Abstract
Otto Selz’s thinking, writing style, personal dispositions, and fate at the hands of the Nazis attenuated his ideas. His concepts aim to redeem Kant’s vision: the schema is not merely a retrospective organization of information. It is also a prospective template for knowledge. To fulfill Selz’s vision is to reconstruct his concepts and perspectives on Kant and psychology’s nexus with the psychologist as thinker. A reconstructive history of ideas cuts across time and space. This reconstruction focuses Kant’s ideas of the schema and the role of analogy. It addresses Selz’s contemporaries’ ideas, and advances to present reductive views. To go beyond to concepts that navigate between thought and representation, I compare Selz’s ideas to Peirce’s. Re-schematized, the schema emerges as thinking prospectively by utilizing analogies and abstractions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It can be difficult, or it could be exciting to read Otto Selz. He is devoted to the value of abstractions, and he favors them in his writing to launch his ideas. Selz’s concepts are not only abstract; they are presented as if his job of connecting them to their underlying and projected purposes were simply incomplete. One can interpose the analogies that connect them to each other, to an overall theory and to their analogous relations with the Kantian issues concerning the schema. Here is a short list of these concepts:
‘schematic anticipation’
‘involuntary response’
‘intermediate means abstraction’
‘voluntary response’
‘Process abstraction’
‘completion of the complex schema’
‘accidental means abstraction’
‘means abstraction’
‘structural formations’
‘cognitive operation of complex completion’
‘coordinate relations’
‘knowledge complex’
‘memory complex’
Selz is devoted to the use of analogy—not only in his thinking, but also in his writing. There too, his process and method is analogical thinking. Sometimes in his writing, this process includes examples. More often, however, it is a matter of relating one idea to another—such as by his account of the desired completion of a schema as a ‘knowledge complex.’ Analogy is a fundamental tool for historical construction and enrichment. It is a method I use in the writing of this book. It undergirds my reconstruction of and projections for his concepts and ideas. (See note 2 for a brief statement of Foucault’s (1972) concept of history as ‘an analysis of descent and emergence.’ It calls for a method of approaching history from the past; yet, seeking meaning by asking. ‘What is it in the present that produces meaning for philosophical reflection?’ (Krizman, 1988). Little (2010) has a broad concept of history and what history should be. He focuses ‘historical cognition, ’ asking, ‘How do we conceptualize, represent, interpret, and discover the past?’ (p. 1). Thus, the historian’s thinking is a fundamental issue in working to interpret. As it applies to this book’s task of reconstructing an understanding of Selz, I focus the reconstruction somewhat in terms of the historian’s task that Little (2010, p. 6) describes: ‘piecing together the human meanings and intentions that underlie a given complex set of complex historical actions in terms of the thoughts, motives, and states of mind of the participants’. This task ‘requires interpretations of actions in terms of the thoughts, motives, and states of mind of the participants’ (See Appendix A for a summary of three views consonant with Little’s conception of the historian’s task.)
For those purposes, for the reasons of Selz’s style in presenting and communicating his ideas, intellectual aspirations and proclivities—and for the tragic reasons that his life and work were cut short—the very content and purpose of the present account requires analogical thinking. There are comparisons that need to be made with the ideas of his contemporaries. There are comparisons to be made with his predecessors. There are comparisons to be made with those who independently grappled with the same Kantian dilemmas Selz faced. There are comparisons to be made with how we—in Selz’s future—think when we read his thinking. From this nexus of history, it is difficult to navigate the mix—past, the present, and the future matrices of thought and concepts. Yet, if the fertile potential of Selz’s vision of the direction of the schema for a concept of mind, thought, and productive thinking is to break into the monolith of current thinking in psychology, cognitive science, and related fields, such as psycholinguistics, the requirement is there.
The historian seeking analogies pursues what Hayden White in 1973 famously identified as ‘the deep structural forms of the historical imagination’. These are accessed by tropes— ‘the four figures of classical rhetoric (i.e., metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony)’ (Chartier, 2011, p. 1). As I propose them, the concepts of analogy and its applicability to thought are basic not only to the dynamic functions of the schema but also to the thinker’s historical perspective on the various conceptions of the schema. Thus, a full description of the historical thinking includes imagination, its dependency on the analogy format, and the thinker, who re-constructs cognitive objects and depicts their relations by way of the pre-logical building blocks of analogy—namely, tropes
The re-construction is an empathic process of synchronically absorbing the complex of analogies. It is a process for the experiencing of the writer—and it is a process for the reader. To the extent that the reader should be aware of this, this note’s aim is to help reading Selz and to facilitate reading this book too.
- 2.
The look back and to the present to see what the impact of Selz’s ideas could have meant—and could still contribute to the insights and riddles Kant left for the psychology of thought—has elements in common with Foucault’s archeological and genealogical method of approaching history (1972, pp. 139–140, 152, 233). In describing history as archeology, he argues (1972, p. 140) it would produce ‘a regulated transformation of what has already been written. It is not a return to the innermost secret of the origin; it is the systematic description of a discourse-object.’ He focuses the thinking involved as ‘philosophical reflection’ (Tamboukou, 1999). Genealogy is ‘an analysis of descent and emergence’—approaching history from the past; yet, seeking meaning by asking. ‘What is it in the present that produces meaning for philosophical reflection?’ (Foucault, in Kritzman, 1988, p. 87; quoted by; Tamboukou, 1999). ‘[G]enealogy is effective history understood as the “affirmation of knowledge as perspective”’ (Foucault—quoted by Tamboukou, 1999—cited in Simons, 1995, p. 91). The method I use focuses the work and ideas of others. Their influence on Selz does not go as deep as the Kantian origins. However, the perspective that emerges helps to elaborate and contribute to the implicature of Selz’s concepts. Foucault’s aim and method is instructive: ‘the more the [historical] analysis breaks down practices, the easier it becomes to find out more about their interrelation, while this process can never have a final end’ (Tamboukou, 1999). My objective is to ‘break down’ the processes that have led to reductive solutions.
- 3.
Mathematical development of structural relations in a knowledge complex is a topic beyond this book’s confines. The book cannot include the advances and implications of current developments possible by geometric considerations of topology, their relation to algebraic formations, and the potential for application of diagrammatic explorations to the development of new concepts (knowledge); see Brown and Porter (2009, 2003, pp. 4, 5, 10). Still, the thesis here remains that Selz’s ideas in the psychology of thought and his approach to the schema and its dilemmas have a great deal to offer in linking the psychology of thought with current potentials for new perspectives on Kant’s dilemmas for psychology.
References
Allison, H. E. (2004). Kant’s transcendental idealism. New Haven[u.a.: Yale Univ. Press.
Apel, K.-O. (1972). From Kant to Peirce: The semiotical transformation of transcendental logic’. In L. W. Beck (Ed.), Kant’s theory of knowledge, Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 1974.
Arbib, M. A. (2012). Brains, machines, and mathematics. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Arbib, M. A., Bonaiuto, J. J., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kemmerer, D., MacWhinney, B., Nielsen, F. Å., & Oztop, E. (2014). Action and language mechanisms in the brain: Data, models and neuroinformatics. Neuroinformatics, 12(1), 209–225.
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bergson, H. (1902). Intellectual effort. In H. Bergson (Eds.), (1920) Mind-Energy (trans: H. W. Carr). (pp. 186–230). New York: Henry Holt.
Blumenthal, A. L. (1975). A reappraisal of Wilhelm Wundt. American Psychologist, 30(11), 1081–1088.
Bordwell, D. (1989). Making meaning (pp. 136–138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved at: http://faculty.washington.edu/cbehler/glossary/schema.html.
Breault, V., Ouellet, S., Somers, S., & Davies, J. (2013). SOILIE: A computational model of 2D imagination. In R. West & T. Stewart (Eds.) Proceedings of the twelfth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (ICCM2013), Ottawa: Carleton University 95–100. Retrieved http://www.jimdavies.org/research/publications/iccm/2013/BreaultOuelletSomersDavies2013b.pdf
Brewer, W. F. (1999a). Bartlett, Frederic Charles. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 66–67). Massachusetts/London: A Bradford Book. The MIT Press Cambridge.
Brewer, W. F. (1999b). Schemata. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), MIT encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 729–730). Massachusetts/London: A Bradford Book. The MIT Press Cambridge. http://ai.ato.ms/MITECS/Entry/brewer1.html.
Brown, R., & Porter, T. (2009/2003). The intuitions of higher dimensional algebra for the study of structured space. Revue De Synthese, 124(1), 173–203. Slightly revised, January 2009. Retrieved at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.145.9425&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Burch, R. (2004). Supplement to Charles Sanders Peirce: Peirce’s View of the Relationship Between His Own Work and German Idealism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html
Casson, R. W. (1983). Schemata in cognitive anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12, 429–462. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.002241.
Cervantes-Perez, F. (2013). Schema-theoretic models of visuomotor coordination. In J. P. Ewert & M. A. Arbib (Eds.), Visuomotor coordination: Amphibians, comparisons, models, and robots (pp. 421–450). New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Chartier, R (2011). History, time, and space. Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts, 2(2) (June 1). http://rofl.stanford.edu/node/100
Church, J. (1991). Morality and the internalized other. In J. Neu (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Freud, (pp. 209–223). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cocking, J. (2005/1991). Imagination: A study in the history of ideas. London: Routledge.
Corballis, M. C. (2011). The recursive mind: The origins of human language, thought, and civilization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. London: Cambridge Univertsity Press.
D’Andrade, R. G. (1995). The growth of schema theory. In The development of cognitive anthropology. (pp. 122–149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
De Groot, A. D. (2008b). Thought and choice in chess. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
De Groot, A. D. (Ed.) (2008a). Psychological theories of thinking. B. The main features of the theory of Selz. In Thought and choice in chess (pp. 52–76). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Dowling, W. C. (2011). Ricoeur on time and narrative: An introduction to Temps et récit.Notre Dame. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Duncker, K. (1935/1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), Whole no. 270.
Ekholm, A., & Fridqvist, S. (1998). A dynamic information system for design applied to the construction context. Paper from Proceedings of the CIB W78 conference. The life-cycle of Construction IT (B.-C. Björk & A. Jägbeck Eds.), (pp. 1–15). KTH, Stockholm. Retrieved at http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/projekteringsmetodik/research/Information_systems_for_design/Ekholm_Fridqvist_W78_98.pdf
Emmott, C., & Alexander, M. (2014/2011). Schemata. In P. Hühn et al. (Eds.), The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press. Retrieved at http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/article/schemata.
Escher, M. C. (1935). Hand with reflecting sphere. Cordon Art.
Esnaola, U., & Smithers, T. (2006). Whistling to machines. In Y. Cai & J. Abascal (Eds.), Ambient intelligence in everyday life (pp. 198–226). Berlin: Springer.
Fernandez, J. W. (1991). Beyond metaphor: The theory of tropes in anthropology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Foucault, M., Sheridan, A., & Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
Frede, D. (1992). The cognitive role of phantasia in Aristotle. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. Rorty (Eds.), s on Aristotle’s De anima, (pp. 279–296). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
French, R. (2007). The dynamics of computational modeling of analogy-making. In P. A. Fishwick (Ed.), Handbook of dynamic system modeling (pp. 2.1–2.18). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Frijda, N. H., & De Groot, A. D. (1981). Otto Selz: His contribution to psychology. The Hague/New York: Mouton.
Gärdenfors, P. (2004). How to make the semantic web more semantic: Formal ontology in information systems. In A. C. Varzi & L. Vieu (Eds.), Formal ontology in information systems: Proceedings of the Third International Conference (FOIS-2004 (pp. 17–34). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Retrieved from http://yaxu.org/tmp/Gardenfors04.pdf.
Gardner, M. (2014). Knots and Borromean rings, Rep-tiles, and eight queens (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gureckis, T. M., & Goldstone, R. L. (2010). Schema. In P. C. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences. (pp. 725–727). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hammond, W. A., & Aristotle. (1902). Aristotle’s psychology: A treatise on the principle of life (De anima and Parva naturalia). London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
Hanna, R. (2014b). Completing the Picture of Kant’s Metaphysics of Judgment: Supplement Hanna, R. “Kant’s Theory of Judgment”. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-judgment/supplement5.html.
Haydu, J. (1998). Making use of the past: Time periods as cases to compare and as sequences of problem solving. American Journal of Sociology, 102(2), 339–371.
Herrmann, T., & Katz, S. (2001). Otto Selz and the Würzburg School. In The dawn of cognitive science (pp. 225–235). Netherlands: Springer.
Hoffmann, J., Stock, A., & Deutsch, R. (1996). The Würzburg School. In Cognitive psychology in Europe: Proceedings of the ninth conference of the European society for cognitive psychology. (pp. 147–172).http://www.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/w_schule/WSCHOOL2a.pdf
Hofstadter, D. R. (1979). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Basic Books.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). Peirce, logic diagrams, and the elementary operations of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 8(1), 69–95.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2004). Mental models and reasoning. In: R. J. Sternberg & J. P. Leighton, The nature of reasoning (pp. 169–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (1787/1929). Immanuel Kant’s Critique of pure reason (trans: Smith, N. K. 2nd edn). London: Macmillan. First published, 1787.
Kant, I. (1900/1781). Critique of pure reason (trans: J. M. D. Meiklejohn New York: P. F. Collier and Son.
Kant, I. (1992/1800). In Trans. and Ed. J. M. Young, Lectures on Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (From Jäsche Logic, first published, 1800.)
Kant, I. (2012/1800). Logic. Dover Publications. First published in German, 1800.
Keet, C. M. (2006). Introduction to part-whole relations: Mereology, conceptual modelling and mathematical aspects. KRDB Research Centre Technical Report KRDB06-3 (Tutorial reader), Faculty of Computer Science, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, 2.
Keyes, C. D. (2006). Brain mystery light and dark: The rhythm and harmony of consciousness. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis e-library.
Kohler, R. (2008). Jean Piaget. London: Continuum International Publication Group.
Kritzman, L. D. (Ed.). (1988). Michel Foucault, politics philosophy, culture. London: Routledge.
Kriz, J. (2007). Oswald Külpe and the Würzburg School from the perspective of modern systems theory. In Complex cognition and qualitative science: A legacy of Oswald Külpe (Vol. 2, pp. 33–56). The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication. edited by the Center for Cognitive Sciences and Semantics at the University of Latvia in Riga. Retrieved at: http://www.jkriz.de/kuelpe.pdf.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Little, D. (2010). New contributions to the philosophy of history. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Mandler, G. (1996). The situation of psychology: Landmarks and choicepoints. The American Journal of Psychology, 109(1), 1–35. Stable URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1422925. Accessed 22 October, 2014, 21:34.
Mandler, G. (2007). A history of modern experimental psychology: From James and Wundt to cognitive science. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
May, M. (1995). Diagrammatic reasoning and symbolic interpretation: A Peirceian critique of George Lakoff’s image-schematic account of logic diagrams. Book presented at the Interdisciplinary Semiotic Symposium, The Emergence of Codes and Intentions as a Basis of Sign Processes, October 26–28 1995, Hollufgaard, Odense University. (A German version appeared in Zeitschrift für Semiotik 1995, N. 3/4.) Retrieved at: http://www.academia.edu/1042920/Diagrammatic_reasoning_and_symbolic_interpretation_1995.
Minsky, M. (1974). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306, June, 1974. Retrieved at: https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Minsky, M. (1986). Society of mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Pendlebury, M. (1995). Making sense of Kant’s schematism. Philosophy and phenomenological research, 55 (4), 777–797.
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London: Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An Essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. R. (1931). Die Gedächtnispflege unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Selbsttätigkeit. Die Quelle, 81, 607–619.
Popper, K. R. (1949). A note on natural laws and so-called ‘contrary-to-fact conditionals.’. Mind, 58, 62–66.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson and Harper & Row, New York.
Popper, K. R. (1978). Three Worlds. In A. Arbor (Ed.), The Tanner lecture on human values. Michigan: Delivered at The University of Michigan.
Popper, K. R. (1978/2014). In T. E. Hansen (Ed.) The two fundamental problems of the theory of knowledge. London: Routledge. First published in German 1978.
Queiroz, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2011). Diagrammatical reasoning and Peircean logic representations. Semiotica, 186(1/4), 1–4.
Radler, J. (2015). Bringing the environment in: Early central European contributions to an ecologically oriented psychology of perception. History of Psychology, 18(4), 401–413.
Ramirez, C. (1997). Schemata, frames and dynamic memory structures. Technical Report 7-97, University of Kent at Canterbury, Computing Laboratory, Canterbury, Kent CT2 8DS, February 1997. Retrieved at: http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/pubs/1997/221/content.eps
Rastovic, M. (2013). Kant’s Understanding of the imagination in critique of pure reason. E-Logos–Electronic Journal for Philosophy, 1–13. http://nb.vse.cz/kfil/elogos/history/rastovic13.pdf.
Reinert, G. (1981). In memoriam Otto Selz (Spoken upon the occasion of the posthumous award of the Wilhelm Wundt Plaquette in 1971). In N. H. Frijda & A. D. De Groot (Eds.), (1981), Otto Selz: His contribution to psychology (pp. 13–19). The Hague; New York: Mouton.
Ricoeur, P. (2012). Time and Narrative. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rohlf, M. (2014). Immanuel Kant. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Summer Edition). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/kant/.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), (1980), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ruskey, F., & Weston, M. (1997). The borromean rings. A survey of Venn diagrams. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 4(3). Retrieved at: http://www.combinatorics.org/files/Surveys/ds5/VennBorromean.html.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, plans, and knowledge (pp. 151–157). IJCAI’75 Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, Volume 1. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Seebohn, H. B. (1981). The psychologist Otto Selz: His life and destiny. In N. H. Frijda & A. D. De Groot (Eds.) (1981), Otto Selz: His contribution to psychology (pp. 1–12). The Hague; New York: Mouton.
Selz, O. (1913). Über die Gesetze des geordneten Denkverlaufs: Eine experimentelle Untersuchung (Vol. 1). Stuttgart: W. Spemann.
Selz, O. (1922). The psychology of productive thinking and of error: A condensed version. In N. H. Frijda & A. D. De Groot (Eds.), (1981), Otto Selz: His contribution to psychology (pp. 106–146). The Hague; New York: Mouton.
Selz, O. (1924). The laws of cognitive activity, Productive and reproductive: A condensed version. In N. H. Frijda & A. D. De Groot (Eds.), (1981), Otto Selz: His contribution to psychology (pp. 20–75). The Hague/New York: Mouton.
Selz, O. (1929). Outline of a new psychological theory. In N. H. Frijda & A. D. De Groot (Eds.), (1981), Otto Selz: His contribution to psychology (pp. 290–305). The Hague; New York: Mouton.
Simon, H. A. (1981). Otto Selz and information-processing. In N. H. Frijda & A. De Groot (Eds.), Otto Selz; His contribution to psychology (pp. 147–163). The Hague; New York: Mouton.
Simons, J. (1995). Foucault and the political. London: Routledge.
Sowa, J. F. (1987/1992). Semantic networks. In S. C. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence. New York: Wiley. Revised and extended for the second edition. Retrieved at: http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/semnet.htm.
Straub, J. (2005). Narration, identity, and historical consciousness. New York: Berghan Books.
Sturm, T. (2012). Bühler and Popper: Kantian therapies for the crisis in psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 462–472.
Tamboukou, M. (1999). Writing genealogies: An exploration of Foucault’s strategies for doing research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 20(2), 201–217. http://roar.uel.ac.uk/3596/1/writing%20genealogies,%20author’s%20copy.pdf.
ter Hark, M. (2007). Popper, Otto Selz and the rise of evolutionary epistemology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ter Hark, M. (2009). Popper’s theory of the searchlight: A historical assessment of its significance. In Z. Parusniková & R. S. Cohen (Eds.), Rethinking Popper (pp. 175–184). Dordrecht: Springer.
ter Hark, M. (2010). The psychology of thinking before the cognitive revolution: Otto Selz on problems, schemas, and creativity. History of Psychology, 13, 2–24.
Van Strien, P., & Fass, E. (2006). How Otto Selz became a forerunner of the cognitive revolution. In T. C. Dalton & R. B. Evans (Eds.), The life cycle of psychological ideas (pp. 175–202). New York: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
Varzi, A. (2016). Mereology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Spring Edition). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/mereology/.
Wagemans, J. (2013). Historical and conceptual background: Gestalt theory. In J. Wagemans & Wagemans, Johan. (Eds.), (2015), Oxford handbook of perceptual organisation (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wagoner, B. (2013). Bartlett’s concept of schema in reconstruction. Theory & Psychology, 23, 553–575.
Weitzenfeld, A., Arkin, R. C., Cervantes-Perez, F., Olivares, R., & Corbacho, F. (1998). A neural schema architecture for autonomous robots. In Proceedings of 1998 International Symposium on Robotics and Automation (pp. 12–14).
Wenzl, A. (1928). Contemporary German psychology. The Monist, 38, 1. 120–157. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27901143. Accessed 22 October, 2014, 21:25.
Wettersten, J. (1992). The roots of critical rationalism. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
White, H. V. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ix.
White, H. V. (1987). The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
White, K. (1985). The meaning of Phantasia in Aristotle’s De Anima, III, 3–87. Dialogue, 24. 483–505. http://philosophy.cua.edu/res/docs/The-Meaning-of-Phantasia-in-Aristotle-s-De-Anima-III-3-8.pdf
Zlatev, J. (2007). Embodiment, language, and mimesis. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev, & R. M. Frank (Ed.), Body, language, and mind (Vol. 1, pp. 297–338). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fisher, H. (2017). Historical Crosscurrents and Conceptual Syntheses. In: Schema Re-schematized. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48276-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48276-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48275-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48276-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)