Talk:Gustav Fechner/Archive 1

Fechner
According to Dagobert Runes, the renowned philosphical scholar -- an expert on Spinoza who wrote at least one short introduction to that philosopher as well as a valuable "Spinoza Dictionary" graced with an introduction by another Spinoza enthusiast, Albert Einstein -- Fechner "regarded the world from a mechanistic viewpoint" and "almost became an atheist" early in his life but was converted radically to an opposite position when he read Lorenz Oken's "Philosophy of Nature." Runes describes Oken as a disciple of Schelling. Fechner thereafter, according to Runes, became a "confirmed theist."

There is, of course, a very interesting article about Lorenz Oken on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_Oken. Dagobert Runes makes the above statements in his introductory remarks about Fechner in his "Treasury of Philosophy" (Philosophical Library: 1955) and also in his lengthier article on Fechner in his large-format pictorial history of philosophy, published by the Philosophical Library around the same time as his "Treasury."

On Freud and the Unconscious
I have removed a couple of sections claiming that Fechner influenced Freud through the book, "Philosophy of the Unconscious." Actually, Eduard von Hartmann wrote that book, and as far as I can tell, Fechner did not have any direct influence on Freud, at least no more than any German philosopher or scientist working in that century. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please discuss it here. --Jcbutler (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, could someone suggest an English translation or alternative to Buggle & Wirtgen's (1969) paper on Freud and Fechner? --Jcbutler (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fechner did in fact have influence on Freud. Freud refers to Fechner in several occassions. One is in The Interpretation of Dreams: "Among all the observations relating to the theory of dreams to be found in the literature of the subject, I should like to lay stress upon one as being particularly worthy of mention. The famous G. T. H. Fechner makes the conjecture, in a discussion as to the nature of the dreams, that the dream is staged elsewhere than in the waking ideation. No other assumption enables us to comprehend the special peculiarities of the dreamlife. The idea which is thus put before us is one of psychic locality. We shall wholly ignore the fact that the psychic apparatus concerned is known to us also as an anatomical preparation, and we shall carefully avoid the temptation to determine the psychic locality in any anatomical sense. We shall remain on psychological ground, and we shall do no more than accept the invitation to think of the instrument which serves the psychic activities much as we think of a compound microscope, a photographic camera, or other apparatus." Freud is here refering to "Elemente der Psychophysik" (Elements of Psychophysics). The concept of psychic locality is one of the central concepts in Freud's metapsychology and the microcope metaphor is probably one of the most cited metaphors he uses, thus one is perfectly entitled to claim that Fechner influenced Freud. I will ad this information to the article.IzmirWayne (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-adding. But it needs to be sourced in some way. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a possible primary source here, in a collection of "Basic Writings" translated by Brill. But a secondary source would be so much stronger. Can we say with 100% certainty that "Fechner influenced Freud"? He acknowledged his work, but I'm not sure he would have said anything much different without knowledge of him? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The possible primary source you are refering to is The Interpretation of Dreams that I already mentioned as primary source. Here you have it: Freud, S., & Strachey, J. (1900). The Interpretation of Dreams. Vols. 4–5 of The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud.
 * Why would be a secondary source stronger than a primary one? All a secondary source is, is another person giving an opinion about the question. The very best you can get in a secondary source is the author refering to the primary source material and making the point. So basically you can as well take my argument that I will develop.
 * Here you have Freud mentioning Fechner in one of the most important texts of metapsychological theory: the 7th chapter of The Interpretation of Dreams. The metaphor of the telescope or microscope is repeated in The Outline of Psychoanalysis (Freud, S. (1940). An outline of psychoanalysis. Standard Edition, 23: 144-207.), which means that not only Freud references Fechner in what is arguably his single-most important theoretical work, he also upheld the view he developed with reference to Fechner until his dead nearly 40 years later (see quotation from 1940 below).
 * Now to the question whether Freud merely aknowledged his work or whether it was actually important. I argue that that it was absolutely crucial. As I said, this is the 7th chapter of The Interpretation of Dreams, this means that Freud isn't here dealing with different views that he just acknowledges, he is here developing his theoretical point of view on the question of the relation between mind and brain. And it is precisely here that he references Fechner. This is the most important part of the book and Freud would not be refering to Fechner if his influence would not have been important. In fact the usual reproach is that Freud tends to downplay the influence that others had on him (see Sulloway (1979), Freud - Biologist of the Mind, for an extensive discussion of this point). Thus his mentioning of Fechner at this point of the book is a major argument in favour of the thesis that Fechner influenced Freud here.
 * And there is yet another argument in favour of this view. The question Freud is dealing in the quoted passage and in the paragraphs that follow (see the text) is about the relation between what Freud calls the mental apparatus and the brain. In the text Freud had been writing until he started to write The Interpretation of Dreams (the "Project for a Psychology for Neurologists") Freud identified psychological entities with neurological ones. What does that mean? He attribuated psychological systems to neurological systems and identified the borders between those systems with borders between neurons (to be exact: to the events between elementary cells of the brain that he assumed to exist; neurons had not been discovered, yet he speculated that they must exist). Therefore the ego was for him a neuronal structure, which means that everything within a certain anatomical area was thought as ego and everything outside as other parts of the psyche. Therefore he assumed that certain parts of the brain exclusively correspond to certain parts of the mental apparatus and vice versa. This nexus between brain-anatomy and psychological entities was radically dropped in The Interpretation of Dreams. From then on he always emphasized that the psychological topography is not to be mistaken for anatomical topography. Freud: "Our psychological topography has for the present nothing to do with anatomy; it has reference not to anatomical localities, but to regions in the mental apparatus, wherever they may be situated in the body." (1915, The Unconscious, Standard Edition Vol. 14, p. 175) However he still upheld the view that the mental apparatus was located in the brain, however he said that one cannot imagine it as an anatomical structure but as a functional one. Freud: "We assume that mental life is the function of an apparatus to which we ascribe the characteristics of being extended in space and of being made up of several portions – which we imagine, that is, as resembling a telescope or microscope or something of the kind. Notwithstanding some earlier attempts in the same direction, the consistent working-out of a conception such as this is a scientific novelty." (Freud, 1940,Vol. 23, p. 144-145). So Freud kept his view that the mind was a process happening within the brain, but he dropped the assumption that mental entities can be somehow identified with the processes within anatomical entities of the brain, rather he assumed a non-bijective relation. This is what he tried to express with the microscope metphor (today he would have most certainly used a computer metaphor). Now we do not now why Freud made this change, but we know that he wanted the "Project for a Psychology for Neurologists" to be distroyed; and we know that his change of opinion seems to coincide with him abandoning the "Project". And it is precisely on this question that he cites Fechner, who made this very same differentiation between the psychic localities and physical localities. It is highly improbable that his reading of Fechner was irrelevant for his change in view, espacially given that this is a very rare view, and what is more: it is a view that made most neurologists turn away from him. It is nothing less than a fundamental question that Freud just had changed his view on. It is far more probable that Freud read Fechner's text while wrestling with the problem and then changed his view then the other way round; espacially since the book of Fechner, that Freud is refering to, appeared in 1889 and Freud's change of mind happened between 1895 and 1899. At that point in time Fechner wasn't a classic yet and the book was still rather new. And last but not least: Fechner was even from a different field, as Freud was neurologist and Fechner physicist and philosopher.
 * In the end you are right: we can never now for 100% sure if someone influenced someone else. But we can actually hardly ever now something for 100%, especially not in the field of studying the ifnluence a certain person had on scientific fields or other persons since this is a question of history of science and history cannot give proves.
 * I think that the evidence that I presented is as compelling as the evidence presented for William James's admiration of Fechner. But I admit that I cannot present evidence for my claim that the metaphor is "famous" within psychoanalysis. I will thus take out the "famous". I did not figure out how to ad source material. If you could be so kind to ad "The Interpretation of Dreams". I will look for secondary sources and as soon as I find one I will ad one.IzmirWayne (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this would be a better online source? I can't help wondering if your post above belongs more at Talk:Sigmund Freud and/or at Talk:The Interpretation of Dreams. Fechner is mentioned in the Sigmund Freud article (and is listed as an influence), but not in The Interpretation of Dreams article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: the entire text is also available at Wikisource here and here, so maybe an online source, vuia GoogleBooks. is redundant? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Death Date
There seems to be some confusion in when he died, either November 18 or 28. Can someone fix this? I can't garner a definite answer in either direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.10.6 (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely, this source, giving 18 November, can be relied on? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Eye problem?
The phrase "contacted an eye disorder" suggests that Fechner's problem was an eye disease. But this reference says this:

"In 1840, the year in which an article on subjective afterimages appeared, Fechner suffered a nervous collapse. Exacerbated by a painful injury to the eyes sustained while gazing at the sun during his research, Fechner's ailment manifested itself in temporary blindness and prostration."

I wonder are there any corroborating and/or more detailed references? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And this site says:
 * "In 1840, he had a nervous breakdown, and he had to resign his position due to severe depression. At his worst, he stayed in his rooms alone, avoiding light which hurt his eyes, and even painted his room black."
 * So perhaps some slight amendment is necessary? So his eye condition was certainly a serious problem, but his mental condition seems to have been the critical factor. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968 at this site gives us this:
 * "Fechner was married in 1833, and in 1834 he was appointed professor of physics at Leipzig. But he occupied the chair only until 1839; after repeated attacks of severe exhaustion he was, for three years, completely incapacitated by a mysterious illness. The major symptoms were disturbances of vision, with hypersensitivity to bright light, sporadic total failure of digestion, obsessions, and, finally, more and more terrifying hallucinations. He recovered quite suddenly. It seems most likely that the illness was an atypical form of schizophrenia."

spamming
what's going on with all these Google links? Looks like spamming to me. 82.117.220.153 (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Influenced William James
I've added to the information box that Fechner influenced William James. See James, A Pluralistic Universe, (Lecture IV), 1909 (Peter Ells (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gustav Fechner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053646/http://statprob.com/encyclopedia/gustavtheodorfechner.html to http://statprob.com/encyclopedia/gustavtheodorfechner.html
 * Added tag to http://ia600305.us.archive.org/13/items/vorschulederaest12fechuoft/vorschulederaest12fe
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053646/http://statprob.com/encyclopedia/gustavtheodorfechner.html to http://statprob.com/encyclopedia/gustavtheodorfechner.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gustav Fechner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211115441/http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/index.php?id=19&autorid=161&autor_vorname=+Gustav+Theodor&autor_nachname=Fechner&cHash=b31bbae2c6 to http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/index.php?id=19&autorid=161&autor_vorname=+Gustav+Theodor&autor_nachname=Fechner&cHash=b31bbae2c6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely Fechner was a religious man
This article says "Despite being raised by his religious father, Fechner became an atheist in later life". Surely this is incorrect - he wrote about the anatomy of angels, and some of what this article says later on indicates Fechner was a religious man. Vorbee (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sufficiently explained
Whilst lying in bed Fechner had an insight into the relationship between mental sensations and material sensations. This insight proved to be significant in the development of psychology as there was now a quantitative relationship between the mental and physical worlds.

There's a big leap between "insight" and "quantitative relationship" which I think is a bridge too far to entirely gloss over. &mdash; MaxEnt 04:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Many sources relate that story, but none as poorly as we do. Here is a better version. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Was Friedrich Paulsen an actual pupil of Fechner?
The article states Friedrich Paulsen was one of Fechner's notable students. But as fast as I can tell (see Talk page for Paulsen), Paulsen never studied in Leipzig. I have moved Paulsen from Fechner's students to someone who was influenced by Fechner.

I am happy to hear counterarguments, ideally with citations.