Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

What follows is a critical review of Windelband's methodological distinction between nomothetic and idiographic thought as based on Lamiell's translation of Windelband's (1894/1998) `History and Natural Science'. This is followed by a critique of Lamiell's (1998) interpretation of the distinction and its implications for his proposed nomothetic psychology of personality. In the course of evaluating this proposal, Windelband's distinction is placed within the broader context of the neo-Kantian understanding of science, history and philosophy, and briefly contrasted with Dilthey's epistemological distinction between the human and natural sciences which takes psychology, and our understanding of individual persons, as belonging to the human, which is to say, historical sciences.

Keywords

historical understanding idiographic methodology value

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allport, G.W. (1946). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. (Original work published 1937.)

Cassirer, E. (1950). The problem of knowledge: Philosophy, science, and history since Hegel. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cassirer, E. (1951). The philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1932.)

Collingwood, R.G. (1977). The idea of history. London: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1946.)

Cronbach, L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dilthey, W. (1977). Ideas concerning a descriptive and analytical psychology. In R. M. Zaner & K. L. Heiges (Eds.), Descriptive psychology and historical under-standing (pp. 35-120). The Hague: Nijhoff. (Original work published 1894.)

Dilthey, W. (1985). The imagination of the poet: Elements of a poetics. In R. A. Makkreel & F. Rodi (Eds.), Wilhelm Dilthey: Selected works (Vol. V, pp. 29-173). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1887.)

Dilthey, W. (1989). Introduction to the human sciences. In R. A. Makkreel & F. Rodi (Eds.), Wilhelm Dilthey: Selected works (Vol. I, pp. 55-240). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1883.)

10.

Lamiell, J.T. (1998). `Nomothetic' and `idiographic': Contrasting Windelband's understanding with contemporary usage. Theory & Psychology, 8(1), 23-38.

11.

Makkreel, R.A. (1992). Dilthey: Philosopher of the human studies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1975.)

12.

Mandelbaum, M. (1971). History, man, and reason: A study of nineteenth-century thought. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

13.

Rickert, H. (1921). Kulturwissenschaften und Naturwissenschaften. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr. (Original work published 1899.)

14.

Rickert, H. (1962). Science and history: A critique of positivist epistemology. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. (Original work published 1915.)

15.

Windelband, W. (1901). History of philosophy (J.H. Tufts, Trans.). New York: Macmillan. (Original work published 1893.)

16.

Windelband, W. (1998). History and natural science. Theory & Psychology, 8(1), 5-22. (Original work delivered 1894.)

On Methodological Distinctions

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References