Book contents
- Interpreting Mach
- Interpreting Mach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Ernst Mach’s Piano and the Making of a Psychophysical Imaginarium
- 2 Mother’s Milk and More
- 3 Meaningful Work
- 4 Mach on Analogy in Science
- 5 Ernst Mach’s Enlightenment Pragmatism
- 6 On the Philosophical and Scientific Relationship between Ernst Mach and William James
- 7 Ernst Mach and Friedrich Nietzsche
- 8 Abstraction, Pragmatism, and History in Mach’s Economy of Science
- 9 Holding the Hand of History
- 10 Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle
- 11 Narratives Divided
- 12 Phenomenalism, or Neutral Monism, in Mach’s Analysis of Sensations?
- 13 The Case for Mach’s Neutral Monism
- Index
- References
12 - Phenomenalism, or Neutral Monism, in Mach’s Analysis of Sensations?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2021
By
Edited by
Book contents
- Interpreting Mach
- Interpreting Mach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Ernst Mach’s Piano and the Making of a Psychophysical Imaginarium
- 2 Mother’s Milk and More
- 3 Meaningful Work
- 4 Mach on Analogy in Science
- 5 Ernst Mach’s Enlightenment Pragmatism
- 6 On the Philosophical and Scientific Relationship between Ernst Mach and William James
- 7 Ernst Mach and Friedrich Nietzsche
- 8 Abstraction, Pragmatism, and History in Mach’s Economy of Science
- 9 Holding the Hand of History
- 10 Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle
- 11 Narratives Divided
- 12 Phenomenalism, or Neutral Monism, in Mach’s Analysis of Sensations?
- 13 The Case for Mach’s Neutral Monism
- Index
- References
Summary
Ernst Mach’s works have often been interpreted as presenting some version of idealism, such as phenomenalism. However, Erik C. Banks’ recent case for the rival neutral monist reading seems persuasive. But it still leaves a problem: how to explain why so many intelligent and thoughtful readers, some of them sympathetic to Mach, thought of him instead as some kind of idealist. I set out the major factors which tempt people into reading Mach thus and assess the strengths and weaknesses of these two readings.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Interpreting MachCritical Essays, pp. 235 - 257Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Agassi, Joseph 1978/1988. ‘Mach on the Logic of Enquiry: Taste-Maker Philosopher of Science’, as reprinted in his The Gentle Art of Philosophical Polemics: Selected Reviews and Comments. Open Court, pp. 21–32.Google Scholar
Banks, Erik C. 2003. Ernst Mach’s World Elements: A Study in Natural Philosophy. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Banks, Erik C. 2014. The Realistic Empiricism of Mach, James, and Russell: Neutral Monism Reconceived. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, John T. 1972 Ernst Mach: His Work, Life, and Influence. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Blackmore, John T., Itagaki, Ryoichi, and Tanaka, Setsuko (eds.) 2001. Ernst Mach’s Vienna 1895–1930 or, Phenomenalism as Philosophy of Science. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Robert S. 1968/1970. ‘Ernst Mach: Physics, Perception and the Philosophy of Science’, Synthese 18: 132–170, as reprinted in Robert S. Cohen and Raymond J. Seeger (eds.), Ernst Mach: Physicist and Philosopher. D. Reidel, 1970, pp. 126–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Robert S. and Seeger, Raymond J. (eds.) 1970. Ernst Mach: Physicist and Philosopher. D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. 1970/1999. ‘Philosophy of Science: A Subject with a Great Past’, as reprinted in his Knowledge, Science and Relativism: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3, ed. Preston, J. M.. Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 127–137.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. 1984. ‘Mach’s Theory of Research and Its Relation to Einstein’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15: 1–22.Google Scholar
Gori, Pietro 2012. ‘Nietzsche as Phenomenalist?ʼ, in Heit, H., Abel, G., and Brusotti, M. (eds.), Nietzsches Wissenschaftsphilosophie: Hintergründe, Wirkungen und Aktualität. de Gruyter, pp. 345–355.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael 2010 ‘Functional Relations and Causality in Fechner and Mach’, Philosophical Psychology 23: 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Klaus 1985. ‘On Feyerabend’s Version of “Mach’s Theory of Research and Its Relation to Einstein”’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 387–394.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1872/1911. History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy. Open Court.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1883/1960 Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung historisch-kritisch dargestellt. F.A. Brockhaus. 9th German edition translated by T. J. McCormack as The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development, 6th American edition. Open Court.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1886/1914. Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen. Gustav Fischer. Translation of the 1st German edition by C. M. Williams, revised and supplemented from the 5th German edition by C. M. Williams and S. Waterlow as The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical. Open Court, 1914, reprinted Dover Publications, 1959.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1891. ‘Some Questions of Psycho-Physics: Sensations and the Elements of Reality’, The Monist 1: 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1895/1896. Populär-wissenschaftliche Vorlesungen. J. A. Barth. Translated by T. J. McCormack as Popular Scientific Lectures. Open Court.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1896/1986. Die Prinzipien der Wärmelehre, historisch-kritisch entwickelt. J. A. Barth. Translated by T. J. McCormack, P. E. B. Jourdain, and A. E. Heath as Principles of the Theory of Heat, Historically and Critically Elucidated, ed. B. F. McGuinness. D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1905/1976. Erkenntnis und Irrtum. Skizzen zur Psychologie der Forschung. J. A. Barth. Translated by T. J. McCormack and P. Foulkes as Knowledge and Error: Sketches on the Psychology of Enquiry. D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1910/1970. ‘The Guiding Principles of My Scientific Theory of Knowledge and Its Reception by My Contemporaries’, as translated in Toulmin, S. E. (ed.), Physical Reality: Philosophical Essays on Twentieth-Century Physics. Harper Torchbooks, 1970, pp. 28–43.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand 1914/1956. ‘On the Nature of Acquaintance, II: Neutral Monism’, The Monist 24: 161–187, as reprinted in his Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, ed. R. C. Marsh. George Allen & Unwin, 1956, pp. 139–159.Google Scholar
von Mises, Richard 1938/1970. Ernst Mach und die empiristische Wissenschaftsauffassung. Van Stockum, translated as ‘Ernst Mach and the Empiricist Conception of Science’, in Robert S. Cohen and Raymond J. Seeger (eds.), Ernst Mach: Physicist and Philosopher. D. Reidel, 1970, pp. 245–270.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by