IMGu4

Ernst Mach

meant by rclations. With rcspcct to physiological spacc and time, hc always łelt tbat tbcy had ncvcr becn cxamincd cxhaustivcly cnough to c.\cludc thc likclihnod of major futurc discovcrics.

Phcnomcnalistic Re duet ton oj Catcgorics

Mach\s phenomenalism foreed him to understand a number of con-ccpts and catcgorics in somc rather strange ways.

For Mach, thc will was alinost idcntical with "psychic attention," but was ncither a causc nor a power, nor was it any morc frec than “magnetie attraction.” Pcoplc who thought thc will was a causc or power wcrc guilty of primitive “animism” or “fetishism.” Ile also added: “Schopenhauer^ conccption of thc relation bctwccn will and forcc can quitc wcll be adopted without sccing anything mctaphysical in cithcr.”

Purpo^r was an “interior pressure" and volition, “nothing morc than thc totality of those condltlons of a movcment which enter partly into consciousncss and arc conncctcd with a prcvision of the rcsult.’’^ł" Noncthcless, Mach admitted “Man is pre-cminently endowed with thc power of voluntarily and consciously determining his own point of vicw.” ⁰⁸ A concept was “jm impulse to somc accuratcly dctcrmiiied often complicatcd, critical, comparativc, or constructive actwity.”

Mach provcd that hc could at least initiatc a sensationist rcduction of psychological referents and catcgorics, but as should be Falrly cvident from thc casy understandability of most of his writings, his supplc and limpid style, Mach rarcly employed this rcduction cithcr in his scicntific work or in his popular leetures or in cvcryday life. To dcfinc all idcas in terms of ocpcrienccd sensations was an interesting goal, hut idcas so defined wcrc not yet suitable for purposes of human com-munication and lackcd practical valuc.

IV. CM1LD AND ANIMAL PSYCHOLOCY

Mach is often considered an “introspcctionist” in psychology, but his idcas on child and animal bchavior cscapcd this stcrcotypc morc than one rnight cxpcct. Also, his interest in dreams and hallucinations and his stress on thc importance of childhood expcricnccs havc suggested an anticipation and possibly an influence on Sigmund Freud and his followcrs. In other words, Mach had a wider range and was morc

“modern” than hc has somc ti mes becn given credit for in psychology This dces not mcan that hc was a Frcudian or evcn a behaviorist in Watson's sense which hc surcly was not, but it docs mcan that his interests, cspccially in his last ycars, wcrc turning morc toward prob-lcms of psychological and anthropological behayior, and that hc was trying to advancc bcyond thc iimitaiions of so-callcd introspcctionism.

The mainsprings of this latc activity, howevcr, scem to havc comc from a desire to substantiatc and utilizc Lamarck^łs theory of thc in-hcritancc of acquircd charactcristics and Hcring*s theory of "uncon-scious mcinory” in thc face of August Weismann's chromosoinc theory and rcccnt criticisms of thc idcas of Lamarck and Bering/⁰ Mach attempted to rccnll his childhood past and study thc bchavior of childrcn and animals to distinguish bctwccn which rcactions wcrc learned and which instinctive, and also to distinguish betwcen which “instinctive” rcactions wcrc most likcly inherited as “unconscious mcm-orics" from former generations and which not.

Hc concludcd that thc child’$ fcar of darkness and ghosts and thc sparrow’s incrcased irritability and defensivcness at night wcrc instinc-tive rcactions and most likcly had been inherited from acquircd rcactions of distant anccstors. Hc cxtcndcd this argument in his last book Culture and Mechanics (1915). Herę he pointed out that careful ob-servation of thc behayior of childrcn when they construct and attempt to repair toys can give us insight into how primitive peoplc hrst de-veloped tools and thc tcchniqucs for making tools. But even if we rcjcct “unconscious mcmory” and the possibility of “inheriting” tech-niques from primitive man, nonctheless, thc point that we may be able to learn something about how primitivc man .constructed things from observing the bchavior of childrcn seems woli taken and worthy of considcration.

Mach apparently thought that the bodily and mcntal natures of men and animals wcrc essentially thc same and that most differences wcrc morę quantitativc than qualitativc. He daimed that man’s primary advantages ovcr animals lay: first, in thc richness of man’s mcntal lifc; second, in his broader rangę of interests; thircl, in his ability to rcach biological goals by morę indircct and subtlc means; fourth, by his capacity to make usc of thc expericnce of his fcllow crcatures; and fifth, by the extent and rapidity of changcs in his niemal lifc. He also felt that thc similarities bctwcen human and animal emotions allowed us insight into thc psychic life of animals through the emotions. for

69