"Human nature is a little too much for any human being to understand. Ways of looking at human nature range all the way from the sublime to the scientific. An ancient poet regards man as little lower than the angels, a creature clothed in power and glory. The chemist strips man of his glory and views man's power as dependent upon a lucky coming together of atoms. The physicist agrees with the chemist. The sculptor--if we disregard recent innovations--agrees with the poet. The philosopher tries to agree with everybody. The man in the street consigns the whole argument to the gutter. The psychologist picks it up and tries to make something of it somehow. Nothing more thoroughly characteristic differentiates one psychologist from another than does his method of dealing with the problem just indicated, the, problem of mechanism and teleology. The controversy between mechanists and teleologists has raged for more than two thousand years. It may rage that much longer. Or it may be settled shortly. Psychologists do well to remind themselves of John Dewey's caution: "Most of our problems we don't solve. We just get over them." But the teleology-versus-mechanism problem persists. And every psychologist has to face it in his own way every so often. It is noteworthy that around an issue so difficult to define such vehement arguing occurs. It is also noteworthy that even where there is general agreement within a group of psychologists there are still specific divergences. In the introductory chapter an effort is made to analyze this perplexing situation. To be sure, no analysis of this sort can be altogether free from bias. And the analysis undertaken in the introduction serves to give the reader warning of the writer's bias. To facilitate orientation, we may limit the present leading schools of psychology to four. These are: the Personalistic School; the Gestalt School; the Psychoanalytic School; the Hormic School. The dominant schools in modern psychology are so much at odds that an integrated summary even of disagreements is difficult. A dialectical procedure becomes imperative. Implications of the fact have to be examined that proponents of the various schools are striving toward a solution of the teleology-mechanism problem. Their tentative solutions, however, are confusingly divergent. Marked disparity indicates how urgent it is to re-examine the character of thinking itself and to consider whether rational activity is teleological or mechanistic in nature"--Preface. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).
""Human nature is a little too much for any human being to understand. Ways of looking at human nature range all the way from the sublime to the scientific. An ancient poet regards man as little lower than the angels, a creature clothed in power and glory. The chemist strips man of his glory and views man's power as dependent upon a lucky coming together of atoms. The physicist agrees with the chemist. The sculptor--if we disregard recent innovations--agrees with the poet. The philosopher tries to agree with everybody. The man in the street consigns the whole argument to the gutter. The psychologist picks it up and tries to make something of it somehow. Nothing more thoroughly characteristic differentiates one psychologist from another than does his method of dealing with the problem just indicated, the, problem of mechanism and teleology. The controversy between mechanists and teleologists has raged for more than two thousand years. It may rage that much longer. Or it may be settled shortly. Psychologists do well to remind themselves of John Dewey's caution: "Most of our problems we don't solve. We just get over them." But the teleology-versus-mechanism problem persists. And every psychologist has to face it in his own way every so often. It is noteworthy that around an issue so difficult to define such vehement arguing occurs. It is also noteworthy that even where there is general agreement within a group of psychologists there are still specific divergences. In the introductory chapter an effort is made to analyze this perplexing situation. To be sure, no analysis of this sort can be altogether free from bias. And the analysis undertaken in the introduction serves to give the reader warning of the writer's bias. To facilitate orientation, we may limit the present leading schools of psychology to four. These are: the Personalistic School; the Gestalt School; the Psychoanalytic School; the Hormic School. The dominant schools in modern psychology are so much at odds that an integrated summary even of disagreements is difficult. A dialectical procedure becomes imperative. Implications of the fact have to be examined that proponents of the various schools are striving toward a solution of the teleology-mechanism problem. Their tentative solutions, however, are confusingly divergent. Marked disparity indicates how urgent it is to re-examine the character of thinking itself and to consider whether rational activity is teleological or mechanistic in nature"--Preface. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)."@en
""Human nature is a little too much for any human being to understand. Ways of looking at human nature range all the way from the sublime to the scientific. An ancient poet regards man as little lower than the angels, a creature clothed in power and glory. The chemist strips man of his glory and views man's power as dependent upon a lucky coming together of atoms. The physicist agrees with the chemist. The sculptor--if we disregard recent innovations--agrees with the poet. The philosopher tries to agree with everybody. The man in the street consigns the whole argument to the gutter. The psychologist picks it up and tries to make something of it somehow. Nothing more thoroughly characteristic differentiates one psychologist from another than does his method of dealing with the problem just indicated, the, problem of mechanism and teleology. The controversy between mechanists and teleologists has raged for more than two thousand years. It may rage that much longer. Or it may be settled shortly. Psychologists do well to remind themselves of John Dewey's caution: "Most of our problems we don't solve. We just get over them." But the teleology-versus-mechanism problem persists. And every psychologist has to face it in his own way every so often. It is noteworthy that around an issue so difficult to define such vehement arguing occurs. It is also noteworthy that even where there is general agreement within a group of psychologists there are still specific divergences. In the introductory chapter an effort is made to analyze this perplexing situation. To be sure, no analysis of this sort can be altogether free from bias. And the analysis undertaken in the introduction serves to give the reader warning of the writer's bias. To facilitate orientation, we may limit the present leading schools of psychology to four. These are: the Personalistic School; the Gestalt School; the Psychoanalytic School; the Hormic School. The dominant schools in modern psychology are so much at odds that an integrated summary even of disagreements is difficult. A dialectical procedure becomes imperative. Implications of the fact have to be examined that proponents of the various schools are striving toward a solution of the teleology-mechanism problem. Their tentative solutions, however, are confusingly divergent. Marked disparity indicates how urgent it is to re-examine the character of thinking itself and to consider whether rational activity is teleological or mechanistic in nature"--Preface. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)."
This is a placeholder reference for a Organization entity, related to a WorldCat Entity. Over time, these references will be replaced with persistent URIs to VIAF, FAST, WorldCat, and other Linked Data resources.
This is a placeholder reference for a Topic entity, related to a WorldCat Entity. Over time, these references will be replaced with persistent URIs to VIAF, FAST, WorldCat, and other Linked Data resources.
This is a placeholder reference for a Topic entity, related to a WorldCat Entity. Over time, these references will be replaced with persistent URIs to VIAF, FAST, WorldCat, and other Linked Data resources.
This is a placeholder reference for a Topic entity, related to a WorldCat Entity. Over time, these references will be replaced with persistent URIs to VIAF, FAST, WorldCat, and other Linked Data resources.
This is a placeholder reference for a Topic entity, related to a WorldCat Entity. Over time, these references will be replaced with persistent URIs to VIAF, FAST, WorldCat, and other Linked Data resources.