Talk:Psychologism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 

Jules LT, YES. I understand the words I'm reading but I have absolutely no idea of the meaning. Help us, psychologistics. I used this word the other day in a conversation and Googled it on a whim to see if it was real. My meaning at that time, however, was psycho-logigical, in the psychotic-sense. Nothing to do with psychologistics, which I know absolutely nothing about, even after reading Wikipedia. -Andre

There seems to to be far too much technical jargon here. The article seems to assume that the reader is already familiar with the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.34.127 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This article could really use some examples... Jules LT 19:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What were the later texts in which Husserl sought to distance himself from psychologism? I thought this project was carried out mainly in the Prolegomenon to the Logical investigations, a relatively early text in Husserl's corpus.


It certainly could do with some examples. And Popper wasn't entirely opposed to psychologism (whatever it means) according to the OED: "1945 K. R. POPPER Open Society II. xiv. 87 The structure..of the social environment, as opposed to the natural environment, is man-made; and therefore it must be explicable in terms of human nature, in accordance with the doctrine of psychologism." - Pepper 150.203.227.130 06:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm in favor of dropping that entire last paragraph. It's undocumented and it refers to a wholly different question (verificationism and empiricism) for which afaik not a single philosopher has used the term 'psychologism'. Stdbrouw 15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"The criticism of this [epistemological] kind of psychologism can be traced back to Kant". - This point needs elaboration, otherwise it seems debatable.Dutch schulz (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that others have got here before me...yes, this article is pointless. I still have absolutely no idea what psychologism is. Definitely a clean-up required. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Psychologism simply means this: the way that objects are experienced as being outside of a knower’s brain depends on what is occurring inside of a knower’s brain. Such known objects include the written or spoken symbols of logic and mathematics.Lestrade (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Lestrade

Husserl Link[edit]

The Husserl external link no longer works. Myrvin (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples[edit]

Here's one: [Bang Theory; Sheldon Cooper and Amy Farrah Fowler arguing] 18:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenehey (talkcontribs)