Ageliki Nicolopoulou.
In her note, Ageliki Nicolopoulou asks two questions about
chapter 1.
1. Is it possible to get pscyhologists to think there is any
issue to be concerned about if culture is left out of psychology? I
think the answer is up for grabs. But for it to happen, the approach
taken must show itself able to deal effectively with people's in-your-
face daily problems that reductionist/positivist approaches manifestly
fail to deal with effectively. The book is intended as an existence
proof of one possible approach.
2."Does Wundt really argue for two different, and distinct
methods to study these different psychological phenoemena (elementary
and higher psychological functions, or does he REALLY argue for
one (complex) method that can intetgrate phenomena in the end? If
he really argues for two distinct methods, then I can't see how one
would be able to put the whole back together again. Mike?>
-------------------------
well, here 7 chapters and a month later is a reply. To my limited
knowledge of Wundt, that available in the sources I give, he pursued
to really distinct paths of inquiry. My reading is that he held out
the possibility of some "superceding" discipline, but I know of no
elaboration of such a possibility. Perhaps our German-reading members can
help us in this regard. I have relied heavily on the work of Gustav
Jahoda and Berndt Krewer for knowledge of the volkerpsychologie side
of Wundt's ideas because the only volume in English on this topic is
not representative of the multi-volume work-- i am told.
I belive that one of the things that makes the Russian tradition so
interesting is that they EXPLICITY set out to do what Wundt did not
do: to create a synthetic psychological science.
Can it be done?
After we get through Chapter 10, lets come back to this beginning in
the ending and see what it looks like.
mike