Abstract
In order to introduce and justify the topics treated in the book, I will first present an overview of German psychology before Wundt. Second, I will trace the development of Wundt scholarship in the last decades. Third, I will defend the methodological approach adopted in the book, which I call “a philosophical history of psychology”. Finally, I will present the general thesis and the structure of the book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This does not mean that British and French intellectual traditions are not relevant to Wundt’s project. As I will show in the following chapters, Wundt was well acquainted with British and French ideas (e.g., positivism). However, his motivation for establishing a new psychology grew out of his dissatisfaction with the German psychological tradition preceding him.
- 2.
For an alternative and broader understanding of the term ‘discipline,’ as well as its implications for the history of psychology, see Vidal (2011, pp. 3–8).
- 3.
- 4.
According to Park and Kessler, “philosophers and scientists of the Renaissance did not treat psychology, the philosophical study of the soul, as an independent discipline. Following the medieval tradition, they placed it within the broader context of natural philosophy, and they approached it, like the other sub-divisions of natural philosophy, through the works of Aristotle, notably De anima and the Parva naturalia” (Park & Kessler, 1988, p. 455, emphasis in original). Vidal comes to the same conclusion: “The term psychologia may well have named certain discourses linked to new ways of thinking about the scientia de anima in sixteenth-century Protestant Germany, but it certainly was not conceptualized in terms of a radical break or presented as a new field of empirical knowledge” (Vidal, 2011, pp. 29–30, emphasis in original).
- 5.
- 6.
In recent years, the pioneering work of Jean École and collaborators on a new edition of Wolff’s collected works (Christian Wolff’s Gesammelte Werke) has stimulated a reevaluation of his intellectual legacy, including his psychological project (Araujo, 2012a; Araujo & Pereira, 2014; Bell, 2005; École, 1985; Gerlach, 2001; Marcolungo, 2007; Mei, 2011; Rudolph & Goubet, 2004; Schneiders, 1983; Sturm, 2009; Vidal, 2011).
- 7.
As I will show in Sect. 2.1, Wundt refers explicitly to Wolff’s division of psychology in order to justify his new psychological program.
- 8.
Krüger (1756) called his investigation an “experimental theory of the mind ” (Experimental Seelenlehre) and Sulzer (1759), after claiming that psychology should proceed according to physics, defined it as “the experimental physics of the mind” (Sulzer, 1759, p. 157). In the same way, Tetens (1760/2005, p. 13) refers to the Experimental-Seelenlehre as a necessary basis for metaphysics. It might be objected, however, that such phrases do not imply that people were doing truly psychological experiments, only that they were referring to what Wolff called empirical psychology . Now, it is true that the adjectives ‘experimental’ and ‘empirical’ were used interchangeably during that period, but in many cases specific experiments were also being conducted, over and above the ambiguous terminology. Among others, Krüger’s case leaves no doubt, as Hatfield (1995), Sturm (2006) and Zelle (2001) have convincingly shown. Similarly, Tetens described many experiments he had done to test his ideas (e.g., Tetens, 1777, pp. 123–124, 197–198). This evidence refutes Richards’s general thesis about the absence of a scientific psychology in the eighteenth century (Richards, 1992).
- 9.
Kant’s discussion of the limits of the experimental method when applied to psychological matters is further evidence in favor of the existence of experimental psychology in the eighteenth century. If there had been no such experiments, how would he have been able to discuss the idea of an experimental doctrine of the mind?
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
Wundt launched his first program for a scientific psychology in 1862 (see Chap. 2).
- 13.
As will become clear in the chapters that follow, Herbart remained a reference for Wundt throughout his career. Despite being a critic of Herbart’s psychological program, Wundt borrowed some of his concepts and ideas (e.g., the concept of Verschmelzung).
- 14.
Although it is certain that Wundt knew Beneke’s work, it is not clear how much of it he appropriated for his own purposes. As I will show in Chap. 2, there are certain similarities. However, a careful study of this topic remains to be carried out.
- 15.
Wundt shared with the romantic psychologists the genetic approach to mental life (see Chap. 2).
- 16.
It is not clear how much Wundt knew about such Hegelian psychological programs. This is another topic worthy of investigation.
- 17.
In connection with the new German physiology, one must add the names of Johannes Müller (1801–1858), Emil du Bois-Reymond (1818–1896), and Hermann Helmholtz (1821–1894), among others. Given its relevance for Wundt’s psychological project, I will discuss different aspects of this physiological tradition in a more detailed way in Chap. 2, showing Wundt’s debts to it.
- 18.
- 19.
Fahrenberg (2011) has done an important service in this respect. To my knowledge, it is the first attempt to offer an extensive list concerning the reception of Wundt’s work.
- 20.
Wundt’s personal library does not belong to this collection. After his death, because of financial difficulties arising from the post-World War I context, the family sold the greater part of it to Japanese professor Tenerari Chiba (1884–1972). Today, it belongs to the Main Library of Tohoku University in Japan (Takasuna, 2001, 2008). For a list of these books, visit the Wilhelm Wundt Library at http://vlp.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/library/libraries.html. A smaller part of Wundt’s library was kept by his son, Max, a philosophy professor.
- 21.
Until recently, there were only three papers about the origins and situation of the Wundt Estate in Leipzig (Bringmann & Ungerer, 1980a; Gröteke, 1976; Meischner, 1985). However, because changes in maintenance and organization of this material have been introduced since the 1980s, such accounts are incomplete and outdated, albeit still useful for introductory purposes. After my return from Germany at the end of 2006, I wrote a brief report about the status of the collection and some internal problems with it (Araujo, 2009a). The report itself is now also out of date. In 2012, Leipzig University Library initiated a new project, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, to catalogue, index, digitalize, and open up the documents of the Wundt Estate (Meyer, 2015). About 5700 documents have been scanned and cataloged according to the German Kalliope System (http://kalliope.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/). It seems that they will be available online very soon, with full open access (http://histbest.ub.uni-leipzig.de/content/estate_wundt.xed). I thank Jochen Fahrenberg for this update.
- 22.
According to O’Neil (1984), “[T]here is little reason for doubting that Wundt established the first effective psychological research laboratory in Leipzig, but we must question that the date of establishment was 1879; it emerged between 1877 and 1882” (p. 285). O’Neil argues that this is one of the myths created by Eduard Titchener (1867–1927) and Edwin Boring (1886–1968), but he fails to offer any piece of evidence for his claim. In fact, he ignores important primary sources regarding the history of the Institute, including Wundt’s own report about its origins and development up to 1909. It was Wundt himself, not Titchener or Boring, who fixed the date of 1879 for the beginning of the psychological experiments in Leipzig (IEP, pp. 118–119). For independent evidence concerning the founding of the Institute, see Bringmann, Bringmann, and Ungerer (1980), Klemm (1922), and Kraepelin (1896).
- 23.
The foundation, in 1980, of the Revista de Historia de la Psicología—the first journal in Spain dedicated to the history of psychology—was of paramount importance for the appearance of these Spanish studies on Wundt (e.g., Caparros & Kirchner, 1982; Carpintero, 1981; Diaz-Guerrero, 1983; Marin, 1981; Miralles, 1986; Pinillos, 1981).
- 24.
From 1975 on, Bringmann and his collaborators gave impetus to Wundt scholarship in general, by publishing a series of biographical papers (e.g., Bringmann, 1975; Bringmann & Balance, 1975; Bringmann, Balance, & Evans, 1975; Bringmann, Bringmann, & Cottrell, 1976; Bringmann, Bringmann, & Balance, 1980; Bringmann & Ungerer, 1980b).
- 25.
As testimony to such criticisms, Ernest Hilgard (1904–2001) reported, “The most telling criticisms are directed against Boring’s A History of Experimental Psychology, the historical source for generations of psychology students” (Hilgard, 1980a, p. 2). More recently, Benetka (2002, pp. 61–62) has reaffirmed Boring’s negative influence on Wundt’s reception in the twentieth century.
- 26.
Adrian Brock summarizes the situation regarding the traditional literature on Wundt, by claiming that “the problem is not that Wundt was ‘misread’ but simply that he was not read at all” (Brock, 1993, p. 238).
- 27.
Brozek (1980), for example, has shown that experimental psychology had a great impact in the United States, whereas Völkerpsychologie was poorly received.
- 28.
Ash (1983), for example, correctly noted one of these problems: “Blumenthal’s approach is vulnerable to a tu quoque rebuttal. He, too, has appropriated his own founding father, selecting the aspects of Wundt’s system that make him seem more attractive to current science in a manner little different from that of Boring” (Ash, 1983, p. 170, emphasis in original).
- 29.
The main flaws of such studies will be discussed throughout the book, according to both its general plan and the specific subject matter under analysis.
- 30.
Up to the realization of the XXII International Congress of Psychology, the following issues appeared: Beiträge zur Wundt-Forschung (1975), Beiträge zur Wundt-Forschung II (1977), Probleme und Ergebnisse der Wundt-Forschung (1979), Probleme und Ergebnisse der Wundt-Forschung II (1980), Wilhelm Wundt: Progressives Erbe, Wissenschaftsentwicklung und Gegenwart (1980).
- 31.
For Meischner, for example, Wundt’s psychologism had a “reactionary function ” (Meischner, 1975, p. 14). According to him, “we are called to assimilate the progressive heritage in a critical way, to develop it creatively on the basis of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, and to defend it against distortions” (Meischner, 1975, p. 16).
- 32.
In the following passage, the political use of Wundt to promote the GDR’s materialistic psychology becomes clear: “Without losing sight of the period-dependent and idealistic limitations, notably the paradigmatic in Wundt’s psychological work has proven to be the historically progressive, which receives in the German Democratic Republic its proper appreciation and continuation” (Meischner, 1980, p. 128).
- 33.
According to Kosellek, “In such cases, a given group makes an exclusive claim to generality, applying a linguistically universal concept to itself alone and rejecting all comparison. This kind of self-definition provokes counterconcepts which discriminate against those who have been defined as the ‘other.’ The non-Catholic becomes heathen or traitor; to leave the Communist party does not mean to change party allegiance, but is rather ‘like leaving life, leaving mankind’ (J. Kuczynski)” (Kosellek, 1979/2004, p. 156).
- 34.
Kosellek again: “One can certainly assume that rigorous dualisms —above all, those which divide all of humanity into two groups with opposing modalities—were politically efficacious and will always be so. On the other hand, the historical record does show that all these global dualisms formerly in use were overtaken by historical experience and to this extent refuted. […] Past antitheses have tended to be too crude to serve as categories of historical knowledge. Above all, no historical movement can be adequately evaluated in terms of the self-same counterconcepts used by the participants of such a movement as a means of experiencing or comprehending it” (Kosellek, 1979/2004, p. 158).
- 35.
For instance, Wontorra’s book (2009) represents a new accomplishment in Wundt scholarship. It is the first attempt to provide a complete picture of Wundt’s experimental psychology in his Leipzig years. Wontorra presents and explains Wundt’s experiments in a level of detail rare to encounter in the secondary literature.
- 36.
It is interesting to note that, in his review of Wundt’s System of Philosophy , Charles Judd (1873–1946), one of Wundt’s North-American students, had already warned that “for a clear comprehension of these psychological doctrines, some knowledge of Wundt’s philosophical position is essential” (Judd, 1897, p. 370). Unfortunately, little or no attention was paid to him.
- 37.
For example, Rudolf Eisler (1873–1926) called him “the Leibniz of the nineteenth century” (Eisler, 1902, pp. 21–22), and Wilhelm Stern (1871–1938) considered him “one of the most universal living Gelehrten” (Stern, 1900, p. 348). It is interesting to note how Wundt’s importance during his lifetime contrasts with his status in the contemporary historiography of philosophy. Recent books dealing with the history of German philosophy in the nineteenth century fail to address Wundt’s place in the philosophical scenario of his time (e.g., Beiser, 2014a, 2014b; Fellmann, 1996; Hogrebe, 1987).
- 38.
For a more extensive development of this point, see Araujo (2012b).
- 39.
Robinson is right, when he claims that “the influence of German metaphysics is apparent and sometimes even dominant in nearly all of Wundt’s major publications” (Robinson, 1982, p. 131). Unfortunately, he did not explore this relationship.
- 40.
The recent debate between Daniel Robinson and Danziger is a lively example of the different ways of conceiving how the history of psychology should be approached (Danziger, 2013; Robinson, 2013a, 2013b). The key issue in this debate is continuity vs. discontinuity in psychology’s subject matter. On the one hand, Robinson argues that the history of psychology begins with the Greeks, especially Aristotle, who raises a series of recurrent topics concerning human nature. Danziger, on the other hand, claims that it should deal only with psychology in the modern sense. For him, Aristotle’s De Anima “forms part of the historiography of psychology only by way of contrast” (Danziger, 2013, p. 832).
- 41.
- 42.
The fact that most of the new historians of psychology share a common target of privileging the social, institutional and political dimensions of science in their historical accounts of psychology should not make us blind to the huge conceptual and methodological differences in their frameworks (e.g., Ash & Woodward, 1987; Buss, 1979a; Graumann & Gergen, 1996; Jaeger & Staeuble, 1978; Jaeger, Staeuble, Sprung, & Brauns, 1995). For example, even when they claim they are doing a sociological analysis of psychology, they are not necessarily talking about the same thing (e.g., Benetka, 2002; Buss, 1979b; Kusch, 1999). For a detailed analysis of the beginnings of such diversification in the historiography of psychology in the United States, see Ash (1983).
- 43.
There is an interesting parallel between Lovett’s critique of the new history of psychology and Porter and Micale’s (1994) critical remarks on social revisionism in the recent historiography of psychiatry. For them, although social historians of psychiatry are conscious of their ideological orientation, “they are far less conscious of the myriad ways in which their political agendas served to select their subject matters to shape their methodologies, to texture their interpretations, and to predetermine their conclusions.” As a consequence, they say, “the literature of social revisionism […] has centered its narratives on subjects that lend themselves to social, political and economic (rather than scientific or clinical) analyses. In addition, its demystifications of Whig idealizations have often only generated ‘heroic’ neo-Marxist and Foucauldian remystifications. The historical picture it provides as a whole has not been free of ideology so much as counterideological. Lastly, the work done in this tradition has been no less self-promoting professionally than what preceded it” (Porter & Micale, 1994, p. 11).
- 44.
According to him, “investigative practice is very much a social practice, in the sense that the individual investigator acts within a framework determined by the potential consumers of the products of his or her research and by the traditions of acceptable practice prevailing in the field. Moreover, the goals and knowledge interests that guide this practice depend on the social context within which investigators work” (Danziger, 1990, p. 4).
- 45.
- 46.
Throughout the text, I will discuss other aspects and details of Danziger’s interpretation of Wundt.
- 47.
In Kusch’s words, “[S]ociologism is the claim that so-called ‘rational’ factors, that is theories, arguments, and reasons, are in fact social factors” (Kusch, 1999, p. 177).
- 48.
For Kusch, “for something to be a social institution, it is sufficient that some collective has a self-referential belief about it” (Kusch, 1999, p. 172, emphasis in original).
- 49.
Annette Mülberger (2001), for example, argues that Kusch’s analysis of the Würzburg School as a social institution is highly problematic, to the extent that Kusch treats it as a unity, overlooking the huge heterogeneity among the Würzburgers themselves.
- 50.
Fleck was a Polish-Jewish microbiologist who used his experience as a scientist to propose a new way of understanding scientific knowledge, based not on physics but on biology and medicine. Against the then-dominant position of the Vienna Circle, Fleck defended the primacy of the social dimension of scientific knowledge over the logical dimension (and of the collective over the individual) dimension of scientific knowledge (Fleck, 1935/1980).
- 51.
As Benetka explains, “A scientific thought collective is nothing but a community of scientists, who share fundamental views: a research group in a laboratory, a scientific school, or a community of specialists, depending on what is the unity of analysis in question is. Fleck calls thought style the assumptions that are common to a group and underlie its work” (Benetka, 2002, p. 22).
- 52.
It is interesting to note that, except for Wundt’s biography, Danziger is the only interpreter mentioned in Benekta’s analysis. A proper discussion of the secondary literature is completely absent from his historical account of Wundt.
- 53.
Stephen Turner (1994), an early enthusiast of contemporary social theory, has submitted the concept of practices to a rigorous critique. For him, the concept is elusive and has mysterious properties. In this way, he shows that practices are often understood as real objects with mysterious properties, such as causal power. For example, he asks, “if a culture is a causal object, how does it work, and what kind of object is it?” (Turner, 1994, p. 6). Such problems led him “to conclude that the concept of practices is deeply flawed” (Turner, 1994, p. 11). I thank Massimiliano Badino for calling my attention to Turner’s book.
- 54.
- 55.
Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) observed that Wundt introduced a clear rupture in his psychological project by changing his initial monism in favor of dualism. According to Haeckel, this rupture was expressed in the second edition of Wundt’s Vorlesungen (Haeckel, 1918/1960). Along the same lines, Graumann (1980) claims that Wundt had two psychological projects, namely, the Heidelberg Program (1857–1874) and the Leipzig Program (1875–1920). Richards (1980) sees in the first edition of the Grundzüge a critical turn in Wundt’s psychological theory. By contrast, other scholars defend a continuous line throughout his work, claiming that it is not possible to detect a radical change of principles (Flugel, 1964; Oelze, 1991).
- 56.
In a letter to Carl Stumpf (1848–1936) on February 6, 1887, William James (1840–1910) claimed that Wundt’s theory was a collection of fragments without a vital node (Perry, 1935, II, pp. 68–71), a judgment that has been influent in the American historiography of psychology (e.g., Koch, 1992, p. 12). In the same vein, Marxist-Leninist authors of the GDR understood his psychological project as contradictory, with no possibility of unification. There are scholars, however, who defend the existence of one or more central ideas that give coherence and unity to Wundt’s system (Hoorn & Verhave, 1980; Rappard, 1979, 1980, 2005; Richards, 1980).
References
Adickes, E. (1898). Philosophie, Metaphysik und Einzelwissenschaften. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 113, 216–231.
Arabatzis, T. (2006a). Representing electrons. A biographical approach to theoretical entities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Arabatzis, T. (2006b). On the inextricability of the context of discovery and the context of justification. In J. Schickore & F. Steinle (Eds.), Revisiting discovery and justification: Historical and philosophical perspectives on the context distinction (pp. 215–230). Dordrecht: Springer.
Arabatzis, T., & Schickore, J. (2012). Introduction: Ways of integrating history and philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science, 20(4), 395–408.
Araujo, S. F. (2009a). Dificuldades e obstáculos no trabalho com os Arquivos-Wundt em Leipzig: um relato de experiência. In E. Lourenço, M. C. Guedes, & R. H. F. Campos (Eds.), Patrimônio cultural, museus, psicologia e educação: diálogos (pp. 79–85). Belo Horizonte: Editora PUC-Minas.
Araujo, S. F. (2012a). O lugar de Christian Wolff na história da psicologia. Universitas Psychologica, 11(3), 1013–1024.
Araujo, S. F. (2013a). The question of empirical psychology in the pre-critical period: A case for discontinuity in Kant's thought. In S. Bacin, A. Ferrarin, C. La Rocca, & M. Ruffing (Eds.), Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht (pp. 359–366). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Araujo, S. F. (2012b). Why did Wundt abandon his early theory of the unconscious? Towards a new interpretation of Wundt’s psychological project. History of Psychology, 15(1), 33–49.
Araujo, S. F., & Pereira, T. R. C. (2014). La idea de psicología racional en la Metafísica Alemana (1720) de Christian Wolff. Universitas Psychologica, 13(4), 15–26.
Arnold, A. (1980). Wilhelm Wundt – Sein philosophisches System. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Ash, M. (1983). The self-presentation of a discipline: History of psychology in the United States between pedagogy and scholarship. In L. Graham, W. Lepenies, & P. Weingart (Eds.), Functions and uses of disciplinary histories (pp. 143–189). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Ash, M. (1987). Introduction. In M. Ash & W. Woodward (Eds.), Psychology in twentieth-century thought and society (pp. 1–11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ash, M. (1998). Gestalt psychology in German culture, 1890–1967: Holism and the quest for objectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ash, M., & Sturm, T. (Eds.). (2007). Psychology’s territories. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ash, M., & Woodward, W. (Eds.). (1987). Psychology in twentieth-century thought and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bastian, A. (1860). Der Mensch in der Geschichte. Erster Band: Psychologie als Naturwissenschaft. Leipzig: Wigand.
Beiser, F. (2014a). After Hegel. German philosophy, 1840–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Beiser, F. (2014b). The genesis of Neo-Kantianism, 1796–1880. London: Oxford University Press.
Bell, M. (2005). The German tradition of psychology in literature and thought 1700–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beneke, F. E. (1820). Erfahrungsseelenlehre als Grundlage alles Wissens. Berlin: Mittler.
Beneke, F. E. (1832). Kant und die philosophische Aufgabe unserer Zeit. Berlin: Mittler.
Beneke, F. E. (1845). Die neue Psychologie. Berlin: Mittler.
Benetka, G. (2002). Denkstile der Psychologie. Das 19. Jahrhundert. Wien: WUV.
Blumenthal, A. (1970). Language and psychology. Historical aspects of psycholinguistics. New York: Wiley.
Blumenthal, A. (1975). A reappraisal of Wilhelm Wundt. American Psychologist, 30, 1081–1088.
Blumenthal, A. (1976). Wundt—revisions and reappraisals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 270, 21–29.
Blumenthal, A. (1979). The founding father we never knew. Contemporary Psychology, 24(7), 548–550.
Blumenthal, A. (1980a). Wilhelm Wundt and early American psychology: A clash of cultures. In R. Rieber & K. Salzinger (Eds.), Psychology: Theoretical-historical perspectives (pp. 25–42). New York: Academic Press.
Blumenthal, A. (1980b). Wilhelm Wundt – Problems of interpretation. In W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt studies: A centennial collection (pp. 435–445). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Blumenthal, A. (2001). A Wundt primer: The operating characteristics of consciousness. In R. Rieber & D. Robinson (Eds.), Wilhelm Wundt in history: The making of a scientific psychology (pp. 121–144). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Boring, E. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Brandt, F. B. (1895). Friedrich Eduard Beneke. The man and his philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
Brauns, H.-P. (2002). Zur Methodenfrage der Psychologie im 18. Jahrhundert. Psyhcologie und Geschichte, 10(3-4), 178–199.
Bringmann, W. (1975). Wilhelm Wundt in Heidelberg. Canadian Psychological Review, 16(2), 124–129.
Bringmann, W., & Balance, W. (1975). Wilhelm Wundt’s Lehr- und Wanderjahre. Psychologie Heute, 12(12–18), 74–77.
Bringmann, W., Balance, W., & Evans, R. (1975). Wilhelm Wundt 1832–1920: A brief biographical sketch. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 11(3), 287–297.
Bringmann, W., Bringmann, N., & Balance, W. (1980). Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt 1832–1874: The formative years. In W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt studies: A centennial collection (pp. 13–32). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Bringmann, W., Bringmann, G., & Cottrell, D. (1976). Helmholtz und Wundt an der Heidelberger Universität 1858–1871. Heidelberger Jahrbücher, 20, 79–88.
Bringmann, W., Bringmann, N., & Ungerer, G. (1980). The establishment of Wundt’s laboratory: An archival and documentary study. In W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt studies: A centennial collection (pp. 123–157). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Bringmann, W., & Scheerer, E. (Eds.). (1980). Wundt centennial issue. Psychological Research, 42(1–2).
Bringmann, W., & Tweney, R. (Eds.). (1980). Wundt studies: A centennial collection. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Bringmann, W., & Ungerer, G. (1980a). An archival journey in search of Wilhelm Wundt. In J. Brozek & L. J. Pongratz (Eds.), Historiography of modern psychology (pp. 201–240). Toronto: Hogrefe.
Bringmann, W., & Ungerer, G. (1980b). Experimental vs. educational psychology: Wilhelm Wundt’s letters to Ernst Meumann. Psychological Research, 42, 57–73.
Bringmann, W., Ungerer, G., & Bringmann, M. (1995). Wilhelm Wundt and the worker’s educational movement. Psychologie und Geschichte, 6(3–4), 233–243.
Brock, A. (1991). Was macht den psychologischen Expertenstatus aus? Eine Auseinandersetzung zwischen Wundt und Stumpf. Psychologie und Geschichte, 2, 109–114.
Brock, A. (1992). Was Wundt a “Nazi”? Völkerpsychologie, racism and anti-Semitism. Theory and Psychology, 2, 205–223.
Brock, A. (1993). Something old, something new. The ‘reappraisal’ of Wilhelm Wundt in textbooks. Theory and psychology, 3(2), 235–242.
Brozek, J. (1980). The echoes of Wundt’s work in the United States, 1887–1977: A quantitative citation analysis. Psychological Research, 42, 103–107.
Brozek, J. (1999). From ‘psychiologia’ to ‘psychologia’: A graphically documented archival study across three centuries. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 35, 177–180.
Burian, R. M. (2002). Comments on the precarious relation between history of science and philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science, 10, 398–407.
Buss, A. (Ed.). (1979a). Psychology in social context. New York: Irvington Publishers.
Buss, A. (1979b). The emerging field of the sociology of psychological knowledge. In A. Buss (Ed.), Psychology in social context (pp. 1–24). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Caparros, A., & Kirchner, M. (1982). La llamada de Wundt a la “Catedra de Filosofia” de Leipzig. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 3(3), 231–246.
Carpenter, S. (2005). Some neglected contributions of Wilhelm Wundt to the psychology of memory. Psychological Reports, 97, 63–73.
Carpintero, H. (1981). Wundt y la psicología en España. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 2(1), 37–55.
Carpintero, H., García, E., Parajón, L., Herrero, F., & Lafuente, E. (1995). A note on the presence of Wilhelm Wundt in Spanish psychology. Psychologie und Geschichte, 6(3–4), 333–340.
Carroy, J., & Schmidgen, H. (2004). Reaktionsversuche in Leipzig, Paris und Würzburg. Die deutsch-französiche Geschichte eines psychologischen Experiments, 1890–1910. Medizin Historisches Journal, 39, 27–55.
Carus, F. A. (1808). Geschichte der Psychologie. Leipzig: Barth and Kummer.
Carus, C. G. (1831). Vorlesungen über Psychologie. Leipzig: Fleischer.
Carus, C. G. (1846). Psyche. Pforzheim: Flammer und Hoffmann.
Chang, H. (1999). History and philosophy of science as a continuation of science by other means. Science and Education, 8, 413–425.
Chang, H. (2012). Beyond case-studies: History as philosophy. In S. Mauskopf & T. Schmaltz (Eds.), Integrating history and philosophy of science: Problems and prospects (pp. 109–124). Dordrecht: Springer.
Danziger, K. (1979). The positivist repudiation of Wundt. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 15, 205–230.
Danziger, K. (1980a). Wundt and the two traditions of psychology. In R. Rieber (Ed.), Wilhelm Wundt and the making of a scientific psychology (pp. 73–87). New York: Plenum Press.
Danziger, K. (1980b). Wundt’s psychological experiment in the light of his philosophy of science. Psychological Research, 42, 109–122.
Danziger, K. (1983). Origins and basic principles of Wundt’s Völkerpsychologie. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 303–313.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind. How psychology found its language. London: Sage.
Danziger, K. (2001a). Wundt and the temptations of psychology. In R. Rieber & D. Robinson (Eds.), Wilhelm Wundt in history: The making of a scientific psychology (pp. 69–94). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Danziger, K. (2013). Psychology and its history. Theory and Psychology, 23(6), 829–839.
Dessoir, M. (1902). Geschichte der neueren deutschen Psychologie. Berlin: Duncker.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1983). La psicología de los pueblos (1). Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 4(1), 33–41.
Diriwächter, R. (2004). Völkerpsychologie. The synthesis that never was. Culture and Psychology, 10(1), 85–109.
Domsky, M., & Dickson, M. (Eds.). (2010a). Discourse on a new method. Reinvigorating the marriage of history and philosophy of science. Chicago: Open Court.
Domsky, M., & Dickson, M. (2010b). Introduction. In M. Domsky & M. Dickson (Eds.), Discourse on a new method. Reinvigorating the marriage of history and philosophy of science (pp. 1–20). Chicago: Open Court.
Drobisch, M. (1842). Empirische Psychologie nach naturwissenschaftlicher Methode. Leipzig: Voss.
Drobisch, M. W. (1850). Erste Grundlegung der mathematischen Psychologie. Leipzig: Voss.
Dunkel, H. B. (1970). Herbart and Herbartianism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Eckardt, G., & Fensch, D. (1977). Vorbemerkung. In Gesellschaft für Psychologie der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (Ed.), Psychologiehistorische Manuskripte (pp. 4–5). Berlin: Gesellschaft für Psychologie der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.
École, J. (1985). Introduction à l’opus metaphysicum de Christian Wolff [Introduction to the metaphysical work of Christian Wolff]. Paris: Vrin.
Eisler, R. (1902). W. Wundts Philosophie und Psychologie. Leipzig: Barth.
Erdmann, J. E. (1842). Grundriss der Psychologie (2nd ed.). Leipzig: C. W. Vogel.
Eschenmayer, C. A. (1817). Psychologie in drei Theilen. Stuttgart: Cotta.
Eschler, E. (1959). Zu den Erkenntnissen und Anschauungen Wilhelm Wundts über die Gesellschaft. In Der Rektor der Universität Leipzig (Ed.), Karl Marx Universität Leipzig, 1409–1959. Beiträge zur Universitätsgeschichte (Vol. 1, pp. 392–412). Leipzig: Verlag Enzyclopädie.
Eschler, E. (1962). Über die sozial-philosophische Seite im Schaffen Wilhelm Wundts. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 11(4), 737–761.
Eschler, E. (1975). Überlegungen zur weltanschaulich-methodologischen Konzeption Wilhelm Wundts. In Der Rektor der Karl-Marx-Universität (Ed.), Beiträge zur Wundt-Forschung (pp. 18–29). Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.
Exner, F. (1842–1844). Die Psychologie der Hegel’schen Schule. Leipzig: Fleischer.
Fahrenberg, J. (2008). Die Wissenschaftskonzeption der Psychologie bei Kant und Wundt. Philosophie der Psychologie, 10. Available at http://www.jp.philo.at/texte/FahrenbergJ2.pdf
Fahrenberg, J. (2011). Wilhelm Wundt – Pionier der Psychologie und Außenseiter? Leitgedanken der Wissenschaftskonzeption und deren Rezeptionsgeschichte. E-book. Available at http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2011/2901/pdf/Wilhelm_Wundt___ Pionier_der_Psychologie_und_Aussenseiter.pdf
Fahrenberg, J. (2012). Wilhem Wundt’s Wissenchaftstheorie der Psychologie. Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch. Psychologische Rundschau, 63(4), 228–238.
Fahrenberg, J. (2013a). Zur Kategorienlehre der Psychologie. Lengerich: Pabst.
Farr, R. (1983). Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920) and the origins of psychology as an experimental and social science. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 289–301.
Fechner, G. T. (1964). Elemente der Psychophysik. Amsterdan: Bonset. (Original work published in 1860).
Feest, U. (2005). Operationism in psychology. What the debate is about, what the debate should be about. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2), 131–149.
Fellmann, F. (Ed.). (1996). Geschichte der Philosophie im 19. Jahrhundert. Reinbeck: Rowohlt.
Fleck, L. (1980). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. (Original work published in 1935).
Flugel, J. (1964). One hundred years of psychology. London: Methuen.
Fox, C. (1987). Defining eighteenth-century psychology: Some problems and perspectives. In C. Fox (Ed.), Psychology and literature in the eighteenth century (pp. 1–22). New York: AMS Press.
Frierson, P. (2014). Kant’s empirical psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fritsche, C. (1980). Die Rolle Wilhelm Wundts in der Krise der bürgerlichen Psychologie. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 29(2), 137–150.
Furomoto, L. (1989). The new history of psychology. In I. S. Cohen (Ed.), The G. Stanley Hall lecture series (Vol. 9, pp. 9–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Galison, P. (2008). Ten problems in history and philosophy of science. Isis, 99, 111–124.
Gerlach, H.-M. (Ed.). (2001). Christian Wolff. Seine Schule und seine Gegner. Hamburg: Meiner.
Giere, R. (1973). History and philosophy of science: Intimate relationship or marriage of convenience? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 24, 282–297.
Graumann, C. (1980). Experiment, statistics, history: Wundt’s first program of psychology. In W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt studies: A centennial collection (pp. 33–41). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Graumann, C. (1983). Wundt, Mead, Bühler. Zur Sozialität und Sprachlichkeit menschlichen Handels. Berichte aus dem Archiv für Geschichte der Psychologie, Historische Reihe (Vol. 4).
Graumann, C. F., & Gergen, K. (Eds.). (1996). Historical dimensions of psychological discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenwood, J. (2003). Wundt, Völkerpsychologie, and experimental social psychology. History of Psychology, 6(1), 70–88.
Gröteke, R. (1976). Materialien zu Wilhelm Wundt im Archiv der Karl-Marx-Universität und einige Probleme bei der Bearbeitung. In Der Rektor der Universität Leipzig (Ed.), Beiträge zur Wundt-Forschung II (pp. 94–102). Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.
Gundlach, H. (1983). Folk psychology oder social psychology oder? Das Los des Ausdrucks ‚Völkerpsychologie’ in den englischen Übersetzungen der Werke Wundts. Berichte aus dem Archiv für Geschichte der Psychologie, Historische Reihe (Vol. 5).
Gundlach, H. (1993). Entstehung und Gegenstand der Psychophysik. Berlin: Springer.
Gundlach, H. (1999). Wundt, Wilhelm. In W. Killy & R. Vierhaus (Eds.), Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie (Vol. 10, pp. 598–599). München: K. G. Saur.
Gundlach, H. (2004a). Die Lage der Psychologie um 1900. Psychologische Rundschau, 55(1), 2–11.
Gundlach, H. (2004b). Reine Psychologie, Angewandte Psycologie und die Institutionalisierung der Psychologie. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 212(4), 183–199.
Gundlach, H. (2006). Psychology as science and as discipline: The case of Germany. Physis, 43(1/2), 61–89.
Haeckel, E. (1960). Die Welträtsel. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (Original work published in 1918).
Hall, G. S. (1912). Founders of modern psychology. New York: D. Appleton & Company.
Hanson, N. (1962). The irrelevance of history of science to philosophy of science. Journal of Philosophy, 59, 574–586.
Hartman, E. v. (1891). Wundt’s System der Philosophie. Preussische Jahrbücher, 66(1–31), 123–152.
Hatfield, G. (1990). The natural and the normative: Theories of spatial perception from Kant to Helmholtz. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hatfield, G. (1992). Empirical, rational and transcendental psychology: Psychology as science and as philosophy. In P. Guyer (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Kant (pp. 200–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatfield, G. (1995). Remaking the science of mind: Psychology as natural science. In C. Fox, R. Porter, & R. Wokler (Eds.), Inventing human sciences: Eighteenth-century domains (pp. 184–231). Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Hatfield, G. (1997). Wundt and psychology as science: Disciplinary transformations. Perspectives on Science, 5(3), 349–382.
Hatfield, G. (2005). Introspective evidence in psychology. In P. Achinstein (Ed.), Scientific evidence: Philosophical theories and application (pp. 259–286). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hatfield, G. (2009). Perception and cognition. Essays in the philosopy of psychology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Haupt, E. (2001). Laboratories for experimental psychology: Göttingen’s ascendancy over Leipzig in the 1890’s. In R. Rieber & D. Robinson (Eds.), Wilhelm Wundt in history: The making of a scientific psychology (pp. 205–250). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Heidelberger, M. (2004). Nature from within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and his psychophysical worldview. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Heinrich, W. (1895). Die moderne physiologische Psychologie in Deutschland. Zürich: Speidel.
Herbart, J. (1850a). Lehrbuch zur Psychologie. In G. Hartenstein (Ed.), Herbarts Sämmtliche Werke Werke (Vol. 5, pp. 3–187). Leipzig: Voss.
Herbart, J. (1850b). Psychologie als Wissenschaft, neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik und Mathematik (Part 1). In G. Hartenstein (Ed.), Herbarts Sämmtliche Werke (Vol. 5, pp. 189–514). Leipzig: Voss.
Herbart, J. (1850c). Psychologie als Wissenschaft, neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik und Mathematik (Part 2). In G. Hartenstein (Ed.), Herbarts Sämmtliche Werke (Vol. 6). Leipzig: Voss.
Heußner, A. (1920). Einführung in Wilhelm Wundts Philosophie und Psychologie. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hiebsch, H. (1977). Wilhelm Wundt und die Anfänge der experimentellen Psychologie. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Hiebsch, H. (1980). Wilhelm Wundt und die Entstehung der Psychologie. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Psychologie der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.
Hilgard, E. (1980a). Foreword. In W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt studies: A centennial collection (pp. 1–4). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Hogrebe, W. (1987). Deutsche Philosophie im 19. Jahrhundert. München: Fink.
Hoorn, W. v., & Verhave, T. (1980). Wundt’s changing conceptions of a general and theoretical psychology. In W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt studies: A centennial collection (pp. 71–113). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Jaeger, S., & Staeuble, I. (1978). Die gesellschaftliche Genese der Psychologie. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.
Jaeger, S., Staeuble, I., Sprung, L., & Brauns, H.-P. (Eds.). (1995). Psychologie im soziokulturellen Wandel—Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
Jansz, J., & Drunen, P. v. (Eds.). (2004). A social history of psychology. Malden, MA/Basel: Blackwell/Schwabe AG.
Jones, D., & Elcock, J. (2001). History and theories of psychology: A critical perspective. London: Routledge.
Judd, C. H. (1897). Wundt’s system of philosophy. Philosophical Review, 6(4), 370–385.
Jüttemann, G. (Ed.). (2006). Wilhelm Wundts anderes Erbe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Klappenbach, H. (1994). La recepción de Wundt en Argentina. 1907: Creación del segundo curso de psicología en la Universidad de Buenos Aires. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 15(1–2), 181–197.
Klemm, O. (1911). Geschichte der Psychologie. Leipzig: Teubner.
Klemm, O. (1922). Zur Geschichte des Leipziger Psychologischen Instituts. In A. Hoffmann (Ed.), Wilhelm Wundt: Eine Würdigung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus (Vol. 2, pp. 105–108). Erfurt: Keyser.
Koch, S. (1992). Wundt’s creature at age zero — and as Centenarian: Some aspects of the institutionalization of the “new psychology”. In S. Koch & D. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 7–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
König, E. (1909). Wilhelm Wundt als Psychologe und als Philosoph (3rd ed.). Stuttgart: Fromman.
Kosellek, R. (2004). The historical-political semantics of asymmetric counterconcepts. In R. Kosellek (Ed.), Futures past: On the semantics of historical time (pp. 155–191). New York: Columbia University Press (Original work published in 1979).
Kossakowski, A. (1966). Wilhelm Wundt und sein wissenschaftliches Erbe. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 15(4/5), 717–726.
Kraepelin, E. (1896). Der psychologische Versuch in der Psychiatrie. Psychologische Arbeiten, 1, 1–91.
Krüger, J. G. (1756). Versuch einer Experimental-Seelenlehre. Halle: C. H. Hemmerde.
Krüger, L. (1982). History and philosophy of science: A marriage for the sake of reason. In L. J. Cohen, J. Łos, H. Pfeiffer, & K.-P. Podewski (Eds.), Proceedings of the VI. International Congress for logic, methodology and philosophy of science, Hannover 1979 (pp. 108–112). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kusch, M. (1999). Psychological knowledge. A social history and philosophy. London: Routledge.
Laehr, H. (1900). Die Literatur der Psychiatrie, Neurologie und Psychologie von 1459—1799 (3 Vols.). Berlin: Reimer.
Lamberti, G. (1995). Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt (1832–1920). Bonn: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag.
Lapointe, F. H. (1970). Origin and evolution of the term “psychology”. American Psychologist, 25, 640–646.
Lapointe, F. H. (1972). Who originated the term psychology. Journal of the History of Behavioral Sciences, 8, 328–335.
Laudan, L. (1996). The history of science and the philosophy of science. In R. C. Olby et al. (Eds.), Companion to the history of modern science (pp. 47–59). London: Routledge.
Leahey, T. (1981). The mistaken mirror: On Wundt’s and Titchener’s psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 17, 273–282.
Leary, D. (1979). Wundt and after: Psychology’s shifting relations with the natural sciences, social sciences, and philosophy. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 15, 231–241.
Leary, D. (1980). German idealism and the development of psychology in the 19th century. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 18, 299–317.
Leite, D., & Araujo, S. F. (2014). Psicologia empírica e antropologia no pensamento inicial de Kant. Kant E-Prints, 9(2), 27–57.
Lotze, R. H. (1852). Medicinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele. Leipzig: Weidmann.
Lovett, B. (2006). The new history of psychology: A review and critique. History of psychology, 9, 17–37.
Luccio, R. (2013). Psychologia – the birth of a new scientific context. Review of Psychology, 20(1/2), 5–14.
Marcolungo, F. L. (Ed.). (2007). Christian Wolff tra psicologia empirica e psicologia razionale. Hildesheim: Olms.
Marin, J. R. (1981). Wundt: consideraciones epistemológicas sobre su psicología social. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 2(1), 69–78.
Mauskopf, S., & Schmaltz, T. (Eds.). (2012a). Integrating history and philosophy of science: Problems and prospects. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mauskopf, S., & Schmaltz, T. (2012b). Introduction. In S. Mauskopf & T. Schmaltz (Eds.), Integrating history and philosophy of science: Problems and prospects (pp. 1–10). New York: Springer.
Mei, M. (2011). L’intuizione dei pensieri. La pars inferior animae nella psicologia cognitiva di Christian Wolf. Roma: Aracne.
Meischner, W. (1975). Wilhelm Wundt und die Psychologie als Wissenschaft. In Der Rektorder der Karl-Marx-Universität (Ed.), Beiträge zur Wundt-Forschung (pp. 7–17). Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.
Meischner, W. (1977a). Widersprüche im Wundtbild der Gegenwart. In Der Rektorder der Karl-Marx-Universität (Ed.), Beiträge zur Wundt-Forschung II (pp. 7–21). Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.
Meischner, W. (1977b). Die Anwendung marxistisch-leninistischer Prinzipien der Psychologie-Geschichte auf die Wundt-Forschung. In Gesellschaft für Psychologie der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (Ed.), Psychologiehistorische Manuskripte (pp. 30–34). Berlin: Gesellschaft für Psychologie der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.
Meischner, W. (1980). Wilhelm Wundt – Leben und Werk. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 29(2), 117–128.
Meischner, W. (1985). Wilhelm Wundts Nachlass. Psychologie für die Praxis, 2, 174–180.
Meischner, W., & Eschler, E. (1979). Wilhelm Wundt. Leipzig: Urania Verlag.
Meischner, W., & Metge, A. (1980). Die Rolle Wilhelm Wundts bei der Herausbildung der experimentellen Psychologie. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 29(2), 151–159.
Meischner-Metge, A. (2009). Psychologie. In U. Hehl, U. John, & M. Rudersdorf (Eds.), Geschichte der Universität Leipzig 1409–2009 (Vol. 4, pp. 1191–1220). Leipzig: Universitätsverlag.
Meyer, T. (2015). Das DFG-Projekt „Erschließung und Digitalisierung des Nachlasses von Wilhelm Wundt” an der Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig. Leipziger Jahrbuch zur Buchgeschichte, 23, 367–377.
Michelet, C. L. (1840). Anthropologie und Psychologie oder die Philosophie des subjektiven Geistes. Berlin: Sander.
Miralles, J. L. (1986). Lenguaje y cognición en Wundt. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 7(2), 59–67.
Mischel, T. (1970). Wundt and the conceptual foundations of psychology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 31, 1–26.
Mülberger, A. (2001). Book reviews: An analysis of the Würzburg School from a sociological point of view. ESHHS Newsletter, 19(2), 9–11.
Mülberger, A. (2008). Spanish experience with German psychology prior to World War I. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 44(2), 161–179.
Mülberger, A. (2012). Wundt contested: The first crisis declaration in psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 434–444.
Nef, W. (1923). Die Philosophie Wilhelm Wundts. Leipzig: Meiner.
Nicolas, S. (2003a). La vie et l’ouvre de W. Wundt. In S. Nicolas (Ed.), La psychologie de W. Wundt (pp. 7–26). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Nicolas, S. (Ed.). (2003b). La psychologie de W. Wundt. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Nicolas, S., Gyselink, V., Murray, D., & Bandomir, C. (2002). French descriptions of Wundt’s laboratory in Leipzig in 1886. Psychological Research, 66, 208–214.
Nipperdey, T. (1998). Deutsche Geschichte, 1800–1866. München: Beck.
O’Neil, W. (1984). Wundt myths. Australian Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 285–289.
Oelze, B. (1991). Wilhelm Wundt. Die Konzeption der Völkerpsychologie. Münster: Waxmann.
Osbeck, L., & Held, B. (Eds.). (2014). Rational intuition. Philosophical roots, scientific investigations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, C., & Kessler, E. (1988). The concept of psychology. In C. Schmitt (Ed.), The Cambridge history of renaissance philosophy (pp. 455–463). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paßkönig, O. (1912). Die Psychologie Wilhem Wundts. Leipzig: Siegismund & Volkening.
Perry, R. (1935). The thought and character of William James (2 Vols.). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Petersen, P. (1925). Wilhelm Wundt und seine Zeit. Stuttgart: Fromman.
Pickren, W., & Rutherford, A. (2010). A history of modern psychology in context. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Pinillos, J. L. (1981). Wundt y la explicación psicológica. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 2(4), 355–360.
Pinnick, C., & Gale, G. (2000). Philosophy of science and history of science: A troubling interaction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 31, 109–125.
Porter, R., & Micale, M. (1994). Reflections on psychiatry and its histories. In M. Micale & R. Porter (Eds.), Discovering the history of psychiatry (pp. 3–36). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ramul, K. (1960). The problem of measurement in the psychology of the eighteenth century. American Psychologist, 15, 256–265.
Rappard, H. v. (1979). Psychology as self-knowledge. The development of the concept of the mind in German rationalistic psychology and its relevance today. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Rappard, H. v. (1980). A monistic interpretation of Wundt’s psychology. Psychological Research, 42, 123–134.
Rappard, H. v. (2005). Wundt as an activity/process theorist. In A. Brock, J. Louw, & W. v. Hoorn (Eds.), Rediscovering the history of psychology (pp. 141–160). New York: Kluwer.
Richards, R. (1980). Wundt’s early theories of unconscious inference and cognitive evolution in their relation to Darwinian biopsychology. In W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt studies: A centennial collection (pp. 42–70). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Richards, G. (1992). The absence of psychology in the eighteenth century: A linguistic perspective. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 23(2), 195–211.
Rieber, R. (Ed.). (1980a). Wilhelm Wundt and the making of a scientific psychology. New York: Plenum.
Rieber, R. (1980b). Preface. In R. Rieber (Ed.), Wilhelm Wundt and the making of a scientific psychology (pp. vii–ix). New York: Plenum.
Ringer, F. (1969). The decline of the German mandarins: The German academic community, 1890–1933. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Robinson, D. (1982). Toward a science of human nature. Essays on the psychologies of Mill, Hegel, Wundt and James. New York: Columbia University Press.
Robinson, D. (2013a). Historiography of psychology: A note on ignorance. Theory and Psychology, 23(6), 819–828.
Robinson, D. (2013b). A word more. Theory and Psychology, 23(6), 852–854.
Rose, N. (1985). The psychological complex. Psychology, politics and society in England 1869–1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rose, N. (1998). Inventing ourselves: Psychology, power, personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenkranz, J. K. F. (1837). Psychologie oder die Wissenschaft von dem subjektiven Geist. Königsberg: Bornträger.
Rosenkranz, J. K. F. (1850). Ueber die Psychologie als Naturwissenschaft. Allgemeine Monatschrift für Literatur, 1, 157–169.
Rudolph, O.-P., & Goubet, J.-F. (Eds.). (2004). Die Psychologie Christian Wolffs. Systematische und historische Untersuchungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Sachs-Hombach, K. (1993). Philosophische Psychologie im 19. Jahrhundert. Freiburg: Alber.
Samelson, F. (1974). History, origin myths and ideology: ‘Discovery’ of social psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 4(2), 217–232.
Scheerer, E. (1989). Psychologie. In J. Ritter & K. Gründer (Eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (Vol. 7, pp. 1599–1653). Basel: Schwabe AG.
Schlotte, F. (1956). Beiträge zum Lebensbild Wilhelm Wundts aus seinem Briefwechsel. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig, 5(4), 333–349.
Schmidgen, H. (2003a). Time and noise: The stable surroundings of reaction experiments, 1860–1890. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 34, 237–275.
Schmidgen, H. (2003b). Wundt as chemist? A fresh look at his practice and theory of experimentation. American Journal of Psychology, 116(3), 469–476.
Schneiders, W. (Ed.). (1983). Christian Wolff 1679–1754: Interpretationen zu seiner Philosophie und deren Wirkung. Mit einer Bibliographie der Wolff-Literatur. Hamburg: Meiner.
Seeberger, C. (1915). Wilhelm Wundt und seine Kritiker. Archiv für Psychologie, 27, 1–76.
Sidgwick, A. (1880). Review of Wundt’s Logik (Vol. 1). Mind, 5, 409–424.
Smith, L. (1986). Behaviorism and logical positivism: A reassessment of the alliance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Smith, R. (1992). Inhibition: History and meaning in the sciences of mind and brain. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Smith, R. (2013). Between mind and nature. A history of psychology. London: Reaktion Books.
Sommer, R. (1892). Geschichte der deutschen Psychologie und Aesthetik von Wolff-Baumgarten bis Kant-Schiller. Würzburg: Stahel.
Sprung, L. (1979). Wilhelm Wundt – Bedenkenswertes und Bedenkliches aus seinem Lebenswerk. In G. Eckardt (Ed.), Zur Geschichte der Psychologie (pp. 73–82). Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Steinberg, H. (2002). Der Briefwechsel zwischen Wilhelm Wundt und Emil Kraepelin: Zeugnis einer jahrzentelangen Freundschaft. Bern: Huber.
Steinle, F., & Burian, R. (2002). Introduction: History of science and philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science, 10(4), 391–397.
Stern, W. (1900). Die Psychologische Arbeit des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, insbesondere in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie und Pathologie, 2(329–352), 413–436.
Sturm, T. (2001). Kant on empirical psychology. In E. Watkins (Ed.), Kant and the sciences (pp. 163–184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sturm, T. (2006). Is there a problem with mathematical psychology in the eighteenth century? A fresh look at Kant’s old argument. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 42(4), 353–377.
Sturm, T. (2009). Kant und die Wissenschaften vom Menschen. Paderborn: Mentis.
Sturm, T., & Mülberger, A. (2012). Psychology. A science in crisis? A century of reflections and debates. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 425–521.
Sulzer, J. G. (1759). Kurzer Begriff aller Wissenschaften und andern Theilen der Gelehrsamkeit (2nd ed.). Leipzig: J. C. Langenheim.
Taiana, C. (2005). Conceptual resistance in the disciplines of the mind: The Leipzig–Buenos Aires connection at the beginning of the 20th century. History of Psychology, 8(4), 383–402.
Takasuna, M. (2001). The Wundt collection in Japan. In R. Rieber & D. Robinson (Eds.), Wilhelm Wundt in history: The making of a scientific psychology (pp. 251–260). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Takasuna, M. (2008). The status quo of the Wundt collection in Japan. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 29(3/4), 255–259.
Tetens, J. N. (1777). Philosophische Versuche über die menschiliche Natur und ihre Entwicklung. Leipzig: Weidmann (Original work published in 1760).
Tetens, J. N. (2005). Gedanken über einige Ursachen, warum in der Metaphysik nur wenige ausgemachte Wahrheiten gibt. In J. Engfer (Ed.), J. N. Tetens – Die philosophischen Werke (Vol. 3, pp. 9–76). Hildesheim: Olms.
Titchener, E. (1921). Wilhelm Wundt. American Journal of Psychology, 32, 161–178.
Turner, S. P. (1994). The social theory of practices. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tweney, R., & Yachanin, S. (1980). Titchener’s Wundt. In W. Bringmann & R. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt studies: A centennial collection (pp. 380–395). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Ungerer, G. (1978). Wilhelm Wundt und Heidelberg. Badische Heimat, 1, 31–43.
Ungerer, G. (1979). Heidelberg vor der Reichsgründung 1871. Der Freundkreis Wilhelm Wundts. Badische Heimat, 3, 423–438.
Ungerer, G. (1980). Wilhelm Wundt als Psychologe und Politiker. Psychologische Rundschau, 31(2), 99–110.
Venn, J. (1884). Review of Wundt’s Logik (Vol. 2). Mind, 9, 451–463.
Vidal, F. (2011). The sciences of the soul. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Volkelt, J. (1891). Wilhelm Wundt’s System der Philosophie. Philosophische Monatshefte, 27, 257–289. 409–430, 527–546.
Volkmann, W. F. (1856). Grundriss der Psychologie vom Standpunkte des philosophischen Realismus und nach genetischer Methode. Halle: Fricke.
Waitz, T. (1846). Grundlegung der Psychologie. Hamburg: Perthes.
Waitz, T. (1849). Lehrbuch der Psychologie als Naturwissenschaft. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Walsh, R., Teo, T., & Baydala, A. (2014). A critical history and philosophy of psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wassmann, C. (2009). Physiological optics, cognition and emotion: A novel look into the early work of Wilhelm Wundt. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 64(2), 213–249.
Wehler, H.-U. (2008a). Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 1700–1815. München: Beck.
Wehler, H.-U. (2008b). Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 1815–1845/49. München: Beck.
Whittaker, T. (1887). Review of Wundt’s Ethik. Mind, 12, 285–292.
Whittaker, T. (1890). Review of Wundt’s System der Philosophie. Mind, 15, 103–120.
Wilson, H. (2006). Kant’s pragmatic anthropology. Its origin, meaning, and critical significance. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Wolff, C. (1968). Psychologia empirica. In J. École (Ed.), Christian Wolff’s Gesammelte Werke, II. Abteilung, Band 5. Hildesheim: Olms (Original work published in 1738).
Wolff, C. (1972). Psychologia rationalis. In J. École (Ed.), Christian Wolff’s Gesammelte Werke, II. Abteilung, Band 6. Hildesheim: Olms (Original work published in 1740).
Wolff, C. (1983). Philosophia rationalis sive logica (Pars 1). In C. Corr (Ed.), Christian Wolff’s Gesammelte Werke, II. Abteilung, Band 1. Hildesheim: Olms (Original work published in 1740).
Wolff, C. (2003). Vernünftige Gedanken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen dingen überhaupt. In C. Corr (Ed.), Christian Wolff’s Gesammelte Werke, I. Abteilung, Band 2. Hildesheim: Olms (Original work published in 1751).
Wong, W. (2009). Retracing the footsteps of Wilhelm Wundt: Explorations in the disciplinary frontiers of psychology and in Völkerpsychologie. History of Psychology, 12(4), 229–265.
Wontorra, H. M. (2009). Frühe apparative Psychologie. Tönning: Der Andere Verlag.
Woodward, W. (1980). Toward a critical historiography of psychology. In J. Brozek & L. Pongratz (Eds.), Historiography of modern psychology (pp. 29–67). Toronto: Hogrefe.
Woodward, W. (1982a). From the science of language to Völkerpsychologie: Lotze, Steinthal, Lazarus, and Wundt. Bericht aus dem Archiv für Geschichte der Psychologie. Historische Reihe, 2.
Woodward, W. (1982b). Wundt’s program for the new psychology: Vicissitudes of experiment, theory, and system. In W. Woodward & M. Ash (Eds.), The problematic science: Psychology in nineteenth-century thought (pp. 167–197). New York: Praeger.
Woodward, W. (1987). Professionalization, rationality, and political linkages in twentieth-century psychology. In M. Ash & W. Woodward (Eds.), Psychology in twentieth-century thought and society (pp. 295–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, R. (1966). Scholarship in the behavioural sciences. History of Science, 5, 1–51.
Zelle, C. (2001). Experiment, experience and observation in eighteenth-century anthropology and psychology – the examples of Krüger’s Experimentalseelenlehre and Moritz’ Erfahrungsseelenkunde. Orbis Literarum, 56, 93–105.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Freitas Araujo, S. (2016). Introduction. In: Wundt and the Philosophical Foundations of Psychology . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26636-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26636-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26634-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26636-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)