Subjectivity as a Non-textual Standard of Interpretation in the History of Philosophical Psychology
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4496513 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jari Kaukua (0000-0002-6437-8534, University of Jyväskylä), Vili Lähteenmäki (0000-0003-0760-6761, University of Jyväskylä) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 21-37 |
| Publication date | 2010-02-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | History and Theory (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0018-2656 • E-ISSN: 1468-2303 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2010.00526.x |
| OpenAlex | W2086031679 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
Contemporary caution against anachronism in intellectual history, and the currently momentous theoretical emphasis on subjectivity in the philosophy of mind, are two prevailing conditions that set puzzling constraints for studies in the history of philosophical psychology. The former urges against assuming ideas, motives, and concepts that are alien to the historical intellectual setting under study, and combined with the latter suggests caution in relying on our intuitions regarding subjectivity due to the historically contingent characterizations it has attained in contemporary philosophy of mind. In the face of these conditions, our paper raises a question of what we call non-textual (as opposed to contextual) standards of interpretation of historical texts, and proceeds to explore subjectivity as such a standard. Non-textual standards are defined as (heuristic) postulations of features of the world or our experience of it that we must suppose to be immune to historical variation in order to understand a historical text. Although the postulation of such standards is often so obvious that the fact of our doing so is not noticed at all, we argue that the problems in certain special cases, such as that of subjectivity, force us to pay attention to the methodological questions involved. Taking into account both recent methodological discussion and the problems inherent in two de facto denials of the relevance of subjectivity for historical theories, we argue that there are good grounds for the adoption of subjectivity as a nontextual standard for historical work in philosophical psychology
Anachronism · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy) · Philosophical methodology · Political science · Politics · Relevance (law) · Sociology · Subjectivity · Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology · Classical Philosophy and Thought · Historical Philosophy and Science · Law · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.67 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |