Thinking on Reality: Metzger and the Rejection of the “Eleatic Postulate”

R. Luccio
{"title":"Thinking on Reality: Metzger and the Rejection of the “Eleatic Postulate”","authors":"R. Luccio","doi":"10.2478/gth-2022-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 1940, Wolfgang Metzger began a profound reflection on the meaning of the phenomenological approach to Gestalt psychology, which had its starting point in the rejection of what he called the “Eleatic” or “Eleatic–Rationalistic Postulate,” that is, the notion that, in his opinion, had dominated Western scientific and philosophical thought of the past centuries, according to which any assertion about the state of things that could lead to self-contradictory conclusions had to be considered unfounded. On the basis of this rejection and with exclusive reference to access to experiential data, Metzger proposed to distinguish five meanings of reality: (1) the physical or experiential world; (2) the intuitive or experienced world; (3) the experienced world (met, Angetroffen) in contrast to the represented world; (4) the something or fullness in contrast to emptiness or nothingness; (5) the real in contrast to the apparent. For Metzger (1950), this concept, although primarily related to perception, has far-reaching implications for our conception of others and of society. We question here the validity of Metzger’s concept, its explanatory significance, and its relation to other phenomenological concepts, such as that of Merleau-Ponty.","PeriodicalId":33799,"journal":{"name":"Gestalt Theory","volume":"44 1","pages":"263 - 278"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gestalt Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/gth-2022-0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In 1940, Wolfgang Metzger began a profound reflection on the meaning of the phenomenological approach to Gestalt psychology, which had its starting point in the rejection of what he called the “Eleatic” or “Eleatic–Rationalistic Postulate,” that is, the notion that, in his opinion, had dominated Western scientific and philosophical thought of the past centuries, according to which any assertion about the state of things that could lead to self-contradictory conclusions had to be considered unfounded. On the basis of this rejection and with exclusive reference to access to experiential data, Metzger proposed to distinguish five meanings of reality: (1) the physical or experiential world; (2) the intuitive or experienced world; (3) the experienced world (met, Angetroffen) in contrast to the represented world; (4) the something or fullness in contrast to emptiness or nothingness; (5) the real in contrast to the apparent. For Metzger (1950), this concept, although primarily related to perception, has far-reaching implications for our conception of others and of society. We question here the validity of Metzger’s concept, its explanatory significance, and its relation to other phenomenological concepts, such as that of Merleau-Ponty.
对现实的思考:梅茨格与“Eleatic Postulate”的拒绝
摘要1940年,Wolfgang Metzger开始对格式塔心理学的现象学方法的意义进行深刻反思,其出发点是拒绝他所说的“Eleatic”或“Eleatic-Rationalistic Postulate”,即在他看来,在过去几个世纪主导了西方科学和哲学思想的概念,根据该法,任何关于事物状态的断言,如果可能导致自相矛盾的结论,都必须被认为是没有根据的。在这种拒绝的基础上,梅茨格提出了区分现实的五种含义:(1)物理世界或经验世界;(2) 直观的或经验丰富的世界;(3) 有经验的世界(met,Angetrofen)与有代表性的世界形成对比;(4) 与空虚或虚无形成对比的事物或充实;(5) 真实与表面形成对比。对于Metzger(1950)来说,这个概念虽然主要与感知有关,但对我们对他人和社会的概念有着深远的影响。我们在这里质疑梅茨格概念的有效性,它的解释意义,以及它与其他现象学概念的关系,比如梅洛-庞蒂的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
32 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信