Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences Crossing Dialogues ORIGINAL ARTICLE Association An introduction to Moritz Geiger’s psychological contribution on empathy FLORIAN GÖDEL Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena (Germany) Moritz Geiger is known for his work in aesthetics, while his contribution to psychology is rarely cited. There are biographical as well as theoretical reasons for this. However, his project of a Phenomenological Psychology of “pure self-given factuality”, in contrast to Husserl’s idealism of consciousness, deserves to be re-discovered. Here an early work on empathy is briefl y presented and discussed in the context of Geiger’s life and theoretical development, arguing that later ideas are already present in this contribution, although only later they will be developed more deeply. Key words: Empathy, psychology, philosophy, phenomenology. DIAL PHIL MENT NEURO SCI 2015; 8(1):16-18 INTRODUCTION The name of Moritz Geiger does not appear of a maximum of factuality [...]. For this prin- very often in today’s philosophical publications, ciple, it immolates even the demand of syste- and his ideas about the psychological science maticity of the given existence” (Zeltner, 1960, at the beginning of the 20th century are today p.455). Subsequently, Geiger returns to Munich almost forgotten. Certainly, there are sever- and participates in the “Munich Circle”. Several al reasons for this. On the one hand, there are publications follow as well as an appointment to biographical reasons: Moritz Geiger was born the University of Munich and fi nally Göttingen. July 26th 1880 in Frankfurt am Main. He be- In 1933 Geiger emigrates in the USA, because gan his studies in 1898 in Munich and changed he refuses to give up his academic functions at his subject several times. Starting with law, he the University of Göttingen, as the Nazis require subsequently became interested in the history him to do due to his Jewish descent. In the USA of literature, and fi nally in the philosophy and he cannot manage to integrate into the academic psychology of Theodor Lipps. Although he ini- system, although he already had been a visiting tially embraced the ideas of Lipps, after reading professor at Stanford in 1926. At the end he is Edmund Husserl’s “Logische Untersuchungen” active at the Vassar College. Geiger died rather (1901) he left Munich to Göttingen in order to early, at the age of 57 years, during a car trip near personally listen to the lectures of the founder of Seal Harbor, N.Y. the phenomenological method. Geiger adheres But not only the personal misfortunes have to Husserl’s ideas in their original form. Later, contributed to the oblivion of Geiger. On the he abandons Husserl when the latter turns to- other hand, he is known today only for being wards the idealism of consciousness. In contrast, the founder and sustainer of a phenomenologi- Geiger sustains a special phenomenological cal aesthetic. His attempt to fructify the phe- method of “pure self-given factuality”, “without nomenological method also for psychology was limitation by sensual-visible or idealistic preju- condemned to trail off tonelessly due to the anti- dices, without basing the reality on a lower, not- theoretical empiricism of the science of his time. given sphere. For phenomenology every given Geiger was aware of how risky his venture could fact values equally, independent from whether it be, but he believed unshakably that the dominion is sensual or not. Its principle is the affi rmation of positivistic thinking had to fi nd an end and he www.crossingdialogues.com/journal.htm 16 Gödel, 2015 saw clearly the methodical fl aws of an overhasty psychological investigation of empathy on a empiricism: conceptual save ground. “The composition of psychological science is full of The critic on Geiger’s remarks of empathy immanent metaphysic: This is not only valid for those sci- deals primary with this last point. The partici- entists who confess ingenuously their systematical basis pants of the Congress mostly cannot understand before starting their investigations, but likewise for those who have written on their banners empiricism and nothing why it would be relevant for the scientifi c re- but empiricism.” (Geiger, cited in: Zeltner, 1960, p.457). search to treat also aesthetical concepts of em- Consequently, also the empiricist has to clarify pathy or even the probably esoteric aspect of the his methods and terms, because, if he does not, “animation of subhuman entities”. And even if he risks losing the credibility of his investiga- you do not agree with such criticisms, you shall tions. admit that the weak point of the argumentation It is exactly this basic problem of clarifying is revealed here: in the abundance of defi nitions the key terms of the (psychological) research, and theories on empathy, Geiger does not give a which Geiger treats in his lecture on empathy proper position, a personal comment to the value (Geiger, 1910/2015). It was presented at the 4th of the single uses of the term. Despite the en- Congress for experimental Psychology in Inns- cyclopedic structure of the text, one misses the bruck. Geiger gives this lecture after his habilita- intervening mind of the author, who sustains the tion in Munich but before he receives the call to relevance or irrelevance of a hypothesis. be an adjunct professor in 1915. In addition, his But surely it would be too simple believing great phenomenological works about aesthetics that Geiger had overlooked this point. It is more and psychology appear years later. Nevertheless, probable that a characteristic trait of his phi- in the lecture on empathy can already be found losophy becomes evident here in a problematic many of his ideas, which will be more deeply way. Hermann Zeltner describes Geiger as a cau- developed in later works. The infl uence of the tious thinker with an aristocratic calmness, who Phenomenology of Husserl is supposed to be cares more about a precise and impeccable for- recognized right in the title: “About the essence mulation than loudness and rhetoric. A thinker and the meaning of empathy”. The lecture starts who observes genially, even in a “subtle” way, with a comprehensive description of the differ- who registers and differentiates sensibly, but ent concepts of empathy. Empathy is contextual- who never uses unnecessarily long or pompous ized in the whole wide panorama of the time and speech. These precious qualities turn to his dis- arranged in a depiction which contains all previ- advantage in this case: In his intellectual caution ous attempts of defi nition and comprehension of he prefers the completeness of the collection of this concept. This starts from the origin of the the concepts of empathy and neglects a clear ori- term in Romanticism and goes on to the ideas entation for future research in this fi eld. In addi- of Geiger’s teacher, Theodor Lipps. The range tion, also his phenomenological method of “pure is wide, from aesthetics to evolutionary theory. self-given factuality” and equalization of any- With it, it can be noticed a vertical order due to thing which is given, certainly contributes to the a chronological development, and a horizontal absence of a proper point of view. The value of order according to the intuition of empathy. This Geiger’s remarks is, consequently, more visible second order leads from the phenomenal fact of when you recognize this completeness as some- “foreign expressive movements” and the “for- thing that could also be seen in a positive way. eign personality” across the – deeply romanti- It is true that the reader has to bear the responsi- cally infl uenced – treatment of the “animation of bility of deciding between the single standpoints subhuman entities”, to end with the aesthetical on empathy without recommendations of the au- aspects of empathy. thor, but this is just the condition to measure the Precisely the last two facets of the concept opinions independently and to become qualifi ed seem to fl ee the common responsibility of a psy- in the matter of empathy. chological science. Despite that, Geiger adheres The ego is the center of questions, Geiger asks to their treatment, because he wants to base the on the various concepts of empathy to fi nd at the 17 DIAL PHIL MENT NEURO SCI 2015; 8(1): 16-18 end the very “essence” of the phenomenon: em- REFERENCES pathy is always given for a subject and gets its Geiger M. (1910/2015) About the essence and meaning of sense only from the linking to the center of all empathy. Part 1. Dial Phil Ment Neuro Sci, 8:19-31. psychical occurrences, the ego. Only in this way Geiger M. (1930) Fragment über den Begriff des Un- all the single phenomena can be united into one bewussten und die psychische Realität. Ein Beitrag zur “psychology of the entire human beeing” (Gei- Grundlegung des immanenten psychischen Realismus. ger, 1930, p.9). Niemeyer, Halle. This thought, which remains implicit in the Husserl E. (1901) Logische Untersuchungen. Zweiter 1910 lecture, was developed in the successive Teil. Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. In zwei Bänden. Niemeyer, Halle. “Fragment über den Begriff des Unbewussten und die psychische Realität” (Geiger, 1930). Zeltner H. (1960) Moritz Geiger zum Gedächtnis. ZPhF, There it is proposed a psychology of an “imma- 14:452-466. nent realism” which, in contrast to the “Psychol- ogy of experience” [Erlebnispsychologie], does not dismember the psyche in a causal succession Corresponding Author: of single experiences [Erlebnisse], but grasps it as a “real unity with real factors [...], as a dynam- Florian Gödel ic unity with an ego as center” (Geiger, 1930, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität p.1). Hinter der Kirche 7, 07743 Jena, Germany Unfortunately, the path that Geiger treads here ends in the fog of uncertainty: in fact, he dies E-mail: fl [email protected] before having completed his project of a “psy- Phone: 0049 (0)173 9959508 chology of the entire human being”.