Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T01:33:39.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hermann von Helmholtz's Empirico-Transcendentalism Reconsidered: Construction and Constitution in Helmholtz's Psychology of the Object

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2014

Liesbet De Kock
Liesbet De Kock*
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Belgium E-mail address: Liesbet.DeKock@UGent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

This paper aims at contributing to the ongoing efforts to get a firmer grasp of the systematic significance of the entanglement of idealism and empiricism in Helmholtz's work. Contrary to existing analyses, however, the focal point of the present exposition is Helmholtz's attempt to articulate a psychological account of objectification. Helmholtz's motive, as well as his solution to the problem of the object are outlined, and interpreted against the background of his scientific practice on the one hand, and that of empiricist and (transcendental) idealist analyses of experience on the other. The specifically psychological angle taken, not only prompts us to consider figures who have hitherto been treated as having only minor import for Helmholtz interpretation (most importantly J.S. Mill and J.G. Fichte), it furthermore sheds new light on some central tenets of the latter's psychological stance that have hitherto remained underappreciated. For one thing, this analysis reveals an explicit voluntarist tendency in Helmholtz's psychological theory. In conclusion, it is argued that the systematic significance of Helmholtz's empirico-transcendentalism with respect to questions of the mind is best understood as an attempt to found his empirical theory of perception in a second order, normative account of epistemic subjectivity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 709 - 744
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allik, Jüri, and Konstabel, Kenn. 2005. “G. F. Parrot and the Theory of Unconscious Inferences.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 41 (4):317–330.Google Scholar
Araujo, Saulo de Freitas. 2012. “Why Did Wundt Abandon His Early Theory of the Unconscious?” History of Psychology 15 (1):33–49.Google Scholar
Bell, Charles. 1811. Idea of a New Anatomy of the Brain. London: C. Bell.Google Scholar
Bernfeld, Siegfried. 1944. “Freud's Earliest Theories and the School of Helmholtz.” Psychoanalytic Quarterly 13:341–362.Google Scholar
Boring, Edwin. 1950. A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts.Google Scholar
Bradley, Francis Herbert. 1876. Ethical Studies. London: Henry S. King.Google Scholar
Cahan, David, ed. 1993. Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cassedy, Steven. 2008. “A History of the Concept of Stimulus and the Role It Played in the Neurosciences.” Journal for the History of Neuroscience 174:405–432.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. 1944. “The Concept of Group and the Theory of Perception.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 5 (1):1–36.Google Scholar
Crary, Jonathan. 1992. Techniques of the Observer. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Darrigol, Olivier. 2003. “Number and Measure: Hermann von Helmholtz at the Crossroads of Mathematics, Physics and Psychology.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 34 (3):515–573.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, and Galison, Peter. 2007. Objectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Kock, Liesbet. 2014. “Voluntarism in Early Psychology: The Case of Hermann von Helmholtz.” History of Psychology 17 (2):105–128.Google Scholar
DiSalle, Robert. 1993. “Helmholtz's Empiricist Philosophy of Mathematics: Between Laws of Perception and Laws of Nature.” In Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science, edited by Cahan, David, 498–521. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Disalle, Robert 2006. “Kant, Helmholtz, and the Meaning of Empiricism.” In The Kantian Legacy in Nineteenth-Century Science, edited by Friedman, Michael and Nordmann, Alfred, 123–140. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, Massimo. 1997. Retours à Kant. Paris: Editions du Cerf.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. [1794] 1997. Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 1798. Das System der Sittenlehre. Leipzig: Christian Ernst Gabler.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 1817. Die Thatsachen des Bewusstseins. Stuttgart: Gottaischen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Finger, Stanley, and Wade, Nicholas. 2001. “The Eye as an Optical Instrument: From Camera Obscura to Helmholtz's Perspective.” Perception 30:1157–1177.Google Scholar
Finger, Stanley, and Wade, Nicholas. 2002a. “The Neuroscience of Helmholtz and the Theories of Johannes Müller, Part 1: Nerve Cell Structure, Vitalism and the Nerve Impulse.” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 11 (2):136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, Stanley, and Wade, Nicholas. 2002b. “The Neuroscience of Helmholtz and the Theories of Johannes Müller, Part 2: Sensation and Perception.” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 11 (3):234–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2001. Dynamics of Reason: The 1999 Kant Lectures at Stanford University. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2006. The Kantian Legacy in Nineteenth-Century Science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2009. “Einstein, Kant, and the Relativized A Priori.” In Constituting Objectivity, edited by Bitbol, Michel, et al., 253–267. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullinwider, Simon P. 1990. “Hermann von Helmholtz: the Problem of Kantian Influence.” Studies in the History of the Philosophy of Science 21 (1):41–55.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, Ludwig. 1898. Kant und Helmholtz. Hamburg: Leopold Voss.Google Scholar
Hallet, Dani. 2009. “On the Subject of Goethe: Hermann von Helmholtz on Goethe and Scientific Objectivity.” Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 31:178–194.Google Scholar
Hamilton, William. 1859. Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, 2nd volume, edited by Mansel, Henry L.. Boston: Gould and Lincoln.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamner, Gail. 2003. American Pragmatism: a Religious Genealogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. 1990. The Natural and the Normative: Theories of Spatial Perception from Kant to Helmholtz. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael. 1993. “Force, Law and Experiment. The Evolution of Helmholtz's Philosophy of Science.” In Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science, edited by Cahan, David, 461–497. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael. 1994. “Helmholtz’ Erkentniss- und Wissenschaftstheorie im Kontext der Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Universalgenie Helmholtz, edited by Krüger, Lorenz, 168–185. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael. 1997. “Beziehungen zwischen Sinnesphysiologie und Philosophy im 19. Jahrhundert.” In Philosophie und Wissenschaften. Formen und Prozesse ihrer Interaktion, edited by Sandkühler, Hans Jörg, 37–58. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann. [1847] 1889. Uber die Erhaltung der Kraft. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1851] 1883. “Beschreibung einen Augenspiegels zur Untersuchung der Netzhaut im Lebenden Auge.” In Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, vol. 2, 591–609. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1852] 1883. “Ueber die Natur der menschlichen Sinnesempfindungen.” In Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, vol. 2, 591–609. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1855] 1896. “Ueber das Sehen des Menschen.” In Vorträge und Reden, vol. 1, 85–119. Braunschweig: Holzstiche.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1862] 1995. “On the Relation of Natural Science to Science in General.” In Science and Culture, edited and translated by Cahan, David, 76–95. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1863] 1912. On the Sensations of Tone. Translated by Ellis, Alexander J.. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1856/66] 1924/25. Treatise on Physiological Optics, published in three volumes, translated by Southall, James P. C.. Menasha WI: George Banta Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1868] 1995. “The Recent Progress of the Theory of Vision.” In Science and Culture, edited by Cahan, David, 127–203. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1870] 1995. “On the Origin and Significance of Geometrical Axioms.” In Science and Culture, edited and translated by Cahan, David, 226–248. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1877] 1995. “On Thought in Medicine.” In Science and Culture, edited and translated by Cahan, David, 309–327. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1878] 1995. “The Facts in Perception”. In Science and Culture, edited and translated by Cahan, David, 342–380. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1891] 1995. “Hermann von Helmholtz. An Autobiographical Sketch.” In Science and Culture, edited and translated by Cahan, David, 381–392. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. [1892] 1995. “Goethe's Presentiments of Coming Scientific Ideas.” In Science and Culture, edited and translated by Cahan, David, 393–412. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. 1894. “Über den Ursprung der richtigen Deutung unserer Sinneseindrücke.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane 7:81–96.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. 1896. Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik Zweite umgearbeitete Auflage. Hamburg: Leopold Voss.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von. 1921. “The Facts in Perception.” In Hermann von Helmholtz. Epistemological Writings. Translated by Herz, Paul and Schlick, Moritz, 115–185. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
Hochberg, Julian. 2007. In the Mind's Eye. Edited by Peterson, Maryet al.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
James, William. 1890. Principles of Psychology, vol. 1. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jeannerod, Marc, et al. 1979. “Corollary Discharge: Its Possible Implications in Visual and Oculomotor Interaction.” Neuropsychologia 17:241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1781/1787] 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koenigsberger, Leo. 1902/1903. Hermann von Helmholtz, 3 vols. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.Google Scholar
Kohls, Nico, and Benedikter, Roland. 2010. “The Origins of the Modern Concept of ‘Neuroscience’.” In Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives in Neuroethics, edited by Giordano, James and Gordijn, Bert, 37–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krause, Albrecht. 1878. Kant und Helmholtz. Lahr: Moritz Schauenburg.Google Scholar
Lange, Friedrich A. 1881. History of Materialism, vol. 3. Translated by Thomas, Ernest C.. London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Leary, David E. 1980. “German Idealism and the Development of Psychology in the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 18:299–317.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried W. [1695] 2004. “Clarification of the ‘New System of the Nature of the Communication of Substances’.” In The Shorter Leibniz Texts, edited by Strickland, Lloyd, 77–78. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lenoir, Timothy. 1993. “The Eye as a Mathematician.” In Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science, edited by Cahan, David, 109–153. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lenoir, Timothy. 2006. “Operationalizing Kant: Manifolds, Models, and Mathematics in Helmholtz's Theories of Perception.” In The Kantian Legacy in Ninetheenth-Century Science, edited by Friedman, Michael and Nordmann, Alfred, 141–210. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liebmann, Otto. 1869. Ueber den objectiven Anblick. Stuttgart: Carl Schober.Google Scholar
Makkreel, Rudolf A., and Luft, Sebastian. 2010. Neo-Kantianism in Contemporary Philosophy. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, David C. 2000. “Optics of Thought: Logic and Vision in Müller, Helmholtz, and Frege.” Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 41 (4):365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Patrick J. 2003. “Demonstration by Simulation: The Philosophical Significance of Experiment in Helmholtz's Theory of Perception.” Perspectives on Science 11 (2):170–207.Google Scholar
Meulders, Michel. 2010. Helmholtz: From Enlightenment to Neuroscience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John S. 1865. “The Psychological Theory of the Belief in an External World.” In An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, by Mill, John S., 234–250. Boston: William V. Spencer.Google Scholar
Mill, John S. [1859] 1867. “Bain's Psychology.” In Dissertations and Discussions, by Mill, John S., 97–152. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Mill, John S. [1843] 1882. A System of Logic, 8th ed.New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Müller, Johannes S. 1826. Zur vergleichenden Physiologie des Gesichtssinnes. Leipzig: Gnobloch.Google Scholar
Müller, Johannes. [1833/1840] 1843. Elements of Physiology. Translated by Baly, William. Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard.Google Scholar
Neuber, Matthias. 2012. “Helmholtz's Theory of Space and Its Significance for Schlick.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (1):163–180.Google Scholar
Olesko, Kathryn M., and Holmes, Frederic L.. 1993. “Experiment, Quantification and Discovery. Helmholtz's Early Physiological Researches 1843–1850.” In Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science, edited by Cahan, David, 50–108. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Mary A., Gillam, Barbara, and Sedgwick, H. A., eds. 2007. In the Mind's Eye: Julian Hochberg on the Perception of Pictures, Films, and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Post, Karl. 1905. Johannes Müllers Philosophische Anschauungen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rachlin, Howard. 2005. “What Müller's Law of Specific Nerve Energies Says about the Mind.” Behavior and Philosophy 33:41–54.Google Scholar
Richards, Robert J. 1980. “Wundt's Early Theories of Unconscious Inference and Cognitive Evolution in Their Relation to Darwinian Biopsychology.” In Wundt Studies. A Centennial Collection, by Bringman, Wolfgang G. and Tweney, Ryan D., 42–70. Toronto: C.J. Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Rieber, Robert, and Robinson, David K.. 2001. Wilhelm Wundt in History. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Riehl, Alois. 1904. “Helmholtz in seinem Verhältnis zu Kant.” Kant Studien 9 (1):261–285.Google Scholar
Robinson, Daniel. 1995. An Intellectual History of Psychology. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Scarre, Geoffrey. 1989. Logic and Reality in the Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Scheerer, Eckhart. 1989. “On the Will: A Historical Perspective.” Advances in Psychology 62:39–60. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schiemann, Gregor. 2009. Hermann von Helmholtz's Mechanism: The Loss of Certainty. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Schmidgen, Henning. 2003. “Wundt as Chemist? A Fresh Look at His Practice and Theory of Experimentation.” American Journal of Psychology 116 (3):469–476.Google Scholar
Schmitz, Heinz. 1995. Physiologischer Neukantianismus und Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Steege, Benjamin. 2012. Helmholtz and the Modern Listener. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, Reinhard. 2004. Naturwissenschaftshermeneutik. Würzburg: Verlag Königshausen and Neumann.Google Scholar
Schwertschlager, Joseph. 1883. Kant und Helmholtz. Freiburg: Herder'sche Verlagshandlung.Google Scholar
Snyder, Laura. 2006. Reforming Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Steven. 1977. “Hermann von Helmholtz and the Empiricist Vision.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 13:48–58.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Steven. 1993. “Vision Studies in Germany: Helmholtz versus Hering.” Osiris 8:80–103.Google Scholar
Turner, Steven. 1994. In the Eye's Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, Nicholas, and Brozek, Josef. 2001. Purkinje's Vision: The Dawning of Neuroscience. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Westheimer, Gerald. 2008. “Was Helmholtz a Bayesian?” Perception 39:642–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wundt, Wilhelm. 1862. Beiträge zur Theorie der Sinneswahrenehmung. Leipzig: C.F. Wintersche Verlagshandlung.Google Scholar