Mona Mamulea

Institute of Philosophy and Psychology of The Romanian Academy
  •  11
    Proiectul lui C. Rădulescu-Motru de fundamentare a psihologiei ca știință a naturii
    Studii de Istorie a Filosofiei Românești 19 44-55. 2023.
    In his early writings, Rădulescu-Motru acknowledged as a valuable gain the fact that psychology had emancipated itself from the tutelage of metaphysics. However, he believed that this progress could not lead to a scientific psychology unless its outcomes were integrated into the broader scientific understanding of nature. In the following, I will discuss Rădulescu-Motru’s ideas concerning the founding of psychology as a natural science. His project essentially involves three directions: (1) conc…Read more
  •  11
    Du Bois-Reymond’s Ignorabimus could have been a game changer in the last decades of 19th century, but it wasn’t. The sound argument of the German physiologist concerning the limits of natural science, although it was indeed taken seriously and confronted by all means, was in fact so severely distorted by opponents that one could hardly recognize it in the straw men generated in the process. By scrutinizing three less known approaches dug up from 19th century Romanian literature, the present pape…Read more
  •  12
    Paralelismul psihofizic ca descriere și paralelismul psihofizic ca soluție
    Studii de Istorie a Filosofiei Românești 18 79-90. 2022.
    The PhD dissertation defended by Ion Petrovici in 1905 triggered criticism related to its sources, method and aim. Although the author made use of the term ‘psychophysical parallelism’ in the title – the critics reproached –, the work had nothing to do with scientific psychology. The following paper discusses the distinction between psychophysical parallelism as description and psychophysical parallelism as solution to the mind–body problem. Only the former can be considered a proper scien­tific…Read more
  •  137
    The reality beyond: Synchronicity vs. complementarity
    Revue Roumaine de Philosophie 60 (1): 131-139. 2016.
    As an alternative for causality – which modern science found to be rather construed than objective – Jung developed his idea of synchronicity according to the demands of a modern scientific approach of nature. As I will show in the following paper, even if he promised a complementary principle of explanation, he ended by offering a principle of reality. His attempt gave birth to a pretty vast literature that links Jung’s synchronicity to Bohr’s complementarity. I will show that such a connection…Read more
  •  6
    Teme filosofice în cultura populară românească (edited book)
    Romanian Academy Publishing House. 2015.
  •  330
    Mintea ca obiect al cercetării experimentale. Poziția lui Maiorescu
    Studii de Istorie a Filosofiei Românești 16 150-162. 2020.
    ABSTRACT: Titu Maiorescu had a special relationship with psychology under the influence of both Kant and Herbart. The following study presents Maiorescu’s answers to the main issues raised by the materialism controversy that broke out in Germany in the mid-1850s century, at a time when he was writing and defending his doctoral thesis in Giessen. Most of these issues were related to the mind–body liaison and the capability of science to explain the mind. KEYWORDS: materialism controversy; mind–bo…Read more
  •  211
    A neutral monism based on Kant: C. Rădulescu-Motru
    Revue Roumaine de Philosophie 59 (1): 73-83. 2015.
    Abstract. The neutral monism suggested by Constantin Rădulescu-Motru was a theoretical frame intended to match the general idea of Kant’s apriorism with the results reached by physics and psychology at the beginning of the 20th Key words: transcendental aesthetic; consciousness in general; empirical consciousness; psychophysical parallelism; phenomenal ontology; scientistic ontology.
  •  825
    A Thought Experiment of Cross-Cultural Comparison. The Question of Rationality
    Cercetări Filosofico-Psihologice 4 (2): 105-114. 2012.
    David Bloor’s thought experiment is taken into consideration to suggest that the rationality of the Other cannot be inferred by way of argument for the reason that it is unavoidably contained as a hidden supposition by any argument engaged in proving it. We are able to understand a different culture only as far as we recognize in it the same kind of rationality that works in our own culture. Another kind of rationality is either impossible, or indiscernible.