Human Sciences and Natural Sciences in the Post-Kantian Theories of W. Dilthey, W. Windelband and H. Rickert

Diogenes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgi Belogashev ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Wilhelm Dilthey

The article examines the solutions provided by Wilhelm Dilthey, Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert concerning the knowledge of society. Each of them speaks of two basic classes of science: of nature and of human, which have different starting points, and therefore different fields.

Dilthey, Wilhelm (1833–1911)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolf A. Makkreel
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Critique Of Pure Reason ◽  
Descriptive Psychology ◽  
Wilhelm Dilthey ◽  
Ordinary Life ◽  
Philosophy Of Life ◽  
Causal Laws ◽  
The Way

Wilhelm Dilthey saw his work as contributing to a ‘Critique of Historical Reason’ which would expand the scope of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason by examining the epistemological conditions of the human sciences as well as of the natural sciences. Both kinds of science take their departure from ordinary life and experience, but whereas the natural sciences seek to focus on the way things behave independently of human involvement, the human sciences take account of this very involvement. The natural sciences use external observation and measurement to construct an objective domain of nature that is abstracted from the fullness of lived experience. The human sciences (humanities and social sciences), by contrast, help to define what Dilthey calls the historical world. By making use of inner as well as outer experience, the human sciences preserve a more direct link with our original sense of life than do the natural sciences. Whereas the natural sciences seek explanations of nature, connecting the discrete representations of outer experience through hypothetical generalizations and causal laws, the human sciences aim at an understanding that articulates the fundamental structures of historical life given in lived experience. Finding lived experience to be inherently connected and meaningful, Dilthey opposed traditional atomistic and associationist psychologies and developed a descriptive psychology that has been recognized as anticipating phenomenology. Dilthey first thought that this descriptive psychology could provide a neutral foundation for the other human sciences, but in his later hermeneutical writings he rejected the idea of a foundational discipline or method. Thus he ends by claiming that all the human sciences are interpretive and mutually dependent. Hermeneutically conceived, understanding is a process of interpreting the ‘objectifications of life’, the external expressions or manifestations of human thought and action. Interpersonal understanding is attained through these common objectifications and not, as is widely believed, through empathy. Moreover, to fully understand myself I must analyse the expressions of my life in the same way that I analyse the expressions of others. Not every aspect of life can be captured within the respective limits of the natural and the human sciences. Dilthey’s philosophy of life also leaves room for a kind of anthropological reflection whereby we attempt to do justice to the ultimate riddles of life and death. Such reflection receives its fullest expression in worldviews, which are overall perspectives on life encompassing the way we perceive and conceive the world, evaluate it aesthetically and respond to it in action. Dilthey discerned many typical worldviews in art and religion, but in Western philosophy he distinguished three recurrent types: the worldviews of naturalism, the idealism of freedom and objective idealism.

Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911)

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrus Tool
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Culture ◽  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Specific Nature ◽  
Wilhelm Dilthey ◽  
Helmuth Plessner ◽  
Hans Georg Gadamer

Wilhelm Dilthey initially studied theology in Germany but later shifted to philosophy and history. He tackled the specific nature of human sciences in relation to natural sciences and initiated a debate on the connection between understanding and explanation in scientific knowledge. In addition to his own school, he exerted influence on fellow philosophers Martin Heidegger, Helmuth Plessner, and Hans-Georg Gadamer. This chapter explores the formation of Dilthey’s philosophical views, including the principle of phenomenality, the theory of human sciences, and the role of inner experience as the main source of cognition in human sciences. It also discusses his later work and his arguments concerning empirical factuality, congealed objectivity, and processual reality. Finally, the chapter examines how ideas similar to those of Dilthey have influenced organizational culture and dynamics.

scholarly journals Revisitando Dilthey: Diálogos Teóricos e Metodológicos com a Fenomenologia e a Psicologia

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (Especial) ◽  
pp. 408-415
Author(s):  
Camila MUHL
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Analysis ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Wilhelm Dilthey ◽  
Comprehensive Method ◽  
Historical World

Wilhelm Dilthey was a fundamental author so that the human sciences had their autonomy of method and object in relation to the natural sciences, however, their work is still little known by psychologists in Brazil, so, this article aims to disclose and discuss the work of the author, having as a cut the reverberations of his propositions for phenomenology and psychology.. The theoretical analysis, which is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the author's work, will be centered on themes: historical world, experience and a comprehensive method of research. To conclude, an imaginative exercise of what psychology would be doing today if Dilthey's position had become hegemonic in the field.

The Search for a Foundation of the Human Sciences and the Social Sciences in Neo-Kantianism and Dilthey, and Husserl’s Exploration of Consciousness

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vittorio Hösle
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Meaning Of Life ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Laboratory Work ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Traditional Concept ◽  
Wilhelm Dilthey ◽  
The Social

This chapter begins with a discussion of Neo-Kantianism. It then covers the works of Wilhelm Windelband (1848–1915) and Heinrich Rickert (1863–1936), the most important representatives of the second branch of Neo-Kantianism, the Baden School, which is concerned with the philosophical grounding of the human sciences and the social sciences as distinct from the natural sciences. It also looks at the work of Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) who had, before Neo-Kantianism, attempted to ground the human sciences in an “understanding psychology” that was not based on laboratory work but guided by a philosophy focused on the meaning of life; and that of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), the most important critic and stimulator of Dilthey, and probably the twentieth-century thinker who remained most loyal to the traditional concept of reason.

Wittgenstein and Dilthey on Scientism and Method

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-194
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Spiegel
Keyword(s):  
Natural Sciences ◽  
The Other ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Philosophical Method ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Wilhelm Dilthey ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract While Wittgenstein’s work has been extensively investigated in relation to many other important and influential philosophers, there is very little scholarly work that positively investigates the relationship between the work of Wittgenstein and Wilhelm Dilthey. To the contrary, some commentators like Hacker (2001a) suggest that Dilthey’s work (and that of other hermeneuticists) simply pales or is obsolete in comparison to Wittgenstein’s own insights. Against such assessments, this article posits that Wittgenstein’s and Dilthey’s thought most crucially intersects at the related topics of scientism on the one hand and scientific and philosophical method on the other. In reconstructing Dilthey’s conceptions of understanding versus explaining and central points of Wittgenstein’s Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough, it becomes apparent that they share a staunch rejection of scientism and use the notion of understanding as a means to prevent methodologies from the natural sciences encroaching onto the human sciences (in Dilthey’s case) and philosophy (in Wittgenstein’s case). Notwithstanding a number of central ways in which these thinkers differ, this article closes by suggesting that there is some evidence according to which Wittgenstein, like Dilthey, can reasonably be understood as championing some central tenets of the hermeneutical tradition.

The Strange Late Birth of the British Academy

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Drayton
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
Special Section ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Human Knowledge

The British Academy was founded in 1902. In November 1899, the Council of the Royal Society sent a letter to prominent scholars suggesting the formation of some body to represent Britain in disciplines other than the natural sciences. A meeting of the scholars gave its support for a suggestion that the Royal Society might give room to literary and human sciences in a special section, or support the foundation of a separate body. For over a year, the Royal Society deliberated, but concluded in June of 1901 that it could neither include the literary sciences within it, nor initiate the establishing of a British academy. It was thus the scientists who provided both stimulus and constraint for the mobilisation of human knowledge in the British Academy and to welcome all branches of intellectual enterprise within one temple.

scholarly journals Natural Sciences and Social Sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-119
Author(s):  
C.S.A (Kris) van Koppen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Nature And Society

Klintman, Mikael. 2017. Human Sciences and Human Interests: Integrating the Social, Economic, and Evolutionary Sciences. London: Routledge.Jetzkowitz, Jens. 2019. Co-evolution of Nature and Society: Foundations for Interdisciplinary Sustainability Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jaspers in his time

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Leoni
Keyword(s):  
Human Life ◽  
Philosophical Anthropology ◽  
Human Experience ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Traditional Philosophy ◽  
Xix Century ◽  
Ground Structures

The chapter describes Jaspers’ debt towards XIX century philosophies - in particular Nietzsche’s Lebensphilosophie, Weber’s sociological thinking, Dilthey’s philosophy of Geisteswissenschaften, Husserl’s phenomenology. Husserl offered Jaspers an access to the ground structures of human experience, beyond abstractions and intelletual reconstructions of traditional philosophy and psychology. Dilthey provided him a neat epistemological differentiation between the methods of explication (natural sciences) and comprehension (human sciences). Weber’s sociology elaborated a precious notion of “Idealtypus”, central to Jaspers phenomenological psychopatology. Nietzsche’s meditation on the Uebermensch offered Jaspers, paradoxically enough, an insight about the nature of illness on weakness, which Jaspers philosophical anthropology assumed since the Allgemeine Psychopatologie as a constitutive dimension of human life as such.

Toward a Theory of Human History

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-273
Author(s):  
Joseph Margolis
Keyword(s):  
Homo Sapiens ◽  
Human Science ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Human History ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Argument Proceeds

AbstractI show the sense in which the concept of history as a human science affects our theory of the natural sciences and, therefore, our theory of the unity of the physical and human sciences. The argument proceeds by way of reviewing the effect of the Darwinian contribution regarding teleologism and of post-Darwinian paleonanthropology on the transformation of the primate members of Homo sapiens into societies of historied selves. The strategy provides a novel way of recovering the unity of the sciences: by construing the physical sciences themselves as human sciences ‐ and, therefore, as themselves historied.

Can the convergence between the human sciences and biomedical sciences?

10.12737/7653 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 62-73
Author(s):  
Гудкова ◽  
S. Gudkova ◽  
Джумагалиева ◽  
L. Dzhumagalieva ◽  
Хадарцева ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chaos Theory ◽  
Quantitative Description ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Self Organization ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Transitional Stage ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
The Third ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
General Scientific

Interdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity between two types of general scientific theories (humanities and natural sciences) is not in doubt. The problem arises more interaction accurate humanities at the level of convergence. Transitional stage in this convergence are the science of living systems (biology, medicine, ecology), which in general research methods and occupy an intermediate position between the humanities and the natural sciences. The basis for this convergence must be new ideas about systems of the third type, which is defined as a philosophy postnonclassic (V.S. Stepin), and in the natural sciences – as chaos theory, self-organization (for quantitative description of the systems of the third type). Discusses general approaches in the humanities from the perspective of the classics, nonclassic, postnonclassic and third paradigm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document