Kumazaki Tsutomu
Toranomon Branch Hospital, Kawasaki City, Japan.
Hist Psychiatry. 2013 Jun;24(2):212-26. doi: 10.1177/0957154X13476201.
The present paper investigates the methodology involved in Jaspers' psychopathology and compares it with Husserl's phenomenology and with Dilthey's cultural science. Allgemeine Psychopathologie and other methodological works by Jaspers, the works of Husserl and Dilthey that Jaspers cited, and previous research papers on Jaspers are reviewed. Jaspers had conflicting views on understanding, which were comprised of both empathic understanding and rational, ideal-typical understanding. Such a standpoint on understanding is considerably different from Dilthey's. Additionally, the present paper reconfirms that Jaspers' 'phenomenology' as a form of descriptive psychology for the understanding of empirical psychic states is different from Husserl's phenomenology. Thus, this paper casts doubt on the common opinion that Jaspers was under the profound influence of Husserl or Dilthey.
本文考察了雅斯贝尔斯精神病理学所涉及的方法,并将其与胡塞尔的现象学和狄尔泰的文化科学进行比较。回顾了雅斯贝尔斯的《普通精神病理学》及其他方法学著作、雅斯贝尔斯引用的胡塞尔和狄尔泰的著作,以及之前关于雅斯贝尔斯的研究论文。雅斯贝尔斯在理解方面持有相互冲突的观点,这些观点包括移情理解和理性的、理想类型的理解。这种对理解的立场与狄尔泰的有很大不同。此外,本文再次确认,雅斯贝尔斯作为一种用于理解经验性心理状态的描述心理学形式的“现象学”与胡塞尔的现象学不同。因此,本文对雅斯贝尔斯深受胡塞尔或狄尔泰影响这一普遍观点提出质疑。