Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Archetypal Psychologist-1

Francis Bacon summed up the state of knowledge in his day in On the Advancement of Learning - in 1605 it was still possible for a man to do so - and then boldly predicted: According to the current situation, I have to believe that the three visits of the current scholars, the three visits of the Kaihua intellectuals, will be close to what the Greeks and Romans learned, and we will surpass them.Why?All kinds of things are almost perfect: today's outstanding people are not only extraordinary in mind, but also extraordinary, full of energy, and eager to make achievements.The achievements of the ancient philosophers' work can be used as much as possible for me. The technique of printing has extended the books to the common people. The voyage across the ocean has opened the eyes of the people of the country. They can see the wide range of experiments in other places and the complexity of the natural history of foreign lands.If the timing is like this, why not?

Such bold predictions have usually proved wrong in the past, but not this time.Within this century, knowledge will reach levels that even Bacon could not have imagined, all because of the scientific "new knowledge" brought about by some of the important social developments that were reshaping European society.The semi-primitive feudal way of life, centered around churches, castles and guarded homes, had given way to wider communal life, urban life had begun to revive, trade and industry had expanded further, and the Reformation had weakened the ecclesiastical tradition Dominion over the minds of men and the ferment of skepticism and intellectual inquiry aroused in Protestant lands, and, because of a social osmosis, also in Catholicism.

These developments stimulated the progress of both practical and pure knowledge. Seventeenth-century commerce, armies, and financial and taxation systems all required new and efficient ways to think and process data.On the purely intellectual side, many thoughtful people have moved from the nit-picking of theological studies to gathering more solid information about the real world.For these reasons, this is a time for practical technology.Within this century came decimal notation, logarithms, analytic geometry, calculus, air pumps, microscopes, barometers, thermometers, and telescopes. This is not to say that science is popular everywhere.The revival of humanism had long since revived the Platonic tradition with its mysticism and contempt for the material world, and many intellectuals depreciated science along the lines of Petrarch, Erasmus, Rabelais, and Weaver.Religion offered far more insidious countermeasures; throughout the seventeenth century, not only Bishops, but Lutherans and Calvinists also brutally persecuted heresy, and anyone who openly embraced a scientific theory that conflicted with the local state Orthodox Church not only risked Not only the risk of losing one's reputation, but also one's social status, property and even one's life.

Despite all these obstacles, science thrives.In the principal countries of Western Europe, inquiring minds peeped through microscopes and telescopes, prepared reagents in glass bottles, dug deep holes in the ground, cut up dead animals and men, and calculated the motions of stars and planets.Among these were Wallis, Harvey, Boyle, Hooke, Halley and Newton in England, Descartes, Fermat, Mario and Pascal in France, Galileo, Viviani in Italy and Torricelli, Jacques and Bernoulli in Switzerland, Leibniz in Germany, Huygens and Leeuwenhoek in Holland. Most of them corresponded with each other, sharing ideas and results, because they considered themselves collaborators in a larger movement.By the mid-seventeenth century, in Oxford, London, and Paris, scientists and scientifically minded individuals met in informal groups—called "invisible colleagues"—to exchange scientific discoveries and discuss ideas. Have a debate.In 1662, Charles II granted a charter to the London group, named the "London Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge," and through the Society's "philosophical exchange" and similar correspondence on the Continent, scientists began to build a message Exchange networks and their own cultural coterie.

Although psychology emerged from this philosophical-theological cocoon much later than the natural sciences, the most subtle scientists of the age have turned their attention to it, and in For the first time in two thousand years, new answers to some of the questions posed by Greek philosophers began to be conceived.Although the archetypal psychologists of the seventeenth century, and even some of their early eighteenth-century successors, had no means of investigating the human mind except through contemplation and recollection, they knew that physicists and Some new discoveries of physiologists.They not only rediscovered the previous theories, but also explored two completely different new varieties on the basis of the old psychology.

As anyone with a modicum of higher education knows, René Descartes is one of the most influential philosophers of modern times, the inventor of analytic geometry and a modestly accomplished physicist.What few people know, however, is that he was also "the first great psychologist of modern times," as the historian of psychology Robert Watson puts it.However, Watson also said: "To say this does not mean that he is the first modern psychologist. Unlike some scientists of his time, he still made some metaphysical assumptions, and his psychology was often his branch of philosophy." Yet he was the first since Aristotle to create a new psychology.

Descartes was born in Toulon in 1596, and his mother transmitted tuberculosis to him during childbirth.And died of it a few days later.He was born crippled, sickly in childhood, and small and rather frail as an adult.His father, a well-developed lawyer, sent him to La Fletcher's Jesus College at the age of 8, where he studied mathematics and philosophy systematically.His teachers, aware of his physical frailty and extraordinary brain power, allowed him to stay in bed and read for long periods of time. Therefore, reading in bed and meditating all morning became a lifelong habit of his.Thankfully, he inherited a large inheritance from his father, making this lifestyle possible for the long haul.

This unattractive little Descartes had tried the social life and casinos in Paris before he was eighteen or nineteen, but he was bored, so he turned back to the lonely study of mathematics and philosophy.However, he became more and more confused, because so many learned people gave so many different answers to some important philosophical questions, he felt that he lacked courage and felt deeply depressed, so he decided to find answers in the real world .He enlisted in the army of Prince Maurice of Nassau, and then in the army of the Duke of Bavaria.It is not clear whether he has experienced combat, but he thinks it is clear that ordinary people are not as smart as scholars.After a few years, he returned to the world of solitary thinking.

Just before he returned to his personal life, Descartes had another memorable experience of philosophical hallucinations. In the winter when he was 23 years old, he locked himself in a "stove" for a whole morning-this is his word, it may actually refer to a small room with heating-he had several hallucinations in the middle, and he realized that I realized that I can ignore some of the "ancients" who disagree with each other, and use rigorous mathematical reasoning to reach philosophically certain conclusions.Thus began the philosophy of experimentalism. After being demobilized from the army and returning to ordinary life, Descartes spent some time traveling and then lived in Paris for some time, studying philosophy and physical science. At the age of 32, he moved to Protestant Holland, partly because friends in Paris were frequent surprises and disturbed his quiet contemplation, but also because he feared that the search for truth—and, above all, doubting everything—would Caused persecution on charges of heresy.He was afraid of this, and he wanted to maintain friendly relations with the Catholic Church. In one book, he even interrupted the discussion of the question of the soul and body, and said some typical words: "I know my humbleness, so I don't care about anything." Not sure, I'm just putting these opinions under the authority of the Catholic Church for someone wiser to decide."

His life in the Netherlands was largely peaceful, though he was sometimes attacked by Protestant extremists for holding dangerous heresies.In order to preserve his quiet and private life, he moved 24 times in 20 years.However, he was not an ascetic or a hermit. He liked to receive visits from learned men. He had a mistress and a daughter (who died young), lived in an elegant environment, and served by retinues. His most important works, Methodology (1637) and Metaphysical Meditations (1641), were written while living in the Netherlands.Most of his psychological theories are also scattered in these works.The remainder can be found in the 1633 "The World", which was not published until after his death.When he was about to submit the book to the publisher for printing, he suddenly learned that Galileo had been executed by the court for insisting on the theory that the earth revolved around the sun, and his own works also talked about this point of view, so he suppressed the book.

Despite his caution in such matters, he hastily accepted an invitation from Queen Christina of Sweden in 1649 to go to Sweden and teach her philosophy.He was given a grand welcome in Stockholm, only to be disappointed to find that the queen asked him to start classes at 5 o'clock every morning.He used to stay in bed until noon before getting up, but now he has to get up before dawn three times a week, struggling to go to her study room in the cold winter night. In February 1650, he caught a cold, developed pneumonia, and died after some rites at the age of fifty-four. Although Descartes' philosophy is beyond the scope of our concern, we have to look at its beginning, because this is the basis of his psychology.He builds his philosophical approach on the insights he gained in the "stove": (I was thinking) I should throw away all opinions as absolutely false, so that I would have no room for doubt, and therefore be sure, after doing so, whether there was anything in my beliefs Something unmistakable remains. He therefore doubts his own senses, which are often wrong; doubts everything he has been persuaded before, because one can fall into reasoning errors even in the simplest geometrical problems.And, indeed, he suspected that all that entered into his thoughts while he was awake, because similar thoughts that entered into his sleep, were delusions.This led him to his second, and most crucial, insight: I noticed right away that even if I wished to think all these things were wrong, I, the person who thought this way, would have to be something.I have observed that this truth—I think, therefore I am—is unmistakable, unmistakable, and irrefutable, no matter how much the skeptics may attack it.I came to the conclusion that there was only one way to accept it without doubt, as the first principle of the philosophy I had been pursuing. Then he asked himself what is this thinking "I" that must exist.He said that he could imagine himself without a body and living in a specific place, but he could not imagine himself not existing because his mind proved otherwise.From this he draws a dramatic reasoning: I came to the conclusion that I am a thing or a substance whose essence or nature is only thought, and this thing does not need space or any material thing or form to exist.Thus, this I, therefore, is my ego, this mind, this soul, is something quite different from the body... The soul does not cease to be what it is, although the body does not exist. In this way, on the one hand, he doubts everything that the ancient sages have said, and at the same time, through his own reasoning, he once again establishes the dualism of soul and body. Yet he was a man living in the seventeenth century, surrounded by science and its explosion of knowledge in the material age, and, unlike the Platonists, he believed that the corporeal world was not merely shadows on tomb walls but As real as thoughts are, not hallucinations, but what they appear to be.He based this idea on the belief that since God gives our minds body and sensations, and since God cannot deceive us, physical things must exist and be similar to our perception of them. So far, this is pure rationalism.At that time, however, Descartes had a quasi-empirical tendency.He was well aware of some of the discoveries in new physiology at the time, and he himself had dismembered animals and observed the connection between the nervous system and muscles.In his opinion, these are similar to some sculptures in the Royal Garden of Saint-Germain-Lenlay. Under the action of water force guided through the pipeline, they make some realistic movements and sounds. Therefore, he developed a set of human behavior mechanism - hydraulic theory.The fluid that fills the ventricles, or cavities inside the brain—which we know today as the cerebrospinal cord—was, he thought, "vitality," an extremely pure element in the blood, of which he believed The rougher parts are filtered by tiny arteries before they reach the brain. (He developed and modified the Greek concept of pneuma, which refers to a gas, the basic substance of the soul, which circulates in the nervous system.) As the nervous system emanates from the brain to all parts of the body, vitality It must also have flowed from the brain to the nerves (like the Greeks, Descartes believed the nerves were empty, before microscopes existed), and on reaching the muscles they swelled and moved. He imagined that the flow of vitality must also have powered digestion, circulation, breathing, and some mental functions, such as sensory impressions, hobbies and passions, and even memory.The latter, though only a function of the mind, he also explains in mechanical terms.Just as holes made in linen with needles remain where they were when the needles were removed, so repeated experience leaves small holes in the brain and thus has more effect on the flow of vital energy. possibility of acceptance.Descartes thus set aside Aquinas's (drawn from Aristotle's) doctrine that the soul has some "growing" and "sensible" functions.In Cartesian system this is purely rational, while some other functions belong to the body. Although his mechano-hydraulic theory was wrong in details, it was almost right in one important respect: it attributed the control of muscles to stimuli from the brain via efferent nerves.Even more impressive are some of his other guesses.What, he asked himself, made the energy flow to the muscles?Again he compared the automatics in the royal gardens.When a pedestrian steps on a hidden pedal, the water tap is turned on, thus activating the device.In the biological world, sensory stimuli serve the same purpose, providing stress to sensory organs, he said.This pressure, after being transmitted through the nerves into the brain, opens special valves and thus causes physical activity of one kind or another.Descartes thus became the first to describe what came to be known as the "reflex," the phenomenon in which a particular external stimulus elicits a particular response in the body. However, the mechano-hydraulic theory does not account for consciousness, reasoning, and will.Descartes believed that those higher brain activities must be functions of the soul (or mind).Where did this thinking soul get this information and ideas from?He said that while it was alive with the body, it acquired some thoughts through the senses, passions, and memories of the body, and it also made some information out of remembered sensory impressions—imagined objects, Fantasy and things like that.Its most important thoughts, however, are not available from such sources, because he never experiences his soul in the form of sensations when he is conscious of his thoughts and thus knows that his soul exists.The concept of soul must be part of the soul itself.Similarly, the axioms of "perfection," "matter," "quality," "oneness," "infinity," and geometric axioms were for him transcendental to sensory experience and must therefore be derived from the soul itself. .They are born. He would add, of course, that some of these inborn thoughts do not exist in mature form at birth, but that the soul has a tendency or habit of forming thoughts in response to experience. "They are the original germs of truth, bred by nature." Sense impressions allow us to discover them in ourselves.For example, a child does not know the general truth that "subtracting an equal number from an equal number gives the remainder the same number" unless you give him an example. His concept of the body-soul duality poses an extremely thorny issue—the body and the soul interact with each other as they lock into each other during life.But where and how does this interplay take place in the soul, where the experience of the body produces passions, and the thought and will of the soul direct the flow of energy and the involuntary action?How does the incorporeal soul, which has no fixed object and occupies no space, connect with the corporeal body, receive its sensations and experiences, or exert any influence on it? The early dualist philosophers ignored this problem, whereas the physiologically aware Descartes could not.From his and others' anatomical studies, he knew that the brain has two identical hemispheres, but, deep within it, there is a very small gland (i.e. the pineal gland); as this is a separate thing, Like the soul itself, and because of its location within the brain, it seemed to him the connection between the manifestations of the soul and the body.Because of its location in the brain, he surmises, "the slightest movement of it greatly affects the flow of vital energy, and conversely the slightest change in the flow of vital energy greatly affects the movement of the glands." Although he How the physical pineal gland and the invisible soul came into contact was never explained, but he was sure that they did, and that it was through this gland that the soul affected the body, and so the body affected the soul. The whole activity of the mind (i.e. the soul) is so constituted that if it desires something to be produced, it produces the desired result through the small glands closely connected with it... The (glandular) activity of the body affects in the opposite way the soul or the mind, which is closely connected with the brain in various changes in the movement itself. Thus, the body generates in the soul emotions such as love, hate, fear and desire.The soul thinks about every emotion consciously and is free to react to it, or ignore it if it deems it undesirable.So why do we make mistakes?Descartes said that it is not because the soul chooses to make mistakes, nor does it conflict with itself, but because extreme emotions may create a "chaos" of vitality, thus overriding the soul's control over the pineal gland. , provoking reactions contrary to the judgment and will of the soul. One of the main goals of Descartes's psychology, however, was to show how the emotions can be controlled through the intellect and the will.He put forward many meaningful advices, such as when strong emotions are aroused, people should intentionally divert their attention until the emotions subside, and then make a decision and see what to do.A lot of what he says about emotional control is at this level, which is the least interesting part of his psychology. He divides affections into several classes, without formulating any insightful theory of their origin.There are six primary emotions—surprise, love, hate, longing, joy, and sadness—and the rest are amalgamations or combinations of these.His discussions of emotion are less dramatic than his descriptions of principles of first philosophy, but rather conceptually bland: Love is an emotion of the soul, caused by a movement of vitality that provokes the soul to connect itself compulsively with something that seems receptive.Hate, on the other hand, is an emotion caused by vitality, which arouses in the mind the will to dissociate from some object which seems to injure itself. Although Descartes was horribly wrong about the interplay between body and soul—the degenerated pineal gland in humans has no effect on incoming or outgoing nerve impulses—the mechanical details are also irrelevant.Of importance was his doctrine of soul and body, which he held to be separate entities, composed of distinct substances, producing in a living being the at times harmonious and at times competitive interplay which is a central part of human existence. most critical factor.This doctrine has greatly influenced human self-knowledge, but not much progress has been made.The historian of psychology Raymond Fancher summed up the strengths and weaknesses of Cartesian dualism: On the one hand, he preached that man is a machine, which can be studied through natural science; Meditate to understand.Then, the interplay between body and soul is said to be deducible through anatomical reasoning, psychological introspection, and especially empty logical analysis. Despite the many untenable logical difficulties in Descartes' position... Most people - at least in the West - still believe that their mind and body are separate, but more or less the interplay of many aspects of themselves .This increases the force of the Cartesian doctrine.Whatever is wrong with it, his interactive dualism has captured the imagination of Westerners so firmly that its teachings are taken for granted.No theory in any branch of science has ever achieved such a height of success. Over the next century, some disciples of Descartes, commonly known as Cartesians, attempted to revise his psychology.They wished to explain how something immaterial, occupying no space, could affect the physical, three-dimensional pineal gland, or vice versa. Their chief method was to suggest that, in fact, there is no reciprocal contact between body and mind; matter.This doctrine would seem to make God toil and run two worlds for everyone, but a brilliant Cartesian, Arnold Heylinks (162-1669), proposed that body and mind are like God Two clocks are fully wound, they will run in perfect harmony with each other, after which God does not need to do anything.Mental phenomena only seem to produce physical responses, and natural experiences produce spiritual responses, but in fact, each series of phenomena occurs only in perfect synchronous motion with the other half. Whether this theory, called "parallelism", is best thought of as metaphysically pure philosophy, theology, or just fantastic nonsense, it's clearly outside the purview of psychology, let's just brush it off and leave it at that thing. However, we must not miss the work of another great philosopher, who, by purely rational methods, arrived at completely different conclusions from Descartes's on the questions of free will, causality, and the relationship between soul and body.He was Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677), a suave Dutch Sephardic Jew whom Bertrand Russell called "the noblest and loveliest of the great philosophers."His Ethics of Demonstration in Geometric Order (1677) is the most ascetic rationalist of all philosophical writings, yet the most sublime. His influence on psychology is questionable, however; some scholars say it was significant, others not so much.These opinions are mixed, partly because of his Ethics, in which Spinoza discusses some psychological problems, but it is difficult to understand, and it is full of geometric expressions. methods (axioms, propositions, positivism, and "proved"), and a host of purely philosophical terms.However, it is more because some of his ideas about the universe and psychology are so modern to some people, but old-fashioned to others. His most modern thought is the definition of God: Spinoza equated God with the universe and everything in the universe, everything obeys the laws of the universe, so it cannot interfere with the normal order of things.As a result, Spinoza was severely denounced by many as an atheist, while others praised him for seeing God in everything.Philosopher Bishop George Berkeley considered him a "wicked" man and "the chief culprit of the infidel in our modern age", but the German Romantic poet and dramatist Novari called him "der Gotbetrunkene Mensch" God-intoxicated man.It is possible to maintain two equally divided opinions concerning his psychology. Spinoza received a Jewish education in a synagogue in Amsterdam, where his family lived.But he had the intellectual mind of a scholar, and by the age of twenty he had mastered Latin, studied philosophy, and left the synagogue behind.The leaders of the Jewish community, fearing that he might become a Christian, decided that they would give him an annuity of 1,000 florins a year if he hid his faith and came to the synagogue now and then.A discredited rumor was that when he refused the offer, they tried, but failed, to assassinate him.But there is a historical fact that they kicked him out of the community and cursed him with the same spell that Joshua had cast on Jericho and Elisha on a bunch of kids who had laughed at him and then been eaten by a mother bear.The only interesting passage in Spinoza's autobiography, the expulsion and the curse, had no effect on him.He lived a quiet and peaceful life in Amsterdam and later in The Hague, living in poverty as a lens grinder and tutor, spending most of his adult life in a single room and going out, but rarely, 45 years old Died of pneumonia that year. Like Descartes, Spinoza used pure reasoning to deduce the nature of the world, God, and mind.However, he found Descartes' theory of the pineal gland to be completely discredited and lacking in evidence, so that it did not help his explanation of the interaction between body and soul.Unlike Descartes, he believed in free will and believed that all mental phenomena are the same as those in the natural world because they have causes and therefore have antecedents. In short, he is a thorough determinist, as he himself (Ethics) said in the previous pages: Axiom 3: From a given definite cause, follows a necessary effect; and, conversely, if a definite cause is not given, it is impossible to follow an effect. Proposition 29: There are no accidents in nature, but everything is determined by the need of the divine essence to be and act in certain ways. Demonstration: Everything that exists exists in God, but God cannot be called an accidental thing, because God must exist, not by accident.Moreover, the ways of the divine essence follow necessarily, not by chance, either as absolutes, or as determined to act in a certain way. To explain this awkward language, "God" means "universe", and "modes of the divine essence" means "spiritual and natural phenomena", and "accident" must be replaced by "not arising from it".In this way it becomes clear that Spinoza's world, including the activities of the human mind, is subject to natural laws and is intelligible. He thus predicted the basic premises of scientific psychology.He also said that the most basic human motivation is self-preservation, again predicting the theory of modern psychology.However, his ideas only indirectly influenced the development of psychology, while Drs Franz Alexander and Sheldon Senesnick state in their History of Psychiatry that his influence on modern thought "But so widespread that his basic concepts have become part of common ideological trends."And in this way it affected Freud and others who didn't realize it at all. Apart from these basic concepts, Spinoza's psychology is very limited in scope and few responders.He discusses sensation, memory, imaginary thought formation, consciousness, and so on, but says hardly anything new about these things.In defining "mind" and "intelligence," his conclusion is frighteningly simple: "mind" is nothing more than an abstract term for a series of sensations, memories, and other mental states that we experience, and "intelligence" is The sum total of a person's thoughts or wishes. These topics, however, did not concern him, and his interest in psychology concerned only feelings (emotions), and especially how we can free ourselves from their bondage by understanding their causes.His analysis of emotions is largely modeled on Descartes.He says that there are three basic emotions (Descartes said there were six)—joy, sorrow, and desire—and that a total of forty-eight different emotions are derived from the interplay of these three emotions, of which there are pleasant and unpleasant stimuli. Although these explanations are reasonable enough, they are purely logical and superficial.They say nothing about what psychologists understand today as unconscious motivation, child development, social influence, or other matters of emotional behavior.Like Spinoza's other works on psychology, these passages might have been written by Aquinas were it not for again Spinoza's pantheism and determinism. In one respect, Spinoza's psychology is in great conflict with modern psychology.Although he was a monist, thinking that mind and matter are two aspects of the same basic fact, he believed that there was no mutual influence between soul and body: "The body cannot determine how the mind thinks, nor can the mind determine the body. Whether to exercise or to rest." (Ethics, Book III, Proposition 2).Interaction is also unnecessary, as both are drawn from the same reality.Professor Watson calls Spinoza's dogma "the parallelism of monism" and summarizes it as follows: Every physical phenomenon coexists with and is in harmony with a spiritual phenomenon.The body and the soul are related to each other, but they have no influence on each other, just like the convex and concave of the lens have no influence on each other.Apparent interplay arises from ignorance on our part and shows the contingency of behavior.It is a cosmetic issue, not a reflection of reality. Thus, despite his modern cosmology and determinism, his explanation of the interrelationship of body and soul is very similar to Heylinks' theory of two clocks, and equally unrealistic and full of fantasy.Spinoza's parallelism influenced some German philosophers in the nineteenth century, but it has completely disappeared from modern psychology. None of this weakens his ethics, whose fundamental claim—that through our own knowledge and the dynamics of our emotions we can escape their shackles and live as fully human beings—is valid, And always so enlightening.But this is the topic of other works and can be skipped in this book. We have to cross the English Channel to find a radically different philosophical environment and psychological kind.The English had their own mystics, pedants, and metaphysical speculators, but for at least four centuries the majority of these philosophers and psychologists had been realistic, practical, and Seek truth from facts.By the early decades of the seventeenth century, British thinkers were typically common sense and empirical in their quest for knowledge.They rely on experimentation, or, if this is not possible, on everyday experience and good judgment.The Royal Society urged members to communicate in the words of "artisans, farmers and merchants (rather than) wise men and learned men".Bishop Thomas Spallat, the society's first historian, said with pride: "Our climate, our air, its effects. The composition of our English blood, and the embrace of the ocean... all make our country an experiment in knowledge. home." 不管这些影响或者微妙的社会因素是否能够解释英国的经验主义倾向，可是，无疑，它当时是存在的，现在也同样如此。在心理学上，它产生了一系列原型心理学家，他们抛弃了笛卡儿的天生知识的教条，而且一边尽职尽责地宣扬上帝和灵魂，一边就人类精神活动和行为提出一些尘俗的看法。他们之所以被称作经验主义者，并不是因为他们是进行实验的一些人（他们不是这样一些人，他们跟自然科学家不一样，他们不知道如何进行心理学实验），而是因为他们相信，思维是通过经验的办法来发展的；思想来自经验。先天论者（天生思想的信仰者）和经验主义者之间的争论在古希腊时代就开始了，17世纪又以新的、更尖锐的形式出现，并且一直持续到最近。 英国第一位经验主义心理学家是托马斯·霍布斯（1588-1679），不过，他主要还是以一位带政治倾向的哲学家而闻名的。他是一位教区牧师的儿子，他母亲因为听说西班牙舰队的事件受惊而早产。他说，这对他生性懦弱是有关系的：“我和害怕是一对孪生儿。”而他的懦弱，或者至少说是他的同伴天生就令人害怕的感觉，是他因之而著名的反民主政治哲学的根源所在。 霍布斯在内战和英联邦的一些动荡年代里写作了《海怪》（1651）一书，他在书的头几页说，所有的人在本质上都是其他人的敌人，只有放弃自我决定的权力，交给一个独裁政府，最好是君主制，他们才能彼此相安无事，繁荣发达。如果没有“恐怖”，没有这样一个统治政府通过它来强制推行文明的行为，生活不可避免地就会是“孤寂、贫穷、可憎、野蛮和短暂”的。这种阴沉的哲学不是一个病恹恹的、心怀叵测和不适应环境的人，而是一个高个子、漂亮、生性活泼、与人友善，而且在其整个漫长的一生中特别健康的人建立的。 霍布斯形成这样一种保皇党的思想不是因为对人类的厌恶，而是另有原因的。他在牛津大学接受教育，后来有许多年是给卡文迪什家族的好几个儿子当家教（他的学生之一后来成为德冯郡的第一位伯爵，另一位学生成了第三位伯爵）。在英联邦时期，他与逃亡的保皇党们生活在一起，并教授未来的查尔斯二世。 他有这样的一些联系也算是幸事一桩。他献身于科学，是位明确的决定论者和唯物主义者，在他的晚年，一群主教在议会里起诉他是无神论者，有亵渎神明和不敬神的罪行，并提议将这个白发苍苍、威武不屈的人烧死。可这项起诉没有形成法案，议会否决了一项禁毁《海怪》的议案，国王还给了他一份年金，他很知趣，使自己的思想和文笔不那么具有煽动性了。尽管“霍布斯主义”许多年以来在牧师和信教的人中间被滥用着，但他本人却过着安宁的生活，继续写书，70岁还打网球，80岁译荷马，近92岁才死去。 不是因为霍布思有关人类本质的思想，而是因为他的经验主义认识论使他在心理学的殿堂里谋得了一个座位。他造访过伽利略，为其物理学所深深打动，霍布斯得出结论说，所有的现象都是运动中的物质，把这一观点运用到心理学，他推断，所有的精神活动一定是神经系统里的原子的运行和大脑对外部世界的的原子运动作出反应而产生的运动。他没有解释原子在大脑里面的运动是如何形成了一个思想的，他只是简单地强调说，这是可能的。直到今天，心理学家们才到了能够回答这个问题的边缘。 霍布斯大胆地宣布，宇宙的任何部分都不是无形体的，“灵魂”只是“生命”的比喻，所有把无形的物质说成是灵魂的观点，都是“空洞的哲学”和“有害的亚里士多德式的废话”。很自然，他藐视大生思想的教条，因为这必须是建立在无形的灵魂之上的。他说，思想里面的一切都来自感觉经验：复杂的思想是从简单的思想来的，简单地思想是从感觉而来的： 考虑到人的思想……很简单，它们是不依靠我们而存在的一个物体的一些本质或者其它事件的表达或者展现，人们常常把它叫作物体……它们的起源是这样一些我们称作感觉的东西，因为在人的头脑里，没有哪种概念不是在开始的时候全部或者部分地由感觉器官形成的。其余的部分都是从这个起源处得来的。 当然，这个概念并不新颖。阿尔克迈翁、德谟克利特和亚里士德都以一种或另一种方式提出过这个观点，还有其他一些可是，霍布斯比他们走得远些，他使用到了后来称作牛顿第一运动定律的物理学原理，用它来解释感觉印象是如何成为想象、记忆和普通知识的： 一个物体一旦进入运动，它就会永恒地运动起来，除非别的某种东西阻碍它；而阻挡它的不管什么东西都无法在一刹那间，（而）只能分次分等级最终完全消灭它；而且，如我们在水中所见，尽管风停下来了，可水却在很长时间以后才不再起波澜了：这样的情况也发生在一个人的思想内部的运动之中，这样的话，当他看见某物、梦想到某物等的时候，亦是如此。因为当物体被移走的时候，或者眼睛闭上的时候，我们仍然会保留看见过的物体的影像，虽然并没有我们看见它的时候那么清晰。而这就是拉丁人叫做想象的东西……（它）因而也就只是逐渐消失的感觉……当我们表达这个消失的概念，并指明，这个感觉正在消失，变成旧的、过去的感觉时，它就称作记忆……很多的记忆，或者对许多事情的记忆，被称为经验。 霍布斯预知有人会提出反对意见：我们可以设想一些从未见到过的事物。这种现象，他早就准备好了解释： 我们根据以前通过感觉感知到的那些事物而形成的印象是简单想象，如一个人想象他以前见过的某个人或者某匹马。而其它的则是合成的；如我们在某时看到一个人，在另外的一个时候看到一匹马，因而就产生了半人半马的想象。 霍布斯表达的经验主义心理学，虽然尚未成熟，而且是以假想的生理学为基础的，可它是一座里程碑。它第一次试图解释感觉印象如何转变成较高级的思想过程。 他在另外一个方面也是开路先锋：他是第一位现代联想主义者。亚里士多德、圣奥古斯丁和维夫都曾说过记忆是通过某种连接调出来的，可是，霍布斯的贡献是，他说得更清楚一些，更具体一些，尽管也是不完全和不成熟的。虽然他使用的是“概念的系列”而不是“联想”这些词，可他是这种传统之中最早的一位，该传统最终还导致了19世纪的实验主义心理学和20世纪的行为主义。 “不管一个人在思考什么，”他说，“他的下一个思想并不存在看上去的因果关系。一种思想与另一种思想的连接并非毫无区别。”他又一次把物理学当作一个例子，把思想的连接比作物质的“连续性”，一种思想紧接着另一种思想，“其方式有若平整桌面上的水，手指牵动水的任何一部分往哪边跑，整个水就往那边跑。”可是，我们把这个比喻搁置一边，会发现他对联想如何发挥作用的解释是真正富于心理学意义的。有时候，他说，思想的系列是“没有向导”，没有计划的，而另一些时候又是“有所约束”或者是强制性的，如我们有意记住某东西或者解决某问题时一样。因而，他预测到了现代人对自由联想与有所控制的联想之间的区别。 就思想从一个念头到另一个念头之间的连续性的解释，他所举的例子跟现代心理学中的任何文献一样恰当。如在《海怪》中： 谈到我们目前的内战，还有什么比提出罗马便士值多少钱这个问题更为不妥当的呢？而这个连续性在我却是非常明显的。因为想到战争，因而就想到了王位让与敌人；这个想法又带来背弃基督的想法；这又引发了30便士这个背叛的价码；因而很容易就得出这个恶毒的问题，而所有这一切都是在一刹那间完成的，因为思想的速度是很快的。 而在他后来的作品《论人性》（1658）中，他说记忆当中任何两个思想的连接都是第一次体验到的偶然因素的结果： 一个概念与另一个概念之间有连续性或者顺序的原因，是一个感觉产生出这两个概念时的第一个连续性或者顺序：比如在下面这个例子中：从圣安德鲁想到了圣彼德，是因为他们的名字列在一起，从圣彼德想到石头也是同样一个原因；从石头想到基石，到教堂，再从教堂到人群，从人群到拥挤；按照这个例子，思想也许可以从任何事物联想到任何别的事物。 这只是联想主义心理学的一粒种子，可它已经落在了一块肥沃的土壤上了。 尽管霍布斯是英国心理学中第一位经验主义者，可是，中年后出生的约翰·洛克（163-1704）把这个原初的学说发展下去了，因而常被人称作“英国经验主义之父”。他也是一位政治哲学家和原型心理学家；作为后者，他极力主张与霍布斯类似的学说，然而作为前者，他却有极为不同的主张。 在社会政治体制上，他辩驳霍布斯的理论，他文采横溢地说，某些天生的权利，如自由，在人从自然状态转向社会生活的时候不应该放弃掉。他的思想体现在美国的《独立宣言》和法国的《人权宣言》中。 洛克的自由主义一部分是因为家庭的背景，一部分是由于个人的经验所致。他父亲是清教律师，还在儿童时期，洛克就知道作为少数不受欢迎的人是什么滋味。可是，后来，他因为清教徒中有很多人取得了胜利而产生了幻想，最后成了维持国王及国会之间平衡的天才的代言人，而且是全英格兰宗教宽容的倡导者不过，不能算是全英格兰，他把全英格兰分成了几等人，划有界线，分为无神论者、一位论派和穆斯林。 在牛津大学，他研究了哲学，崇拜笛卡儿的著作，可是又受到实验科学的吸引。他在牛津教了几年书，认识了伟大的化学家罗伯特·玻意耳和著名的医学科学家托马斯·西德纳姆并与之工作。这诱使他研究医学，并于1667年成为后来当上了莎夫茨伯里第一公爵的安东尼·库伯的私人医生和总顾问。从此以后，洛克就走入政治，并在威廉和玛丽统治期间出任各种政府职位。 从他的肖像上可以看出，他有一张长脸，很严肃，我们还听说，他的确非同一般人，非常整洁，会控制自己，节俭，而且有节制。但他也是一位颇善交际的人，交了很多好朋友，还喜欢孩子。尽管从未婚娶——笛卡儿、斯宾诺莎、霍布斯和17世纪其他的一些哲学家们也都终生未娶，这个现象值得做一篇博士论文-不过，他在牛津大学却是有过一场恋爱的，对此，他说：“几乎将我的理智摧残。”情事结束时，他的理智恢复了；哲学和心理学比起他再也没有经受过的这类损失还是丰富得多。 在洛克的许多著作当中，值得我们关心的是《人类理智论》。1670年，他和一帮朋友在他的艾克斯特之家（莎夫茨伯里的家）非正式地聚会，讨论剑桥一些柏拉图主义者有关上帝及永生的思想是天生的这样一个观点。洛克在《人类理智论》的前言“至读者的信”中讲述了这次会见： 有五六个朋友聚在我家里，讨论一个（离人类的理解） 十分遥远的话题，发现他们自己绕过来自各方的一些困难很快达到一致观点。我们有一阵子不知所措，对自己深感困惑的一些问题束手无策，这时，我突然想到，我们的路线走错了。在我们探索自然的本质时，我们必须理解我们自己的能力，设定我们的理解目标，或者不便处理的问题。我对大家说了这样的意见，他们都乐意地接受了。 洛克猜测，下次开会的时候，一张纸将足以包含他所要提供的单子，里面会有有关思维本身可以理解的一些精神过程。结果，他花了近20年的时间和数百页记满了各种观察和结论的纸张来解决这个问题。 他在英格兰和流亡期间，在和平年代和1688年的“光荣革命”期间写作的《人类理智论》最终于1690年出版了。这本书使他立即蜚声学术界。在14年时间内，这本书再版了4次，是客厅谈话的题材，而且确定了英国哲学和心理学的方向。它也使他臭名昭著。他反对天生思想，坚持认为灵魂是无法了解的思想引起了柏拉图主义者和牧师的愤怒，他们早就因为他倡导宽容而深感不快了，这次以因为他说些对无神论者有利的话而猛烈地攻击他。时间作出了公正的判决：他的《人类理智论》成为现代思想的主流之一，而反对者的东西已经淹没在历史的垃圾堆中了。 洛克的《人类理智论》之所以名垂青史，是因为它解释了我们如何获取知识，其余的部分不关我们的事。他采取跟他的先辈们不同的方式探索思维如何从知识中得来。首先，跟笛卡儿和斯宾诺莎不一样，尽管他学习过医学，他并没有去思考“我们精神的运动，或者我们肉体的变化”，通过这些东西，我们会得出感觉、感知、或者思想。他也没有去思考生理学是否还处在一个原始的状态，或者心理学过程是否可以在一个宏观的水平上加以考察而不管微观的情况，正如人们可以研究波浪的机械运动而不必注意构成波浪的分子的运动。 他也没有依靠正式的演绎推理，如笛卡儿和斯宾诺莎所进行的。反过来，他尽量利用当时能够得到的经验的方法来检查他自己的经验和别人的经验，包括不同年龄的孩子，问自己说出现了什么现象，以什么顺序发生，才得出了知识。他还进行了至少一次著名的实验。他先把一只手放在热水盆里，另一只放进冷水盆里，之后，再把两只手都放进一只温水盆里，这样，一只手感到热，另一只手感到冷。这说明，一种感觉起因的本质是一样客观的，可是，我们的感觉却是主观的，而不是客观实质的复制品。 洛克在《人类理智论》中做的第一件事就是攻击天生思想的教条。笛卡儿认为，关于上帝的思想一定是天生的，因为我们没有直接地体验过上帝，对此，洛克回答说，它不可能是天生的，因为有一些人没有这样的思想。他提供了一种虔诚——但是属于经验主义的——变通办法：我们从“在各种创造物中体现出来的超级智慧和力量……中得出上帝的概念”。也不可能有正确与错误的天生概念；历史为我们显示出来的道德判断范围是如此广泛，它们一定是通过社会的形式获取的。哪怕有些思想是万有的，如果能够找到其它一些解释，则它们也不是大生的。而且实际上，这样的解释是找得到的。他会显示出“理解在什么时候也许会具有它所有的思想”。作为证据，“我会希望每个人借重他自己的观察和体验”。 接着，他提出了经验主义心理学最原初的一个原理：“让我们假设思想（在出生的时候）是我们常说的一张白纸，上面没写任何字，没有任何思想。它是怎么载入内容的呢？……我回答，一句话，从经验而来。我们的知识都建立在经验之上，并从经验之中最终得出自身来。” （有人常说，洛克把新生儿的思想比作一块白板，可是，他没有使用这个词，那是阿奎那从亚里士多德的著作中翻译得来的一个词。） 洛克说，人的“思想”有两个来源（“思想”这个词，他用来指从感觉到抽象概念之间的任何东西）。它们是感觉和回忆（思想对其所获得的无论什么东西的操作，按他的话说，是“我们自己的思想所有不同的行动”）。 我们的感官把感觉传递至思想，他把这些叫做“简单思想”。从这里开始，思想逐渐形成“回忆的概念”（它自己意识到其自身具有的感知、思想、意愿、在事物之间进行区分、比较等等的能力）。从这两类概念的相互影响之中，得出其它的一切东西，包括那些最为复杂和深奥的东西。 洛克然后花费大量篇幅来说明，要解释最为遥远和困难的一些概念，光有这些就够了。（他为自己冗长的说明道歉，可是，他说：“我现在太懒了，或者太忙了，不可能把它弄得更短。”）他解释了思想如何考虑一些简单的概念，如何把它们放在一起形成复杂的思想；如何在简单和复杂的思想之间进行分别。我们注意到一些不同的物体（一张帆，一块骨头，一杯牛奶）所共有的一些特质，并有意地排斥掉其不同的地方，从而形成比如白这样一些抽象的概念。同样，我们最终会形成象无限、同样与多样、真理与谬误这样一些抽象概念。 所有这些听起来都是有根有据，无懈可击的，可在这个系统当中有一个严重的漏洞。这涉及感官感觉这个古老的哲学问题：我们如何知道我们所感觉到的东西是存在于思想之外的事物的正确反映？洛克看不出有任何理由来怀疑我们具有对周围世界的正确知识。他跟随笛卡儿一样的确说过，上帝不会误导我们，可是，他的话音里面，虔诚的成分没有常识的成分多： 创造了我们大家的、无限睿智的上苍，以及我们周围的一切，已经调正了我们的感觉、才能和感官，使其适宜生活的便利和我们在此所做的营生。通过我们的感觉，我们可以了解并区分事物；检查它们，并使其适宜于我们的用途……这样的一种知识，它合适我们目前的状况，我们是不需要才能才可能以获取的。 但是，他就感觉问题的讨论在两个方面引起以后的心理学家们的麻烦。 （洛克没有对感觉和感知加以区分；这种区分直到近两个世纪以后才有了辨别。） 首先，他接受了我们所感知到的物体的“原初”素质和“次等”素质之间的差别，远至阿奎那，近到笛卡儿、伽利略和牛顿都接受过这种区别。原初素质都是些不可与其物体“区分”的素质，不管它们的变化有多么大；它们在我们身上产生最简单的固体感觉、延伸感觉、样式、运动或静止以及数量的思想。“拿起一粒谷子，”洛克说，“把它分成两半，每部分仍然有固体感觉、延伸感觉、样式和活动感。”而次等的感觉，如色彩、声音、味觉和气味，并不以我们感知它们的形式存在于物体之中，而是这个物体的原初素质在我们身上引起的一些感觉。一枝紫罗兰在黑暗当中不是紫罗兰，只有当它在我们身上引起那种颜色的感觉的时候，它才是一枝紫罗兰。洛克大概就是这个意思吧。 其次，如果我们的思想都是从感觉得来的，我们就知道我们感知到是东西，但不是其背后的真实——甚至真实都不一定存在。同样的，我们永远也不知道思维本身是什么，我们只知道自己的思想的经验。洛克有理智的这一面是勇敢无畏的： 感觉使我们相信，有固体的延伸的物质存在；还有思考，有会思考的物质存在；经验使我们确信这些东西的存在；人还有利用冲动来移动物体的能力，也有用思想去移动其它物体的能力；对这一点，我们不能怀疑。 仅凭这简单地重新确任一次是无法说服其它一些哲学家和心理学家的。他们愿意，或者不愿意找到一条证据，来证明我们有关世界的知识是否正确，或者在我们的感觉之外是否存在任何东西。 洛克在思维本质的问题上是很模糊的。可能是因为他自己的信仰的原因，也可能是为了避免异端邪说的罪名，他说，思维是存在的，但坚持认为，我们知道思维的程度绝不会类同我们了解在物体中感知到的一些素质之后的东西。事实上，在《人类理智论》中的一个著名段落里，他很慎重地提出，我们有可能想象，思维是一种不同的物质： 我们知道有物质和思想，但可能永远也不会知道任何单纯的物质存在是否也会思想；对于我们来说，在没有启示而只有通过我们自己的思想来思考的话，那是不可能发现，全能之神是否给某些系统的物质以恰当的方式赋予了一种感知和思维的能力，或者通过良好的衔接与固定形成一种姿势，使它们成为某种会思想而非物质的东西：对照我们的概念，根据并非远离我们的理解力，我们可以想象，上帝如果高兴的话，他是可以给某种物质硬加上思考的能力的，或者他甚至还可以给予它另一种具有思考能力的存在物。 这使正统教徒们悖然大怒，他们控诉洛克，说他是个隐藏的唯物主义者，并控告他已经让基督教神学处于危险之中。洛克的心理学逃过了他们的攻击，而基督教也逃过了洛克的威胁。 为此，洛克的名声就当之无愧了，他经常被不恰当地称作联想主义原初理论家。千真万确，他是用过“概念的联想”这个词组，而霍布斯和其它一些讨论过这种现象的、早期的思想家们都没有。可是，洛克处理过联想这个话题的那个章节只是事后的想法，是他的《人类理智论》第四版的附录。他整个的系统里面根本就没有联想这个概念。 不过，他的确说过，我们可以把简单的概念合并成复杂的思想；他还说，在这样的合并当中，重复和快乐是一个重要的因素。可是，他对联想的规律并没有只言半语的评论，也没有把这个话题当作可以开启大智的问题来探讨。他对这个问题的兴趣，仅止限于在一些疾病和日常生活当中，另外的一些奇怪的情境下所发现的不可理喻的思想过程。他讲述了一件事，说他的一位朋友做了外科手术（当时还没有麻醉剂），尽管对这位外科大夫心存感激，可事后不能忍受哪怕看他一眼，这大夫的脸与疼痛之间的联系太强了。他还说，有一个人在一间有口箱子的房间里学会了非常复杂的舞步，后来，他只有在一间有类似的箱子的房间里才会跳。 可是，如果说洛克对联想这个概念的处理是有局限的，但是，他却刺激了别的人去找出这些思想的连接和顺序在思维当中形成的方式。最终，行为主义会把所有的精神生活简化到联想中去，而且，哪怕心理学挣脱了行为主义的主导之后，联想仍然是其主要议题之一。洛克的思想因为残余的纯粹哲学和神学的痕迹而罩有乌云，可是，他把心理学从哲学中解脱出来，导入了科学的方向。在《人类理智论》中，他以得体的谦逊写道，他希望这本书能够作出一些贡献： 不要每个人都去想做玻意耳或者西德纳姆，而且，在一个产生伟大的惠更斯这样的大师和不可比拟的牛顿先生的时代……能够做一点基础的、清场子的工作，并把通往知识之路上的垃圾清除掉，这就算了不起的理想了。 在他的情况来看，这种谦逊既没有得到承认，也算非常得体。 洛克死于1704年，这是一个世纪的开端，严格的科学开始大步地跳跃前进了。最著名的几步是伽伐尼的生理学，伏特的电学，道尔顿的解剖学说，欧拉和拉格朗日的数学，赫歇尔和拉普拉斯的天文学，林奈的植物学，詹纳的预防医学，以及后来的卡文迪什、普里斯特利和卢瑟福分别发现氢气、氧气和氮。 心理学再没有出现类似的大步前进，直到19世纪出现实验主义之后才开始。从大部分情况来看，18世纪的原型心理学家不是笛卡儿主义传统的理性主义——先天论者，就是霍布斯——洛克式传统的经验主义——联想主义者。然而，他们当中的一些人的确把这些概念都向前推进了一些，他们的方式影响到了心理学的未来。他们值得我们简约地认识一下，他们的贡献也值得我们略略回顾一下。