Abstract
A “system,” according to Paul Weiss’s somewhat aphoristic definition, “is everything that is unitary enough to deserve a name.” In choosing any name one must avoid following the example of medieval pseudoscience which confused effect and cause. When air was streaming into a vacuum, a “horror vacui” was made responsible for that effect; the “phlogiston” was assumed to explain burning, and so forth. In exactly the same way, vitalistic psychology, rampant at the turn of the century, used terms such as the “escape instinct,” the “reproductive instinct,” and even the “instinct of self-preservation,” deeming this to be a sufficient explanation of behavior. This seemed legitimate as long as an “instinct” was regarded as a preternatural factor, neither standing in need of nor accessible to a causal explanation.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lorenz, K.Z. (1981). How Unitary Is “An Instinct”?. In: The Foundations of Ethology. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-3671-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-3671-3_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-211-99936-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-3671-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive