Page:Philosophical Review Volume 2.djvu/464



the third edition of his Translation of the Platonic Dialogues, Professor Jowett has inserted an Essay on the Nature and Limits of Psychology, as an appendix to the Introduction to the Theaetetus. That introduction itself, and the Introduction to the Cratylus contain psychological discussions, constructive and destructive. These I shall not refer to, in the present criticism, except incidentally; I am concerned only with this latest expression of the writer's judgment of the 'new' Psychology.

In his attitude to Psychology in general, Professor Jowett reflects the well-known verdict of Kant. "It cannot . . . proceed by the inductive method; it has not the necessity of mathematics; it does not, like Metaphysics, argue from abstract notions or from internal coherence." "Psychology is necessarily a fragment, and is not and cannot be a connected system." It is curious to find this opinion of the new Psychology in so complete accord with that of the latest apologist of "Psychology as a Natural Science." "A string of raw facts," so Professor James writes; "a little gossip and wrangle about opinions; a little classification and generalization on the mere descriptive level; a strong prejudice that we have states of mind, and that our brain conditions them; but not a single law, in the sense in which Physics shows us laws, not a single proposition from which any consequence can causally be deduced. . . . This is no science, it is only the hope of a science." Professor Jowett is still more severe. " The subject . . . begins to assume the language and claim the authority of a science; but it is only an hypothesis or outline, which may be filled up in many ways according to the fancy of individual thinkers. The basis of it is a precarious one. ... It may be compared to an irregular building, run up hastily, and not likely to last, because its foundations are weak and in many places rest only on the surface of the ground. . . . The fact that such a science exists and is popular affords no evidence of its truth or value." And so on. Rh