Scott Taylor

In the “Concluding Remarks” of his final book The Vicissitudes of Nature, Richard J. Bernstein makes an appeal to his readers urging that “we need to face the full complexity of developing new ways of speaking of causality if we are to develop an adequate conception of the relations of humans to the rest of nature” (206). Bernstein refers to the modern ways in which we speak of causality as “event causality” (Vicissitudes 206). He calls to mind Kant’s deterministic claim that the principle of causality requires that events relate to one another through synthetic a priori judgments, known through pure reason alone. At the end of his book, Bernstein quickly shifts from redressing event causality to calling on... Read More.

In an often-forgotten proclamation during an autobiographical interview in 1995, Thomas Kuhn notes, without much explanation, his indebtedness to psychoanalysis. While in the wake of Kuhn's 1962 publication The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, many psychoanalytic scholars have made use of his work to justify shifts in psychoanalytic traditions, few have attempted to point out the relation between Kuhnian science and the psychoanalytic process. This article argues that there is a strong affinity between the developmental and structural themes of Kuhn’s scientific revolutions with that of the psychic restructuring that occurs in the psychoanalytic process. Furthermore, these affinities represent the lasting effects that psychoanalysis had on a young Kuhn. Utilizing the metapsychology of psychoanalyst Hans Loewald to highlight the theoretical underpinnings of Kuhn’s debt to the psychoanalytic experience, while also paying close attention to Kuhn’s discussions on resistance in science and his open-systems notion of individual and world, the author argues that we will learn how psychoanalysis, through Kuhn's own psychoanalytic treatment, revolutionized science.

George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), American philosopher and social theorist, is often classed with William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and John Dewey as one of the most significant figures in classical American pragmatism. Dewey referred to Mead as “a seminal mind of the very first order” (Dewey, 1932, xl). Yet by the middle of the twentieth-century, Mead's prestige was greatest outside of professional philosophical circles. He is considered by many to be the father of the school of Symbolic Interactionism in sociology and social psychology, although he did not use this nomenclature. Perhaps Mead's principal influence in philosophical circles occurred as a result of his friendship with John Dewey. There is little question that Mead and Dewey had an enduring influence on each other, with Mead contributing an original theory of the development of the self through communication. This theory has in recent years played a central role in the work of Jürgen Habermas. While Mead is best known for his work on the nature of the self and intersubjectivity, he also developed a theory of action, and a metaphysics that emphasizes emergence and temporality, in which the past and future are viewed through the lens of the present. Although the extent of Mead's reach is considerable, he never published a monograph. His most famous work, Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, was published after his death and is a compilation of student notes and selections from unpublished manuscripts.

In this article I draw together what is a largely neglected account of the hermeneutic thrust of Mead’s late writings. In particular, I argue that Mead’s philosophy of the present also amounts to a theory of interpretation. In an open dialogue with a number of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s most fundamental concepts, I demonstrate how Mead’s notion of emergence in the present of both past and future neatly aligns with Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. I will trace the foundation of this common ground by highlighting the pivotal influence of Wilhelm Dilthey on both Gadamer and the young Mead. Then, I will draw out the consequences this mutual influence has on the critique of the methodological historicist tradition. Throughout I demonstrate several missed opportunities by Hans Joas at providing a philosophical hermeneutic account of Mead’s work. It is my intention to display how together the traditions of philosophical hermeneutics and pragmatism inform one another.