Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–21 | Cite as

Gestalt psychology, frontloading phenomenology, and psychophysics

  • Uljana FeestEmail author
S.I.: Gestalt Phenomenology and Embodied Cognitive Science
  • 265 Downloads

Abstract

In his 1935 book Principles of Gestalt Psychology, Kurt Koffka stated that empirical research in perceptual psychology should begin with “a phenomenological analysis,” which in turn would put constraints on the “true theory.” In this paper, I take this statement as a point of departure to investigate in what sense Gestalt psychologists practiced a phenomenological analysis and how they saw it related to theory construction. I will contextualize the perceptual research in Gestalt psychology vis-a-vis Husserlian phenomenology on the one hand and mainstream psychophysics on the other, and I will argue that Gestalt psychologists practiced a form of “frontloading” phenomenology: Instead of requiring experimental subjects to engage in experiential reflections, such reflections were—in a sense—already engrained in the experimental designs used by researchers. This type of phenomenology was decidedly anti-“introspectionist” and as such was compatible with some of Husserl’s basic commitments, while at the same time bearing a surprising resemblance with the methods employed by psychophysicists like E. Boring and S.S. Stevens. This latter point will prompt me to explore what the difference between Gestalt-psychology and psychophysics amounted to. My analysis will reveal some disagreements and misunderstandings, especially with regard to the notions of isomorphism and introspection.

Keywords

Gestalt psychology Psychophysics Experimental phenomenology Introspection History of psychology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank audiences in Edinburgh and Lübeck as well as two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. In particular, I thank Dave Ward and Alistair Isaac for inviting me to the conference this paper was written for, Gary Hatfield for helpful bibliographical references and Alistair Isaac for additional insightful feedback. The article draws on archival research that was made possible by the MPI for the History of Science in Berlin.

References

  1. Albertazzi, L., Jacquette, D., & Poli, R. (Eds.). (2001). The School of Alexius Meinong. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Ash, M. (1995). Gestalt psychology in German culture, 1890–1967. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, W. (2015). The young Carl Stumpf. His spiritual, intellectual, and professional development. In D. Fisette & R. Martinelli (Eds.), Philosophy from an empirical standpoint: Essays on Carl Stumpf. Studien zur Österreichischen Philosophie (Vol. 46, pp. 61–74). Netherlands: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beenfeldt, C. (2013). The philosophical background and scientific legacy of E. B. Titchener’s psychology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boring, E. (1933). The physical dimensions of consciousness. New York: The Century Co.Google Scholar
  6. Boring, E. (1935). The relation of the attributes of sensation to the dimensions of the stimulus. Philosophy of Science, 2, 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boring, E. (1942). Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  8. Brentano, F. (1973/1874). Psychology from an empirical standpoint. London: Routledge (first published 1874 in German: Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt).Google Scholar
  9. Bühler, K. (1907). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge I. Über Gedanken. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, IX(4), 297–365.Google Scholar
  10. Chirimuuta, M. (2014). Psychophysical methods and the evasion of introspection. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 914–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrenfels, C. V. (1890). Über Gestaltqualitäten. Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, XIV, 249–292.Google Scholar
  12. Feest, U. (2005). Operationism in psychology—What the debate is about, what the debate should be about. Journal for the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feest, U. (2007). Science and experience/science of experience: Gestalt psychology and the anti-metaphysical project of the Aufbau. Perspectives on Science, 15(1), 38–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feest, U. (2012). Husserl’s crisis as a crisis of psychology. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 43(2), 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feest, U. (2014). Phenomenal experiences, first-person methods, and the artificiality of experimental data. Philosophy of Science, 81, 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallagher, S. (2003). Phenomenology and experimental design. Toward a phenomenologically enlightened experimental science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9–10), 85–99.Google Scholar
  17. Gallagher, S., & Schmicking, D. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of phenomenology and cognitive science. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Gallagher, S., & Sorensen, J. (2006). Experimenting with phenomenology. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gurwitsch, A. (1966). Some aspects and developments of Gestalt psychology. Studies in phenomenology and psychology (pp. 3–55). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hatfield, G. (2005). Introspective evidence in psychology. In P. Achinstein (Ed.), Scientific evidence: Philosophical theories and applications (pp. 259–286). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Heidelberger, M. (2003). The mind-body problem in the origin of logical empiricism: Herbert Feigl and psychophysical parallelism. In Paolo Parrini, Wesley C. Salmon, & Merrilee H. Salmon (Eds.), Logical empiricism: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 233–262). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  22. Husserl, E. (1913). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, 1(1), 1–323.Google Scholar
  23. Husserl, E. (1987). Phänomenologie und Psychologie. In Husserliana: Edmund HusserlGesammelte Werke. Aufsätze und Vorträge (19111921). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (pp. 82–124). (First published in 1917).Google Scholar
  24. Isaac, Alistair. (2017). Hubris to humility: Tonal volume and the fundamentality of psychophysical quantities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 65–66, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Käufer, S., & Chemero, A. (2013). Phenomenology. An introduction. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Koffka, K. (1923). Zur Theorie der Erlebnis-Wahrnehmung. Annalen der Philosophie, 3, 375–399.Google Scholar
  27. Koffka, K., (2001). Principles of gestalt psychology. Routledge: London. (first published in 1935).Google Scholar
  28. Köhler, W. (1913). Über unbewusste Empfindungen und Urteilstäuschungen. Zeitschrift für Psychologie (Vol. 66, pp. 51–80). (Reprinted as “On Unnoticed Sensations and Errors of Judgment” in Mary Henle (Ed.), The Selected Papers of Wolfgang Köhler (pp. 13–39). Liveright Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  29. Luchins, A. & Luchins, E. (2015). Isomorphism in gestalt theory: Comparison of Wertheimer´s and Köhler´s concepts. Gestalt Theory, 37(1), 69–100. (reprint of article from 1999).Google Scholar
  30. Sprung, H., & Sprung, L. (1997). Carl Stumpf (1848–1936) und die Anfänge der Gestaltpsychologie an der Berliner Universität. In S. Jäger, I. Stäubele, L. Sprung, & H.-P. Brauns (Eds.), Psychologie im soziokulturellen Wandel—Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten (pp. 259–268). Frankfurt/M: Lang.Google Scholar
  31. Sprung, H., & Sprung, L. (2003). ‘Wir brauchen einen Mann, welcher heimisch ist in … der experimentellen Psychologie‘: Carl Stumpf in seiner Berliner Zeit. In L. Sprung & W. Schönpflug (Eds.), Zur Geschichte der Psychologie in Berlin (pp. 201–226). Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  32. Stevens, S. S. (1935a). The operational definition of psychological concepts. Psychological Review, 42, 517–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stevens, S. S. (1935b). The relation of pitch to intensity. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 6, 150–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tye, M. (2002). Representationalism and the transparency of experience. Nous, 36, 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagemans, J., Elder, J., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S., Peterson, M., Singh, M., et al. (2012). A century of gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure–ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1172–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wundt, W. (1907). Über Ausfrageexperiments und über die Methoden der Psychologie des Denkens. Psychologische Studien, 3, 301–360.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PhilosophieLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations