Über Aufgaben und Methoden der Psychologie.” Schriften der Gesellschaft für psychologische Forschung 1: 93–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. [1900] 1918. Grundzüge Der Psychologie. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Barth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, R. M. 1951. “Oswald Külpe and the Würzburg School.” The American Journal of Psychology 64 (1): 4–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo Krauss, Chiara. 2016. “Richard Avenarius’ Einfluss in der ersten Ausgabe von Der Gegenstand der Erkenntnis.” In Methodologie, Erkenntnistheorie, Wertphilosophie: Heinrich Rickert und seine Zeit, edited by Anna Donise, Antonello Giugliano, and Edoardo Massimilla, 63–72. Studien und Materialien zum Neukantianismus 37. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ed. 2017. La scienza del pensiero. Il realismo filosofico di Oswald Külpe. Discipline Filosofiche 27. Macerata: Quodlibet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuppe, Wilhelm. 1893. “Die Bestätigung Des Naiven Realismus. Offener Brief an Herrn Prof. Dr. Richard Avenarius.” Vierteljahrsschrift Für Wissenschaftliche Philosophie 17: 365–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Norman K. 1906. “Avenarius’ Philosophy of Pure Experience.” Mind 15: 13–31, 149–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titchener, Edward B. 1896. An Outline of Psychology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1902. An Outline of Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1909. A Text-Book of Psychology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1914. “On ‘Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It’.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 53 (213): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1929. Systematic Psychology. Prolegomena. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxel, Werner, ed. 1987. Ebbinghaus-Studien 2. Beiträge Zum Internationalen Hermann-Ebbinghaus-Symposion Passau Vom 30. Mai Bis 2. Juni 1985. Passau: Passavia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxel, Werner, and Horst Gundlach, eds. 1986. Ebbinghaus-Studien 1. Passau: Passavia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, James. 1886. “Psychology.” In The Encyclopedia Britannica. A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature, Vol. 20, 9th ed., edited by Thomas Spencer Baynes and William Robertson Smith, 37–85. Chicago: R.S. Peale Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1899. Naturalism and Agnosticism: The Gifford Lectures Delivered Before the University of Aberdeen in the Years 1896–1898. Vol. 2. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 2012. “Roscher and Knies and the Logical Problems of Historical Economics.” In Max Weber: Collected Methodological Writings, edited by Hans Henrik Bruun and Sam Whimster, 3–94. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weld, Harry Porter. 1929. “Preface.” In Systematic Psychology. Prolegomena, by Edward Bradford Titchener, V–VIII. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wozniak, Robert H. 1999. “Introduction to ‘Outlines of Psychology’—Wilhelm Wundt (1896/1897).” In Classics in Psychology, 1855–1914: Historical Essays. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wundt, Wilhelm. 1896. Grundriss der Psychologie. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

    Chiara Russo Krauss

Authors
  1. Chiara Russo Krauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiara Russo Krauss .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Russo Krauss, C. (2019). The Spread of the New Definition of Psychology. In: Wundt, Avenarius, and Scientific Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12637-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation