Abstract
The self is often defined in terms of its presentational appearances. This may easily end up in a denial of the internal aspects of the self, which is very often related to a tendency to avoid the tension between the internal and the external, but also between subjectivity and objectivity. In this paper this ambition is regarded in a historical perspective, in which Fichte and Hegel both represent attempts at abolishing the tension, whereas Kant and Kierkegaard represent the opposite. History shows that an eradication of the tension between subjectivity and objectivity implies a deterioration of psychology as well. Thus the conclusion is that psychology is primarily to be defined in terms of the tension between subjectivity and objectivity, which requires an accurate understanding and the inclusion of both of them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baumgarten, A. (2004). Metaphysik. Jena: Dietrich Scheglmann Reprints.
Diriwaechter, R., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.). (2008). Striving for the whole. New Brunswick & London: Transaction.
Fichte, J. G. (2005). The science of knowing. J. G. Fichte’s 1804 Lectures on the Wissenschaftslehre. Translated and with and Introduction by Walter E. Wright. New York: State University of New York Press.
Frankelius, P. (2007). Linné I nytt ljus. Den första översättningen av Systema Naturae, samt ny analys av Linnés perspektiv. Malmö: Liber.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1894). Philosophy of mind. Translated from The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences with five Introductory Essays by William Wallace. Oxford: Clarendon.
Husserl, E. (1999). Cartesianske meditationer. København: Hans Reitzels forlag.
Kant, I. (1787/1929). Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Norman Kemp Smith, Palgrave Macmillan (Doctrine of Method, http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/dmeth.html.
Kierkegaard, S. (1980). The sickness unto death. A christian psychological exposition for upbuilding and awakening. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kierkegaard, S. (2004). Either/Or. A Fragment of Life. London: Penguin.
Klempe, H. (2008). Fra opplysning til eksperiment. Om psykologiens oppkomst fra Wolff til Wundt. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.
Komatsu, K. (2012). Temporal reticence of the self: Who can know my self? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:10.1007/s12124-012-9199-6.
Leary, D. E. (1980). German idealism and the development of psychology in the nineteenth century. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 18(1980), 299–317.
Rosenkrantz, K. (1863). Psychologie oder die Wissenschaft vom subjectiven Geist, Dritte sehr vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Königsberg: Vornträger.
Shelley, Chr. (2008). JanSmuts and personality theory: The problem of holism in psychology, in Diriwaechter and Valsiner 2008, pp. 89–110.
Sturm, T. (2001). Kant on empirical psychology: How not to investigate the human mind. In E. Watkins (Ed.), Kant and the sciences (pp. 163–184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolff, C. (1998). Psychologie ou traité sur l’âme. Contenant les Connoissances, que nous en donne l’Expérience. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klempe, S.H. Psychology—Tensions between Objectivity and Subjectivity. Integr. psych. behav. 46, 373–379 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-012-9200-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-012-9200-4