Existenz 10 (1) (2015)

M. Adeel
Kutztown University of Pennsylvania
In the General Psychopathology Jaspers famously draws a distinction between the understandable and explainable. Meaningful connections between psychic events, he argues, can only be understood empathetically and cannot be explained causally. The idea behind this distinction, according to some interpreters at least, seems to be that psychic events do not fall under any general causal rules whereas ordinary events do fall under such rules. Also Jaspers distinguishes empathetic understanding of the connection between two psychic events from a mere interpretation of it, which may turn out to be false. Hence, understanding seems to be able to give us the truth about the connection and is factive as well as self-evident in nature. Contemporary epistemologists, such as Linda Zagzebsky, Duncan Pritchard, and Jonathan Kvanvig, for example, distinguish three varieties: propositional, objectual or holistic, and atomistic understanding. They do not agree on factivity and transparency of understanding. What then is the difference between their views and that of Jaspers? This essay compares recent epistemological views of understanding with those of Jaspers and critiques his claims about empathetic understanding as being both factive and self-evident or transparent; to show that empathetic understanding of connections between psychic events needs a public criterion for its individuation.
Keywords Jaspers, Karl   epistemology   empathetic understanding   objectual understanding   holistic understanding   understanding as factive   understanding as transparent.
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Goal of Explanation.Stephen R. Grimm - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (4):337-344.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Idealizations and Scientific Understanding.Moti Mizrahi - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 160 (2):237-252.
Jaspers on Explaining and Understanding in Psychiatry.Christoph Hoerl - 2013 - In Thomas Fuchs & Giovanni Stanghellini (eds.), One Hundred Years of Karl Jaspers' General Psychopathology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 107-120.
Types of Understanding: Their Nature and Their Relation to Knowledge.Christoph Baumberger - 2014 - Conceptus: Zeitschrift Fur Philosophie 40 (98):67-88.
Understanding and the Facts.Catherine Z. Elgin - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 132 (1):33 - 42.
The Value of Understanding.Stephen Grimm - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (2):103-117.
A Contemporary Approach to Jaspers’ Static Understanding.Angeliki Zoumpouli - 2012 - Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 5 (2):48-50.
Karl Jaspers and Edmund Husserl IV: Phenomenology as Empathic Understanding.Chris Walker - 1995 - Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 2 (3):247-266.
Is Understanding a Species of Knowledge?Stephen R. Grimm - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (3):515-535.


Added to PP index

Total views
224 ( #45,822 of 2,456,079 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #44,971 of 2,456,079 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes