[Jaspers and the problem of understanding: a plea for revision].

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Brücher K;Brücher K
  • Source:
    Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie [Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr] 2012 Apr; Vol. 80 (4), pp. 213-20. Date of Electronic Publication: 2011 Oct 18.
  • Publication Type:
    English Abstract; Historical Article; Journal Article
  • Language:
    German
  • Additional Information
    • Transliterated Title:
      Jaspers und das Problem des Verstehens: Plädoyer für eine Revision.
    • Source:
      Publisher: Thieme Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 8103137 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1439-3522 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 07204299 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: Stuttgart ; New York : Thieme, [c1981-
    • Subject Terms:
      Comprehension/*physiology ; Psychiatry/*history ; Psychology/*history; Empathy ; History, 20th Century ; Humans ; Self Concept
    • Abstract:
      Objective: Understanding (Verstehen), as far as it is discussed explicitly in psychiatry, is based on Dilthey's dichotomy "nature we explain, the life of the soul we understand ( , 144). According to this doctrine, understanding is concerned with a person's inner life and consequently, its method consists in putting oneself in the other's position and reliving their experience. Jaspers' concept of understanding - which is regarded as definitive for psychiatry by advocates and opponents alike - is commonly interpreted according to this tradition as well.
      Results: I shall argue here that this position does not stand up to scrutiny. It is a mistake to simplify Dilthey's concept of understanding to a form of mere psychologism. In fact, Jaspers practically tore this position down. In his own account, by contrast, he utilises Max Weber and Rickert to established a third realm in addition to a person's inner life on the one hand and their bodily nature on the other: the realm of the objective products of the human mind. It is this dimension that is essential for understanding. Such a transition from the dichotomy of explaining and understanding to a three-valued logic requires a radical rethinking of the traditional notion of understanding. Jaspers meets this demand but he does so only implicitly and not always consistently so that it might easily be missed. It is nonetheless crucial to see that Jaspers in fact rejects the hermeneutics of empathy which are commonly attributed to him and for which he is often criticised.
      Conclusions: In conclusion of this essay, I will suggest some implications of this - often overlooked - distinction for psychiatry and psychology.
      (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20111020 Date Completed: 20120802 Latest Revision: 20120404
    • Publication Date:
      20231215
    • Accession Number:
      10.1055/s-0031-1281668
    • Accession Number:
      22009272