Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences Crossing Dialogues ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Association The roots of psychopathological understanding: Karl Jaspers’ Verstehen and the infl uence of Moritz Geiger’s empathy Crossing Dialogues Association, Rome (Italy) M This paper presents the main contents of Geiger’s 1910 lecture on empathy and focuses on its possible infl uence on Jaspers’ General Psychopathology. In particular, some key methodological distinctions traced by Jaspers (explaining vs. understanding, static vs. genetic understanding, understandability vs. non-understandability) are compared to Geiger’s similar concepts. Geiger’s role in shaping Jaspers’ concept of understanding (and non-understandability) is still neglected and it is time to recognize it. In particular, Geiger’s distinction between the direct empathy for the other’s expressions at one side, and the ‘reliving after the event’ of the ‘inner correlation of the psyche’ on the other side had a major role in shaping Jaspers’ similar distinction between static and genetic understanding. Keywords: psychopathology, phenomenology, hermeneutics, history of psychiatry, Einfühlung. DIAL PHIL MENT NEURO SCI 2016; 9(2): 36-42 INTRODUCTION Understanding (Verstehen) is a crucial issue the psychological ground: in hermeneutics since Schleiermacher’s claim “a sensuous object distinct from me ‘expresses’ that its task is “to understand the discourse [ausdruckt] something interior or soul-like” (Lipps, just as well and even better than its creator” 1906, p.1). (Schleiermacher, 1819/1978, p.9). Empathy was the instrument humans have Through the epistemological debate that took in order to grasp the psychological level, and place in the second half of the nineteenth century according to Lipps there was a projection (known as the Methodenstreit), the following of the observer’s feelings onto the observed distinctions were fi nally imported into Karl Jaspers’ expressions. For example, in the case of an General Psychopathology (Jaspers, 1913): a) acrobat on a tight rope, the perception of his the natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften) vs. movements activated an internal resonance in the human sciences (Geisteswissenshaften); the observer that he projected onto him (Lipps, and b) the explanation of causal connections 1903). (Erklären) vs. the understanding of meaningful In 1910 Moritz Geiger presented a lecture at connections (Verstehen). It is still disputed the the IV Congress of Experimental Psychology in relative importance of authors like Husserl, Innsbruck (Geiger, 1911, now available in English Weber, Dilthey, and Simmel, in the shaping of translation: Geiger 1910/2015a, 1910/2015b). It Jaspers’ own conceptualizations (e.g., Berrios was the occasion for a comprehensive review 1993; Brücher, 2012; Kumazaki, 2013a, 2013b; of the literature on empathy of his time. In Leoni, 2013; Rosini et al., 2013). Less known is this contribution on the essence and meaning the possible infl uence of another scholar, Moritz of empathy, Geiger reviewed psychological, Geiger, who was a sui generis phenomenologist philosophical, and aesthetic contributions to trained by the psychologist Theodor Lipps (cp. the debate and discussed their applicability Gödel, 2015; Aragona, 2016). to experimental psychology. In doing so, he Lipps had borrowed the concept of empathy scrutinized the relevant literature, discussing (Einfühlung) from aesthetics and had made it a methodological fl aws and tracing essential key concept of his psychology. In his view, the conceptual distinctions. Geiger painstakingly aesthetic object was an expression (Ausdruck) of disentangled the various meanings of empathy www.crossingdialogues.com/journal.htm 36 Aragona, 2016 and the diff erent explanatory theories behind Second, how the expression of the body and them, assuming that the spiritual life we see in it are related? Is it an “more than one controversy would dissolve readily associative relationship or something else? by pointing out that with their claims the discussants Regarding the fi rst point, Geiger contrasts the were taking positions on diff erent questions” (Geiger, “view of imagination” to the “view of actuality”. 1910/2015a, p.20). The former conceives empathy as an imaginative This article presents a brief sketch of Geiger’s act. In other words, what is experienced by the main ideas on the matter and then discusses the other person is not directly perceived but just possible relation between Geiger’s empathy and imagined, it is inferred starting from external Jaspers’ understanding. appearance. On the contrary, the latter suggests that in empathy we not only see the expression GEIGER’S EMPATHY of anger in the other person but fully experience The aim of Moritz Geiger’s lecture was to that anger, i.e. we really share [mit-erleben] the clarify the concept of empathy to avoid possible experience of the other. misunderstandings arising from the use of the Exploring the view of imagination (e.g. same term to mean either diff erent phenomena or Witasek, 1901), Geiger stresses that it contains diff erent aspects of the phenomenon in question. three diff erent assertions: First, the “question of fact”: what experiences a) The other’s feeling is something external to are in my consciousness, when I’m aware of me, an object I can observe; facing an external Ego? In his view this level b) It is not given in me, because I’m not angry was purely descriptive. with and within the foreign person; The second question was about the c) It can be given to me as an evident “psychological function” involved in the imagination. knowledge of external personalities: what are Based on these premises, Geiger comments the psychological processes in us, whenever we that a scholar following this view could believe ourselves facing external personalities? not genuinely talk of empathic experience And fi nally, the “question of the origins”: how [Einfühlungserlebnis]. is the understanding of the external Ego achieved On the contrary, the view of actuality (e.g. in the course of individual development? Lipps, 1903) maintains that when we experience These questions were critically reviewed the other’s anger, it is not objectively facing us elsewhere (Aragona, 2016). Here we will focus but “we are in it”. It is a really experienced anger, on the fi rst one because it is a phenomenological not an imagined one; we: question that may be important for a possible relationship with Jaspers’ phenomenological “live in this anger, it fully gives itself [Selbstgegebenheit], the anger ourselves are used to psychopathology. have, although for other reasons it has not the same Geiger starts from a concrete example: eff ectiveness [Wirkungsfähigkeit] like the anger in daily “I see a man angry or sad, happy or disappointed. life” (Geiger, 2015, p.22). What kind of awareness [do] we fi nd here?” (Geiger, It was recently stressed (Aragona, 2016, p.6) 1910/2015a, p.20). that on this respect Geiger, Stein, and Scheler Geiger then underlines that this question agreed on the critique of Lipps’ empathy as requires a diff erent answer depending on the complete identifi cation but they diverge in diff erent cases. In empathy, together with the the consequences they derived from it. In fact, sensuous data coming from the other’s body, it Geiger distinguishes between the experience is given: of empathy as being one [Einssein], which “a particular spiritual life, feelings and emotions and corresponds to Lipps’ view of actuality, and acts of will, a foreign animated personality that for me lays in that forms of the body”. (Geiger, 1910/2015a subsequent refl ection, which “makes eff ective p.20) the separation between me and the foreign This question can be divided in two diff erent beings” (Geiger, 1910/2015a, p.22). parts. Hence, a temporal development is introduced First, such an external spiritual life, which is between the fi rst moment in which the feeling given for me, is it experienced or imagined? is experienced in oneself, without self-other

37 DIAL PHIL MENT NEURO SCI 2016; 9(2): 36-42 distinction, and a subsequent moment of the crying and the happiness beyond laughing. refl ection that locates the experienced feeling However, although each of the movements we in the other person. Something similar will be see can be understood as expression of a psyche, elaborated in a philosophical system only many “I do not have any idea of the inner correlation years later, when Heidegger (1927) will consider of the psyche”. In other words, he admits that in the “being-together” [Mit-Dasein] as the original such a case he would not know how it happens phenomenon, and the separation between subject that one feeling follows the opposite one without and object (in this case, the other being) as a apparent reason. derivative position. The second case shows the same phenomenon Regarding the second point, namely the but with the possibility of understanding: I question of the relationship between the sensuous know that someone believes he has committed appearance of the foreign body and the psychic a crime. Consequently, I understand not only entity appearing in it, Geiger discusses whether his sad miens as sad and his fl eeing movements this is simply an association or something else. as fl eeing movements, but I also understand the He supports Volkelt’s argument that here we have correlations of his singular acts, the correlations not a simple association (like the association of his mental experiences. between seeing soldiers and thinking to Napoleon, The third case is similar. I see a child reaching with the two ideas being just juxtaposed). for an apple on a tree and as it cannot manage Following Volkelt and Lipps, in the case of to grasp the apple, he starts crying. Then I empathy a mental entity [ein Seelisches] takes understand not only the two isolated facts (the place in a sensuous entity [ein Sinnliches]. The grasping for the apple and the crying), but also sensuous entity (e.g. a gesture) is the expression their inner correlation: the child is sad because it of a mental one, it is experienced as emerging could not get the apple. from [hervorgehen aus] a mental one. For this Thanks to these examples, Geiger introduces particular relationship, Geiger gives preference a very important distinction. On the one hand to Lipps’ denomination, i.e., “symbolic relation there is the basic empathy, i.e. the fact that I of empathy” [symbolische Einfühlungsrelation]. understand the other’s gesture as expression of So, concludes Geiger (1910/2015a, p.23), “it his internal experience, despite the fact that I is a certain kind of symbolic reaction that is cannot directly perceive the other’s experience. considered to be characteristic for the empathy”. On the other hand, there is the secondary form of Having described the phenomenology of empathy described in this section, which is based empathy as it is given in consciousness, Geiger on the former type but that adds something more, turns his attention to the question of which mental i.e. the possibility to understand the correlation function empathy represents (the psychological between subsequent experiences. Geiger stresses function involved in empathy) and then to the that here we have a new type of empathy in way this function is originated. It is only after foreign personalities that we may call “reliving” having discussed these major questions that [Nacherleben]. It is, he adds, a reliving in the sense Geiger considers cases which are apparently of reliving after the event [Hinterhererleben]. I secondary in his lecture but that are very cannot understand the correlation before having important in psychology and psychopathology. also seen the crying of the child, and then I can We will discuss them in the next section. establish retrospectively the connection from EMPATHY HIC ET NUNC VERSUS the crying to the unsuccessful willing to grasp. RELIVING INNER CORRELATION Interestingly, Geiger adds that if he had seen the [INNERER ZUSAMMENHANG] child laughing, so his reliving would have taken Geiger introduces this distinction discussing another direction. four ideal examples. Finally, he further explores this issue, noting The fi rst is the case of a sick person that is that crying but suddenly shifts to laughing. Geiger “On the one hand I know that I inwardly rebuild the foreign correlations of motivation says that on the basis of the above discussed [Motivzusammenhänge], on the other hand, that they are empathy, one could grasp the sadness beyond still not my own correlations of motivation but those of www.crossingdialogues.com/journal.htm 38 Aragona, 2016

another one, yes, even of a diff erent natured personality suggesting mental appearances [seelische - maybe I would not even be sad by myself, if I could Erscheinungen] in pathologic expressions, not grasp an apple” (Geiger, 1910/2015a, p.27). against excessive neurological reductionism Here he adds a fourth example, i.e. the (Mr. Isserlin) situation in which we can understand the “motivational correlations” of those humans we GEIGER’S EMPATHY AND JASPERS’ dislike (he mentions Ottavio Piccolomini and UNDERSTANDING Holofernes): even in this case we are not like First published in 1913, the General them, we would have not experienced and acted Psychopathology was elaborated by Jaspers in as they did, and nevertheless we can still relive the years 1910-1912, early articles of that period in ourselves their own motivational chain and attesting the progressive formation of his main somehow understand them. ideas on the subject. In this section a theoretical comparison of Geiger says that those who have focused on this possible similarities between Geiger’s and kind of cases, on such a reliving of correlations, Jaspers’ ideas is presented. Such a theoretical have mainly described empathy as an inner comparison makes sense only if we are participating [Mitmachen], as an inner reliving. preliminarily able to attest that, in writing his He quotes Lipps and Groos, and stresses that only General Psychopathology, Jaspers already knew Münsterberg in philology, Elsenhans, and above Geiger’s ideas. I’m not aware of direct quotations all Simmel in his philosophy of history (1905), of Geiger in Jaspers’ 1913 edition of the General have strongly emphasized the importance of this Psychopathology. However, in a preparatory phenomenon. Geiger concludes that: article he writes clearly that the literature on “for psychology as a science, this reliving has a great empathy and understanding is easy to fi nd thanks relevance that perhaps was not suffi ciently emphasized until now. It is the psychological instrument of to Geiger’s review (Jaspers, 1912). Hence, it is knowledge [Erkenntnismittel] whenever you deal with certain that in the period when he was elaborating the comprehension of foreign personalities. the General Psychopathology Jaspers already In these cases it does not depend on a law-like knew Geiger’s ideas on the phenomenology of order in the way of connecting the regularly periodic empathy and the distinctions he had traced in succession of the singular cases to a common law, as in the natural sciences and the correlating parts of his examples. Accordingly, we can go further in psychology; here the singular fact is rather understood discussing some key methodological concepts by clarifying the singular experience [Erleben] of the in Jaspers and comparing them to Geiger’s foreign personality through a relivable inner law-like counterpart. order [Gesetzmäßigkeit]. This psychological law-like One of Jaspers’ fundamental distinctions order is relivable, and not gained by singular induction. Today we are still missing the very fi rst basis for such is that between the method of ‘explaining’, a psychology of reliving that could also be the base for characterizing the natural sciences, and that some branches of animal psychology, characterology, of ‘understanding’ characterizing the human psychiatry, and so for the whole historic comprehension” sciences. He fi nds this distinction in the (Geiger, 1910/2015a, p.28). methodological and hermeneutic debate of the This possible contribution of the studies on last part of the nineteenth century, e.g. in Dilthey. empathy to psychopathological investigations A similar distinction is echoed also in Geiger’s was immediately grasped by a few scholars lecture, when he says that empathy, intended attending Geiger’s lecture. In the discussion as an inner participating, is the psychological (Geiger, 1910/2015b) they emphasized: a) that instrument to know other persons, and that such the distinction between empathy as ‘reliving’ an instrument is not an inference made according and as ‘putting-one-in’ [Sichhineinversetzen], to a general, naturalistic law, but an inner reliving and empathy in general as ‘understanding of and understanding. It is diffi cult to ascertain foreign personalities’, had to be methodically to which author Jaspers is much indebted investigated in pathological states (prof. regarding this distinction (the neo-Kantians Sommer), and b) that in psychiatric research Windelband and Rickert, but also sociologists empathy should be an important driving force like Weber and historicists being other possible showing the role of the emotional factors sources). Probably it was part of the general

39 DIAL PHIL MENT NEURO SCI 2016; 9(2): 36-42 debate of his time and he found it suitable are still part of an introspectionist approach also to be imported into the psychopathological shared by the ‘early’ Dilthey (in his psychological debate because it represented a good conceptual writings of the end of the century, cp. Aragona, support to his basic need: i.e. rebutting the 2015/2016) and borrowed by the young Jaspers too radical reductionist neurologisation of in his psychopathology. What diff ers in Jaspers mental suff erance (what he called the ‘soulless is that he will progressively detach his view psychiatry’) of his time. What is relevant is that from Dilthey’s emphasis on similarity as the while philosophers tended to use this diff erence main requirement for understanding each other to distinguish two fi elds of inquiry (natural and and from indistinctiveness à la Lipps, stressing human sciences), Jaspers believed that both were that in empathizing here and now with the useful in psychopathology, with the possibility other person in a psychopathological encounter, to study a clinical case contemporarily from both detachment and compassion belong together and perspectives. should not be seen in opposition. Jaspers (1913) rarely uses the term ‘empathy’ Until now we have discussed the empathic act in his psychopathology, preferring the term in the here and now, what Jaspers called ‘static ‘understanding’ (Verstehen), which was the term understanding’. A fundamental contribution traditionally used in hermeneutics.1 of his psychopathology is that he traced a Jaspers defi nes understanding as the act of distinction between two forms of understanding. grasping psychic events “from within”. Since we At one side the static understanding, i.e. the cannot perceive the psychic experiences of others already discussed intuition of the other’s in any direct fashion, Jaspers suggests, there has psychic experience obtained ‘from within’. to be an act of understanding. Accordingly, the On the other side, in a clinical encounter the fi rst step has to be to make some representation of psychopathologist does not limit himself to the what is really happening in the other person, what transversal examination of the phenomena in the she is actually going through, how it strikes her, here and now but he actively cooperates with the how she feels. Jaspers conceived understanding examinee in the narration of a personal history. as a self-evident empathic intuition, and this Here Jaspers introduces the concept of ‘genetic poses epistemological problems because it understanding’ when he goes from the appraisal relies on an emotional ability to empathize of single phenomena to their relationship, thus which is idiosyncratic (Aragona, 2013, Villareal considering the connections between such psychic and Aragona, 2014). However, despite such events from the viewpoint of the motivational limitations: chain (meaningful connections). In other words, “Jaspers’ understanding probably remains the major we can put ourselves in the other’s shoes and column of the psychopathological reasoning and has understand that at their place we could have demonstrated its usefulness over a century of clinical reacted as they did (although this is not necessary practice.” (Rosini et al., 2013, p.60) but just a possibility): psychic events emerge out Similar considerations can be raised of each other in a way we understand. In Jaspers’ concerning the concept of empathy as it emerges examples, we understand that attacked people in Geiger’s lecture. We saw that his position was may become angry and spring to the defense, still indebted to Lipps’ projection of own feelings or that cheated persons grow suspicious. From a triggered by the observation of the other’s historical point of view it was diffi cult to fi nd the expressions or movements (a position that has origins of these distinctions. Although generally many variants in the debate of late nineteenth believed to be part of Dilthey’s infl uence, such a century which nevertheless retain basic heritage was recently questioned (Brücher, 2012; similarities). On the other side, with his criticism Kumazaki, 2013a) and actually I was unable to of Lipps’ identifi cation Geiger anticipates future fi nd in Dilthey’s writings a point where such a developments in the phenomenological debate on distinction is clearly asserted.2 empathy (e.g. Stein and the Husserl of the Ideas). Another interesting source may be Simmel’s In any case, Geiger retains the idea of empathy (1905) philosophy of history, because he is as an emotional internal resonance, so his views cited by Geiger and Jaspers, and because in his www.crossingdialogues.com/journal.htm 40 Aragona, 2016 book the understanding of single experiences is do not have any idea of the inner correlation of diff erentiated from understanding the correlation the psyche”). of human reactions. However, this distinction is just drafted and the two phenomena are not CONCLUSION thoroughly contrasted. On the contrary, in This paper presented the main contents Geiger’s lecture there is a clear and deeper of Geiger’s lecture on empathy and focused reference to this question, namely his distinction on its possible infl uence on Jaspers’ General between the understanding of individual Psychopathology. In particular, some key observed behaviors (e.g., the crying of the child methodological distinctions traced by Jaspers in his example discussed previously) on the (explaining vs. understanding, static vs. genetic one hand and the understanding of the ‘inner understanding, understandability vs. non- correlation of the psyche’ on the other hand understandability) were compared to Geiger’s (in the same example, the crying as a reaction similar concepts. to the frustration of being unable to reach the It is certain that Jaspers knew Geiger’s lecture apple). While in the basic empathy I understand and used it in preparing the fi rst edition of the the other’s gesture as expression of his internal General Psychopathology. On the contrary, experience in the here and now, in the second form the question of what exactly he borrowed from there is a post-hoc ‘reliving’ [Nacherleben], i.e. Geiger and/or from other scholars of the same a reliving ‘after the event’ [Hinterhererleben]. I period will probably remain undecided. cannot understand the correlation before having My view is that the young Jaspers used the also seen the crying of the child, and then I can contribution of many authors who were debating establish retrospectively the connection from the the same issues in neighboring fi elds for his own crying to the unsuccessful willing to grasp. As sake, without caring too much about philological in Jaspers, also in Geiger this correlation is not rigor (the philosophers Dilthey, Windelband, necessary but a possibility, because he adds that Rickert and Husserl, the sociologist Weber, and if he had seen the child laughing, so his reliving the historian Simmel are good cases in point). would have taken another direction. Regarding Geiger, his role in shaping Jaspers’ Finally, Jaspers was harshly (and often concept of understanding has been neglected for unfairly) criticized for having asserted that the many reasons and it is time to recognize it (cp. understanding as a method is limited, because Aragona, 2016). This paper compared Geiger and in some cases (e.g. in the primary delusions) we Jaspers’ views on understanding. The distinction are unable to relive in ourselves what the patient between explaining and understanding and the experienced while constructing his delusion. concept of static understanding were part of the This issue of the non-understandability of some general debate of the time (although with diff erent phenomena was certainly absent in Dilthey who, names or with diff erent semantic nuances), so on the contrary, always stressed that mutual there is no reason to specifi cally credit Geiger understanding between humans beings was for this (although, as seen, his ideas were in line assured by their basic similarity, and who never with the general debate and with Jaspers’ use (at least to my knowledge) posed the question in psychopathology). On the contrary, Geiger’s of the diffi culties in understanding abnormal distinction between the direct empathy for the mental phenomena (cp. Aragona, 2015-2016). other’s expressions at one side, and the ‘reliving In contrast, this issue is present in Geiger’s after the event’ of the ‘inner correlation of the examples, particularly in the fi rst one presenting psyche’ on the other side are impressively a case of emotional lability (the patient who similar to Jaspers’ distinction between static and suddenly shifts from crying to laughing without genetic understanding. Even considering that apparent reason). Here, as in Jaspers, is not Simmel’s (1905) ideas were probably a common the static component which poses diffi culties source of inspiration, Geiger was more clear than (in Geiger’s account, each movement can be anyone else in tracing the distinction between understood as expression of a psyche), but the direct empathy and post-hoc reliving. Thus he genetic part (in Geiger’s words, in this case “I probably had the main role in shaping Jaspers’

41 DIAL PHIL MENT NEURO SCI 2016; 9(2): 36-42 analogous distinction between static and genetic Zeitschr ges Neurol Psychiat, 9:391-408. understanding. Jaspers K. (1913) Allgemeine Psychopathologie. Springer, Berlin. Finally, we saw that there are also Kumazaki T. (2013a) The theoretical root of similarities between Geiger’s and Jaspers’ non- Karl Jaspers’ General Psychopathology. Part 1: Reconsidering the infl uence of phenomenology and understandability. Maybe Jaspers followed hermeneutics. Hist Psychiatry, 24:212-226. Geiger also on this point. However, the Kumazaki T. (2013b) The theoretical root of Karl examples and the way Jaspers discusses non- Jaspers’ General Psychopathology. Part 2: The infl uence of Max Weber. Hist Psychiatry, 24:259- understandability are far beyond Geiger’s brief 273. statement and it must be considered if Jaspers Leoni F. (2013) Jaspers in his time. In: Stanghellini may have derived non-understandability G, Fuchs T. (Eds) One century of Karl Jaspers’ General Psychopathology. Oxfrod University Press, from diff erent sources: for example, putting Oxford:3-15. together the consequences of his philosophical Lipps T. (1903) Aesthetik, 1. Voss Verlag, Hamburg. analysis of empathic understanding with the Lipps T. (1906) Ästhetik: Psychologie des Schönen und der Kunst. Leopold Voss. Hamburg und Leipzig. clinical distinction between ‘development of Rosini E, Di Fabio F, Aragona M. (2013) 1913-2013: a personality’ vs. ‘process’ he had found in one hundred years of General Psychopathology. Dial Heidelberg as Kraepelin’s legacy. Phil Ment Neuro Sci, 6:57-66. Schleiermacher FrDE. (1819/1978) The In conclusion, Jaspers used several theoretical hermeneutics: outline of the 1819 lectures. New inputs coming from diff erent authors. Among Literary History, 10:1-16. them, Geiger was largely neglected by the Simmel G. (1905) Die Probleme der Geschichtsphilosophie. Duncker und Humblot, historical reconstructions of the roots of Jaspers’ Leipzig. psychopathology. However, his lecture on Villareal H, Aragona M. (2014) El concepto de empathy probably had a major role in moulding “comprensión” (Verstehen) en Karl Jaspers. Vertex, XXV:262-265. Jaspers’ analysis of understanding and non- understandability, especially the key distinction between static and genetic understanding. Corresponding Author: Dr. Massimiliano Aragona REFERENCES Aragona M. (2013) Empatia e psicopatologia: analisi Crossing Dialogues Association storico-epistemologica del concetto di comprendere Phone: +39-3397119021 in Karl Jaspers. J Psychopat, 19:14-20. e-mail: [email protected] Aragona M. (2015-2016) Empatia ed ermeneutica: il concetto di comprendere (Verstehen) nella fi losofi a di Wilhelm Dilthey. Comprendre, 25-26:65-86. Copyright © 2016 by Ass. Crossing Dialogues, Italy Aragona M. (2016) Empathy in the early 20th century: Moritz Geiger and the importance of conceptual clarifi cation. Hist Psychol, epub ahead of print. Berrios GE. (1993) Phenomenology and psychopathology Was there ever a relationship? Endnotes Compr Psych, 34:213-220. 1: Jaspers is not particularly rigorous at the termi- Brücher K. (2012) Jaspers und das Problem des nological level when he treats understanding; many Verstehens: Plädoyer für eine Revision. Fortschr terms already used by several authors are employed Neurol Psychiat, 80:213-220. as synonyms or with relevant conceptual overlap- Geiger M. (1910/2015a). On the essence and meaning ping: the adjective ‘empathic’, as well as terms cor- of empathy, Part I. Dial Phil Ment Neuro Sci, 8: 19- responding to ‘putting-in’, ‘projection’, ‘reliving’, 31. ‘transposition’ etc. In the 1913 edition of the General Geiger M. (1910/2015b). On the essence and meaning of empathy, Part II. Dial Phil Ment Neuro Psychopathology even the distinction between un- Sci, 8:75-86. derstanding and explaining is still terminologically Geiger M. (1911) Über das Wesen und die Bedeutung immature (although the concepts are already clear) der Einfühlung. In: Schumann F. (Ed) Bericht über because he uses ‘psychological explanation’ for what den IV Kongress für experimentelle Psychologie. he will later call ‘genetic understanding’. Verlag J. A. Barth, Leipzig:29-73. 2: In a manuscript dated 1910 Dilthey alludes to Gödel F. (2015) An introduction to Moritz Geiger’s something similar when he distinguishes between psychological contribution on empathy. Dial Phil Ment Neuro Sci, 8:16-18. elementary and higher forms of understanding and Heidegger M. (1927). Sein und Zeit. Niemeyer, stresses that in the latter it is the totality of mental life Halle. which is active in re-creating or re-living. However, Jaspers K. (1912) Die phänomenologische the context is diff erent and the similarities to Jaspers’ Forschungsrichtung in der Psychopathologie. distinction are less clear. www.crossingdialogues.com/journal.htm 42