An issue, which easily would escape our attention but which is important for understanding developments in philosophy, is psychology. William James reminded me of it, for he was professor of psychology and philosophy.
In 1816 Johann Friedrich Herbart published his "Lehrbuch zur Psychologie"...Text-book on Psychology. He was a philosopher, even lectured in Köningsberg as a successor of Immanuel Kant.
But psychology, still a part of philosophy then, became gradually an independent science. James, who lived from 1842 to 1910 was a contemporary of Sigmund Freund, who was only 14 years younger than James.
Freud began his practice as a psychiater in Vienna in 1886. In 1899 he published his famous "Die Traumdeutung" ....On the Interpretation of dreams.
Another significant even was the opening of the first laboratory on experimental psychology at the University of Leipzig by Wilhelm Wundt in 1879.
Dont forget that Darwin published "The origin of species" in 1859. A revolutionary view on all that lives on this planet including mankind, which you will find online at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
After 1945 European universities established independent faculties of psychology. In other words, a lot of questions that formerly were handled and discussed by philosophers, became the domain of the psychologist. Just think of Locke and Hume, how extensively they discussed the processes of sensory experience, or Bentham on moral behavior.
It cant be otherwise than that this development had its influence on philosophy. And it is so fascinating to see that all this was developing during the lifetime of William James. How I would love to ask him how well he was informed about all the developments in Europe.
And in what way it influenced his ideas on psychological and philosophical matters. He had been often to Europe in particular to Germany to study experimental physiology.
What I wanted to bring to your attention today is, that there is happening so much around 1900 with respect to how man thinks about himself, his knowledge, his place in the universe. Science is now the big issue, scientific method and experimentation.
As I mentioned in other lectures, history isnt made by individuals although we study 100 individuals here and say A influenced B and so on. History is a proces and it is our artificial approach by picking out individuals to make them the sole creators of new ideas, methods, visions.
William James is a man in the middle of that process, called being. I want you to look always further than the individual person. Look at his moment in history, his social context, the political situation, the educational and social needs. It all increases your understanding of the philosophical questions, we are dealing here with. Not to forget that mankind was heading for two devastating world wars.
You may frown and think...hmmmm...this not exactly about William James and his ideas. True, but I hope that this lecture nevertheless made some sense and don't be disappointed. The next lecture will be on William James in person....(^_^)
The Discussion
[13:18] Athena John: Herman, If I may ask?
[13:18] Herman Bergson: sure..
[13:19] Osrum Sands: The positive side of Modernity was in full flight
[13:19] Stanley Aviatik: Athena?
[13:19] Athena John: We've seen time and again how one person can influence the history of the entire planet. For example: Hitler completely changed the whole planet, the way it saw itself, the technology, etc.
[13:19] hope63 Shepherd: positive.. are you refereing to herman mentioning the world wars os_:?
[13:20] Athena John: So how can we say history isn't about single people?
[13:20] Osrum Sands: no
[13:20] Athena John: herman Bergson: As I mentioned in other lectures, history isnt made by individuals
[13:20] Herman Bergson: Yes I understand, Athena, but that is a historical mistake to think that way, is my opinion
[13:20] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: well who or what influenced hitler?
[13:20] Cailleach Shan: His Mum.
[13:20] hope63 Shepherd: but some indiividuals left a big mark..
[13:20] Ze Novikov: heehee
[13:20] Herman Bergson: already in 1925 the German airforce was training In Russia with Fokker planes (Dutch product)
[13:21] Stanley Aviatik: Are you saying individuals work colletively
[13:21] AristotleVon Doobie: of course without those single indiviuals and their contribution we would be in a differerent posture today
[13:21] Athena John: Hitler was influenced by economics, personal experience as a soldier and his own psychiatric issues
[13:21] Annabelle Laminsk raises hand
[13:21] hope63 Shepherd: richthofen flew a fokker wolf..:)
13:21] Herman Bergson: Annabelle!
[13:21] Cailleach Shan: I think we only see the effect of an individual ego retrospectively.
[13:22] Qwark Allen: sorry! need to go help some1
[13:22] Qwark Allen: cya soon
[13:22] Annabelle Laminsk: i have no idea who is James in person, do you have a watered down version so I can understand?
[13:22] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Q
[13:22] Qwark Allen: been a lil pragmatic
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: wikipedia
[13:22] Qwark Allen: egehehhe
[13:22] Varick Vendetta: peace q
[13:23] hope63 Shepherd: herman.. from what you said about james... was he someone who realized that interdisciplinary scinece was also necessary for philosophy?
[13:23] Herman Bergson: I have no idea Hope....I didnt find anything about that
[13:24] Mickorod Renard: maybe certain individuals act as the medium for greater issues of the collective
[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: that sounds sensible Mick
[13:24] Osrum Sands: the secularisation of thought has allowed for greated depth on understanding in each field ... But they need to be kept on harnmony
[13:24] Stanley Aviatik: You mean it it had't been hitler it wouls have been someone else
[13:24] hope63 Shepherd: mick.. you talk about herman and us?
[13:24] Mickorod Renard: lol
[13:24] Mickorod Renard: of course
[13:25] Athena John: I think not. Hitler was unique
[13:25] Herman Bergson: OK....stop plz..:-)
[13:25] hope63 Shepherd: :)
[13:25] Stanley Aviatik: You sure - Germany was ripe for something to happe
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: no one could have duplicated his actions exactly
[13:25] Herman Bergson: Speculating about what ifs make no sense...
[13:25] Stanley Aviatik: Maybe not in excactly the same way
[13:26] Stanley Aviatik: he was the spark
[13:26] Mickorod Renard: all the footage shows Hitler to be quite popular
[13:26] Herman Bergson: What I wanted to say today is ,that you should keep a keen eye on the historical context of a person...
[13:26] Stanley Aviatik: quatum events happen everywhere
[13:26] Mickorod Renard: by the Germans at that time
[13:26] Osrum Sands: And that brings us back to James and his 'stream of consciousness" stuff
[13:26] Stanley Aviatik: some more profound than others
[13:26] AristotleVon Doobie: the influence of the collective surelyinfluences individuela behavior
[13:26] Stanley Aviatik: gives potential to
[13:27] hope63 Shepherd: ari.. stop dreaming.. its the other way round..
[13:27] Osrum Sands: Yes stan . the giants upon whos shoulders we are privilaged to stand
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: no Hope, it is all sensory experience
[13:27] Alarice Beaumont: no hope.. think there is some truth in what ari says!
[13:27] Ganymede Blackburn: That makes no sense, Hope. :)
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: the changes in knowledge then were so influential on everyone's thinking i believe
[13:27] Stanley Aviatik: not quite - anyway that's a misquote
[13:27] hope63 Shepherd: lol.. you mean how heavy the purse is in my jacket?
[13:28] Herman Bergson: ** Silence plz ***
[13:28] Cailleach Shan: Lol Bring out your whip Herman.
[13:28] Ze Novikov: Herman can any philosopher be read without understanding his context?
[13:28] Herman Bergson: ok Good question Ze....
[13:28] Athena John: Sorry guys, work calls. See you soon!
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Athena
[13:28] Mickorod Renard: ciao
[13:28] Herman Bergson: many books on philosophy do so....
[13:28] Cailleach Shan: cu
[13:29] hope63 Shepherd: can anyone be understood without his context to society?
[13:29] Mickorod Renard: good point
[13:29] Ze Novikov: indeed they do
[13:29] Ganymede Blackburn: He can be read, but he's likely to be interpreted in ways the philosopher himself hadn't anticipated.
[13:29] Herman Bergson: They only discuss the ideas of the individual philosopher
[13:29] Ze Novikov: umm
[13:29] Herman Bergson: But the interesting thing is..
[13:30] Herman Bergson: as a student in my 20s I took it as normal...I studied philosophy
[13:30] Herman Bergson: but now.....rereading all history again I only can understand it in a wider context...
[13:31] Herman Bergson: and the issue of today is that the rise of psychology will cause a change in philosophy
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: and there is the rub, like everthing we all understand in our own unique manner
[13:31] Varick Vendetta: even if you understand the environment from which a philosopher derives his thoughts, language is not concrete and still can be misunderstood. it is possible that every person misinterprets the same ideas differently.
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: I agre Varick
[13:31] Herman Bergson: Well varick....that is a matter that allready had filled many bookshelves
[[13:32] Herman Bergson: But on the other hand I think it is not so interesting whether I interpret some philosopher right or wrong ..
[13:32] Herman Bergson: if you can make that difference
[13:32] Cailleach Shan: Herman can you give an example of how the separation of psychology influenced philosophy?
[13:33] Herman Bergson: the matter is that we discuss thoughts, ideas....
[13:33] Herman Bergson: I think I can Cailleach....
[13:33] Herman Bergson: take the issue of sensory experience.....
[13:34] Herman Bergson: There isnt a philosopher anymore who would elaborate on that issue like Locke and Hume did
[13:34] Herman Bergson: it now is in the field of psychology
[13:34] hope63 Shepherd: i think its not a qquestion of separation..its a new aspect of what we are philosophers had to integrate in their reflections..
[13:34] Cailleach Shan: kk
[13:35] Herman Bergson: Betrand Russell said...all questions we have an answer on, move on to the field of science...
[13:35] hope63 Shepherd: like they will have to later.. concerning.. society.. new physics..
[13:35] Osrum Sands: I was reminded just this and that "The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge." -- Elbert Hubbard
[13:35] Herman Bergson: And other example is how philosophers thought about matter...
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL I have heard that
[13:36] Osrum Sands: yes Herman the core is to discuss and keep the progress of ideas happening
[13:36] Samuel Okelly: herman do yo think james's pragmatism can be viewed in the same way as science is viewed today?
[13:36] Herman Bergson: I read that one today osrum..where was it...
[13:36] Varick Vendetta: I'm using that quote more often now
[13:36] Osrum Sands: Aris
[13:36] Herman Bergson: Interesting question Samuel
[13:36] hope63 Shepherd: no.. hubard:)
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:37] Herman Bergson: I'll keep that in mind for the next lecture on James himself..
[13:37] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: my friend asked me a question (well he put it inside my chat robot), I never understood it:Wittgenstein said Psychology is no more a part of philosophy than is any other science. Can it be argued that philosophy should only be done by scientists?
[13:37] Laila Schuman: winks at aristotle
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: wink back
[13:37] Cailleach Shan: lol should we leave the room.
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: ap4.. look at the philosophers of the past.. they were mostly scientists in other fields too..
[13:38] Herman Bergson: The question of Ap concerns an issue we have discussed before...
[13:38] Herman Bergson: First of all there is a word....philosophy..I agree
[13:39] Herman Bergson: but that doesnt mean that there exists something like philosophy...
[13:39] Herman Bergson: We have logic, epistemology, philosophy of science , ehtrics....and so on...
[13:40] Herman Bergson: and at the end someone will ask...ok..nice...but where is philosophy itself???
[13:40] hope63 Shepherd: kant would strayn
[13:40] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: :)
[13:40] hope63 Shepherd: stangle you for saying philosophy doesn't exist.. :)
[13:40] Herman Bergson: so It makes no sense to talk about philosophy as if it is some entity which has properties
[13:41] Osrum Sands: Puting it into history... surly this devision of thinking into expert fields is but one of the processes of Modernity
[13:41] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: yes ... science for me has a specific, well defined method... what is the method of philosophy?
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: how smart do you have to be to be a philosopher?
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: philosophy is a method\
[13:41] Stanley Aviatik: or how dumb
[13:41] Samuel Okelly: philosophy poses the same questions to the butcher, baker and candlestick maker and they each have answers
[13:41] Herman Bergson: Well...this remark tickles me Ap....
[13:41] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: there is the socratic method...i suppose
[13:42] Herman Bergson: for science has no other method than philosophy
[13:42] Varick Vendetta: I would have to say that logic, reason, and dialectic are the methods of philosophy.
[13:42] hope63 Shepherd: the methods of science have been develloped by philosophers mostly:)
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly!!!!!!!!!
[13:42] Ganymede Blackburn: Again, we have to look at how the word philosophy has evolved over time.
[13:42] Ze Novikov: yes
[13:42] Herman Bergson: Indeed ganymede..
[13:42] Herman Bergson: And more....
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: is it because philosophers choose to think?
[13:42] Ganymede Blackburn: The early philosophers meant someting different than what the word implies today.
[13:42] hope63 Shepherd: and natural science.. this word has evolved too:)
[13:43] Herman Bergson: In 1900 we are at a point in history where human knowledge is beginning to split up in real specialisms...
[13:43] Osrum Sands: now where getting going... this is good
[13:43] Herman Bergson: in the 16th century it still was possible to know "everything"
[13:43] Cailleach Shan: lol humans giving ideas names.
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: faust cal.. i want to know all...
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: the great burocracy of knowledge
[13:44] Cailleach Shan: Hahahaha... lmao
[13:44] Herman Bergson: No Aristotle.....the immense increase of knowledge
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: and not just one mind can contain it all?
[13:44] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: so are you saying that for scientists to understand the 'mind', they would have to revise the scientific method itself using philosophy?... besides in the 'social sciences' there is the principle of 'ceteris paribus'..the method there is different from say chemistry
[13:44] Herman Bergson: indeed Aristotle
[13:45] Herman Bergson: No Ap..that is not what I mean....
[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: philosophy is critical reflection of the science and the methods of our thinking
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: thankfully we have differenct minds inclined to different specialties
[13:45] Herman Bergson: I mean that the basic method of science is logic
[13:45] Herman Bergson: plain logic
[13:45] hope63 Shepherd: lets agree that we have more or less the same brain capacity?
[13:46] Herman Bergson: I hope so Hope..:-)
[13:46] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:46] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: :)
[13:46] hope63 Shepherd: so.. we should be careful to split up things:)
[13:46] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: i'm stupid, i admit it :)
[13:46] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:46] Herman Bergson: lol...Ap
[13:46] Ganymede Blackburn: I'm a birdbrain.
[13:46] Mickorod Renard: but the later in history we go the more inteligence has been gathered
[13:46] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:47] Annabelle Laminsk: ~~^.^ L. O. L. ^.^~~
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: so if this knoweldge is specialized then we are tabula rasa
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: but it doesnt mean we are any more cleverer
[13:47] Herman Bergson: No we arent Mickorod
[13:47] Osrum Sands: is it intelligence or knowledge we have gained
[13:47] hope63 Shepherd: knowledge-- experience-- information.. sensory input to please ari:)
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: but must divide the intel to be worked on
[13:47] Cailleach Shan: So where does it go when we die?
[13:48] Mickorod Renard: into books
[13:48] Herman Bergson: We have gained knowledge OSrum
[13:48] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: so ... logic.. hmm .. a computer can do logic. A computer can do philsophy and science?.. what do you mean by logic?
[13:48] Osrum Sands: agree herman
[13:48] Cailleach Shan: Intelligence in books!!
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: when I die where does my mind go?
[13:49] Osrum Sands: knowledge goes into books and is but a sign or pointer to intelegence
[13:49] Herman Bergson: By logic I mean the rules of logic....that something is TRUE or FALSE but never both
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear ari
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: we will be here for weeks!!!
[13:49] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: like 'i am a liar' <--- logic blows up when i say this to people
[13:49] Mickorod Renard: i wonder the same thing Ari
[13:49] Cailleach Shan: lol....
[13:49] Annabelle Laminsk: If you're meaning your brain, a canopic jar if your fancy, the ground if not.
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: ari.. deposit it with me:)
[13:49] Lottie Adamczyk: i do aswell
[13:49] Cailleach Shan: Back into the great soup of the universe.
[13:49] Osrum Sands: havent we talked about the mnd and death thing befor
[13:50] Osrum Sands: mind
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: oh the brain for sure just disintergrtates
[13:50] hope63 Shepherd: os.. brain.. not mind..
[13:50] Annabelle Laminsk: Seperate the two?
[13:50] Osrum Sands: no mind
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: absolutely
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: put your wisdom in a chip!
[13:50] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: logically, if i am a liar then the statement is true, but then i'm telling the truth..so the statement is false... logically
[13:50] Herman Bergson: OK...OK>>>>
[13:50] Mickorod Renard: I am sure it goes somewhere
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: so we can mulitply it
[13:50] Osrum Sands: knowledge in a chip
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: no... it's just gone!
[13:50] Mickorod Renard: mine is already on its way
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: hmmm
[13:50] Herman Bergson: Enough of this brainless thing
[13:51] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:51] hope63 Shepherd: ap-.- we did xenon before ..
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear see what i mean?????
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: weeks
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:51] Cailleach Shan: lol
[13:51] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: ok ..:)
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: oh sorry
[13:51] Cailleach Shan: Who'se that laughing.
[13:51] Herman Bergson: Ok....
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: accident
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: triggered gesture
[13:51] Annabelle Laminsk: I like that laugh. :D
[13:51] Herman Bergson: let me summarize...
[13:51] Herman Bergson: Silence plz..:-)
[13:51] Cailleach Shan: The philosophy of laughter.
[13:52] Herman Bergson: There are a few thing we have to keep in mind for the future...
[13:52] Laila Schuman: when i arrived, we were discussing a philosophy/philosopher in context ... the time and place.... i have found that to be true in other fields... the history of ideas...the history of inventions...the history of art... i believe that one person does not single handedly change the world... any more than one cell of our body changes or directs the entire body... conditions are so IMPORTANT ...
[13:53] Herman Bergson: in the first place the rise of psychology..
[13:53] Herman Bergson: in the second place the increasing specialization in science..
[13:53] Herman Bergson: and in the third place..keep an eye on the historical context....
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: those three items should go together from now on in watching each philosopher??
[13:54] Mickorod Renard: fourth?
[13:54] Herman Bergson: and from this perspective we'll discuss William James and all after him in the next lecture..:-)
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: i have to excuse myself
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: duty calls :-)
[13:54] Cailleach Shan: Bye Gem
[13:55] Herman Bergson: You are excused Gemma
[13:55] Mickorod Renard: bye gem
[13:55] Ze Novikov: bye Gemma
[13:55] Osrum Sands: cheers
[13:55] Ganymede Blackburn: Bye, Gemma. :)
[13:55] Stanley Aviatik: bye gemma
[13:55] <3<3<3: Stanley Aviatik bids Gemma Cleanslate farewell!
[13:55] Alarice Beaumont: bye gemma!
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: bye!!
[13:55] Alarice Beaumont: i have to go too!
[13:55] Alarice Beaumont: bye everybody :-)
[13:55] Samuel Okelly: thanks again herman :)
[13:55] Stanley Aviatik: bye alarice
[13:55] <3<3<3: Stanley Aviatik bids Alarice Beaumont farewell!
[13:55] Herman Bergson: And I thank you all for this wonderful discussion and your attention
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: b-bye Alarice
[13:55] Ganymede Blackburn: Goodbye, Alarice. :)
[13:55] Annabelle Laminsk: bai bai Alarice :D
[13:55] Mickorod Renard: bye al
[13:55] Cailleach Shan: Good one Herman.
[13:55] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: thanks herman :)
[13:55] Osrum Sands: It was good today Herman
[13:55] Herman Bergson: Class dismissed...(^_^)
[13:55] Osrum Sands: really enjoyed it
[13:55] Herman Bergson: thank you Osrum
[13:56] Mickorod Renard: thanks Herman
[13:56] Stanley Aviatik: bye all and thank you so much Herman
[13:56] Ze Novikov: thanks again Herman great class
[13:56] Samuel Okelly: see you all next time :) cheerio for now :)
[13:56] Herman Bergson: thanx Ze
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Herman
[13:56] Annabelle Laminsk: Thank you Misser Herman.
[13:56] Mickorod Renard: see ya stan
[13:56] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: i enjoyed it to.. sorry if i was disruptive though
[13:56] Herman Bergson: you werent Ap
[13:56] Cailleach Shan puts a donation into the tip jar.
[13:56] Mickorod Renard: I enjoyed it too....fun
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: disruptive? no way
[13:57] Cailleach Shan: Bye everyone. Good discussion.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment