Abstract
With respect to the question of reading or not reading the classics of psychology, an analysis is made of Dewey’s celebrated article “The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology.” Results indicate clearly that despite the title the essential content of this paper is neither psychology nor neurology, but rather the argument that Hegel’s version of spiritual monadism offers the best interpretation of psychological events. The question of cultural differences between the times of writing and of reading classical productions in science is raised.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
DENNIS, W. 1948. Readings in the history of psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
DEWEY, J. 1887. Psychology. New York: Harper and Brothers.
DEWEY, J. 1896. The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3, 357–370.
DEWEY, J. 1925. The naturalistic theory of perception. Journal of Philosophy, 22, 596–605.
HERRICK, C. J. 1931. An introduction to neurology (5th ed.) Philadelphia: Saunders.
HERRNSTEIN, R. J., & BORING, E. G. 1965. A source book in the history of psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
SAHAKIAN, W. S. 1968. History of psychology: A source book in systematic psychology. Itasca, Il: Peacock.
WALLACE, G. 1892. The logic of Hegel (Translated from The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Observer Comments And Queries: On Reviewing Psychological Classics. Psychol Rec 25, 293–298 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394316
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394316