Professor A. Meinong discusses Ch. v. Ehrenfels’s article “Ueber
Gestaltqualitäten”[28] adding the results of his own investigations
suggested to him by this essay. Ehrenfels starts from Professor Mach’s
consideration of figure and melody (see Mach’s _Beiträge zur Analyse der
Empfindungen_) and proposes the question, What are figure and melody
in themselves? Are they merely a combination of elements or are they
something in contradistinction to their elements, something entirely
new? Melodies and figures, says Ehrenfels, can be so transposed that
not any one of their original elements will remain. Thus the similarity
of figures in space as well as of tones is something different from the
similarity of their elements; they must be something different than
their mere sum. This is “the figure-quality” or _Gestaltsqualität_, and
Ehrenfels distinguishes between two kinds, (1) those of time (2) those
of space, which he calls (1) _Tongestalten_ and (2) _Raumgestalten_. In
addition to these are discussed the figure-qualities of sensations and
of inner apperception. Ehrenfels proposes the psychological question
whether these figure-qualities are immediately given together with
their foundations or whether they must be considered as the product of
a special activity, and he decides in favor of the former possibility.
Professor Meinong whose work has been in similar lines, refers to his
article “Phantasievorstellung und Phantasie”[29] and criticises the term
“figure-quality,” proposing in its stead the words _fundierend_ and
_fundiert_, using the German term _Fundament_ as a correlative expression
of “relation.” There is no relation without complexity and psychological
experience has actually to deal with complex facts only. Melody and
figure are names for the totality of the foundations including their
“founded” contents.
It may be that we are unduly prejudiced in favor of our own terminology,
but it seems to us that the expression “form” will prove to be the most
appropriate word. Form is neither quality nor quantity, but form can
produce qualities. Let the same qualities, say of chemical elements,
combine in different forms, and we shall obtain substances with different
qualities. Figure and melody are special kinds of form. Forms consist
in and originate through combination, and the unity produced through a
special form-combination is actually something new, as much so as if
it were a special-creation act. This wonderful power of form makes the
study of form all-important in all branches of science. A neglect of the
study of form will lead either to materialism when matter and motion are
conceived as the only quality-producing factors, or to agnosticism as
soon as a deeper inquiry proves that matter and motion are not sufficient
to explain the most essential properties of the objects of investigation.
We cannot judge from the present article how much Ehrenfels and Meinong
are in sympathy with our standpoint, but we can see that their efforts
are in the same direction.
The second article is a rejoinder by Prof. C. Stumpf of Munich to Prof.
W. Wundt’s reply to his critic. Professor Stumpf complains of Wundt that
he ignored the points raised in his criticism and that his “Antikritik”
consisted only of “a chain of distortions and insinuations.”
F. Schumann publishes his results regarding sensibility for the
difference between smallest quantities of time. He employed a chronograph
modified in two respects from Wundt’s chronograph. First he replaced
the expensive chronometer by a treading-wheel and introduced Pfeil’s
time-marker, which, as he thinks, is handier as well as more precise
than Wundt’s time-marker. Schumann’s results agree with the results of
Professor Mach showing a maximum of 0.3-0.4 seconds, the relation of the
perceptible difference to the normal time being in different persons only
0.022. (Hamburg and Leipsic: L. Voss.)
κρς.
PHILOSOPHISCHES JAHRBUCH. Vol. IV. No. 3.