Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (3):pp. 415-449 (2009)

Authors
Alexander Klein
McMaster University
Abstract
ABSTRACT. Associationist psychologists of the late 19th-century premised their research on a fundamentally Humean picture of the mind. So the very idea of mental science was called into question when T. H. Green, a founder of British idealism, wrote an influential attack on Hume’s Treatise. I first analyze Green’s interpretation and criticism of Hume, situating his reading with respect to more recent Hume scholarship. I focus on Green’s argument that Hume cannot consistently admit real ideas of spatial relations. I then argue that William James’s early work on spatial perception attempted to vindicate the new science of mind by showing how to avoid the problems Green had exposed in Hume’s empiricism. James’s solution involved rejecting a basic Humean assumption—that perceptual experience is fundamentally composed of so-called minima sensibilia, or psychological atoms. The claim that there are no psychological atoms is interesting because James supported it with experimental data rather than (as commentators typically suppose) with introspective description or a priori argument. James claimed to be the real descendant of British empiricism on grounds that his anti-atomistic model of perception fortified what Green had perhaps most wanted to demolish—the prospect of using empirical, scientific methods in the study of mind.
Keywords Spatial Perception  Experiment  Hume  William James  T. H. Green  Empiricism  Psychology  Philosophy of Psychology  Vision
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1353/hph.0.0137
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The New Hume.Kenneth P. Winkler - 1991 - Philosophical Review 100 (4):541-579.
Are We Automata?William James - 1879 - Mind 4 (13):1-22.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Darwin, Hume, Morgan, and the Verae Causae of Psychology.Hayley Clatterbuck - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 60:1-14.
Was James Psychologistic?Alexander Klein - 2016 - Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 4 (5).
Kant on the Spontaneous Power of the Mind.John J. Callanan - 2017 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 25 (3):565-588.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-07-22

Total views
681 ( #7,304 of 2,362,116 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
28 ( #26,614 of 2,362,116 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes