Introspection Analysis

The general perception of today’s generation view on introspection is generally assumed globally to have the same meaning. But a deep research into the topic will lead into concluding that the topic has had lots of variations over the years. It is an important note that in perceiving the literature of introspection, the complexity, the analysis of introspection between 1880 and 1914 is limited to the entailment of the academic part of psychology pertaining introspection.

There were a variety of people who made it their responsibility to come up with a less restricted perspective of introspection. Examples of such people were: Theodor Lipps, Muller, Wundit just to mention but a few. This people had different views on the methodology of approaching

the topic of introspection whilst at some point their opinions were in line with each other’s theory.
The contrasts that are observed from the analysis of the topic will be observed in this assignment alongside the comparisons as well. Some of the distinguishing views are as follows.
Some of the experimental introspectionists were inspired by the works of Theodor Lips. Their inspiration was a representation of the practicality of the phenomenon rather than the philosophical part of it which was to a large extent based on theory. Theodor’s perception was in regard to the possibilities of unshackled introspection. He believed in the importance of analyzing introspection relating to the conscious state of mind and came up with a conclusion that the application of introspection has a negative impact on the object. Contrary to his initial remarks, he stated that “the more intensive the observation, the more the observed emerges in its complete nature.” He compared both the internal and external conclusions on his conducted experiments. In comparison to this, Wundit applied his concept of a psychological experiment which was comprehensive of the fact that events involving the human consciousness are should be connected to physiological data. Theodor considered such experiments to be of significance but contradicted that the understanding of the importance and the interest of the experiments resulting were insignificant. According to him, the appropriate experiments involving psychology were the internal experiments. He justified his perception by stating the expounding on the importance of his experiment in the calling up of ideas or thoughts and the presentation of a person to each and every part of his or her own experience.
In the early 19th century, philosophical approximations from the Germans point of view had some profound involvement in the shaping up of Britain’s views on introspection.

Philosophers such as Sir William Hamilton (1859), a Scottish raised in Britain, came up with his own opinions involving the impression of the activity pertaining to the minds unconscious activity. This got the attention of yet another philosopher John Stuart Mill (1967) who was in defense of the central position of the way introspection was generally perceived in the philosophical psychology of Britain. According to Mill, the substantial findings, from similar experiments by Hamilton, seemed to be accurate enough for the empirical observation as it led to the jeopardy of metaphysical hypothesis.

Despite the contradictions viewed by the philosophers, there were some instances which involved them coming together in some peculiar situations. Some of the contrasts were as

follows;

For both the introspectionist in the Great Britain and for Wundt the expertise of the observer recreated some purpose in the attempt to overcome the problems of an empirical psychology of consciousness. But these issues were portrayed to be the result of different conclusions in the two approaches, and so the initial purpose of the function applied to the expertise of the observer had to be different too. In view of the classical British tradition the issue was the conciliating of the arrogate stating that psychological analysis could be empirical with the conception that the philosophy of sensationalism was not a result of naive experience. Wundt’s main blind spot was one of reconciling the assumption that psychological conclusions could be scientific under specific circumstances’ with the revealed fact that thoughtful observation usually lacked the objectivity of scientific observation. Inside the walls of the British introspectionist tradition the analyst required special training in order for a clear perception of the components that sensationalist doctrine required. For Wundt, the percipient had to undergo rigorous training for the purpose of enhancing quick and attentive observation while minimizing the disturbing effects of surprise and self-consciousness. In this way, he hoped, the conditions of psychological observation would approximate more closely the conditions of ordinary scientific observation of external events.
The contrast between German and Leibniz theory was that the German tradition in philosophy and Leibniz’s explicit denial of the equation of mind and consciousness impressed upon it from its inception.

This had been a key point in Leibniz’s criticism of Descartes and in his foundation of a philosophical orientation very different from the latter’s. In the history of psychology this aspect of Leibniz’s thought is well known in the structure of his theory of “obscure perceptions” which had a major hallmark in the revivals depicting Johann Friedrich Herbart and which had some other levels of alternations which would hence be transformed within a major concept important to a critical factor of clientele management and in the development of the concept of the threshold of consciousness and hence the sensory thresholds In the present context the importance of Leibniz’s position derives from the clear implication that if mind is not to be equated with consciousness, one cannot expect to discover its nature as well as the core factors aiding the constitution. There are simple guidelines which are optimally developed through essential levels of examined consciousness and they are cumulatively determined through an integrated concept, and unquestionably improved through networked approaches. There are essential fundamentals that are important and which would be thought to be very important in creating a positive image for the examination of critical sources of the emergences of

historical dynamics. Introspection therefore may not be regarded as a technique of unquestionable dependability and fundamental significance. In this ‘tradition the methods of logic and of mathematics are characteristically accorded a much higher status than that of introspection.
Among the main systems of German idealist viewpoint it was understood in various proportions that critical factors would be transformed by Johann Gottlieb Fichte which provided a grounds for examining meaning to the observation of the individual consciousness. It was on this philosophic basis that Karl Fortlage developed a genuinely introspective psychology in the 1850s. The reaction was predictable. About 10 years later, Friedrich Albert Lange printed a withering attack on the introspection method in general and on Fortlage in fastidious mood.’ However, he struck another position .Both introspection and the tentative logico-mathematical technique were to be replaced by a new “somatic” method according to which psychological activity was to be studied in terms of its material manifestations. This included not only the physiological method of Hermann Helmholtz but also the empirical study of language and speech, the observation of infants and of animal behavior, and the application of statistics to the data of complex human behavior. Lange’s influence was considerable at the time.”
Conclusion
The analysis of the relevant literature pertaining to psychology is insignificant to the conclusive remarks pointing to the rejection of introspection as the failure in the methods applied in the internal analysis of the human conscience. The 20th century analysis of this concept may have jeopardized the systematic introspection. Such interests have led to the alteration of methods applied in psychological research.