Billeder på siden



It is often said that the teacher needs to know psychology because it is his business to educate the mind. "He ought to understand the nature of the being that he is trying to unfold and perfect.'

[ocr errors]

This position seems so obvious that all assent to it, and yet it must be admitted that teachers, as a class, are not specially devoted to the study of psychology. It is true, however, that they are constantly occupied with a critical observation of the mind in a few of its aspects; for this is necessary in order to manage a school successfully. The teacher must observe the pupil's grasp of the topic of his lesson. He must interpret the pupil's conduct by such knowledge as he can attain of his disposition and the spirit of his intentions. He must assign lessons of a length suited to the mental capacities which he knows his pupils to possess; he must grade them in classes according to his knowledge of those capacities. He must arrange a course of study in accordance with the laws of mental development.

If the teacher knows nothing of psychology as a science he must copy in detail the methods of others, and rely on his general knowledge of human nature

derived from experience. Like all uneducated workmen he may succeed, after a sort, by following tradition, unaided by science; but he will not develop beyond a narrow degree of perfection in details. He will have no insight into the general relations of his work. He can not safely deviate from routine, nor venture to criticise his own work or the work of others. If he has learned good models he may pass for a good teacher; if he has learned bad ones he is unable to perceive their defects. Possessing no scientific knowledge of the mind, he can not lift himself above the details of his art to the principles which govern them, and become himself an original source of directive energy.

Some knowledge of the mind every successful teacher must have, although in so many cases it is unsystematic and consequently unscientific. Ordinary experience differs from science through its lack of completeness and consistency. It is fragmentary and disconnected. Science compensates the inequalities of individual experience by re-enforcing it with the aggregate of all other experience.

Psychology aims to inventory the facts of mind and to arrange them systematically, so that each fact may help to explain all other facts, and in its turn be explained by all.

It is confessed that psychology has hitherto borne the reputation of being the dryest and least interesting of all the sciences. This is partly due to the circumstance that an inventory of facts of consciousness contains only what is already familiar to us in the fragmentary form of experience. It seems a waste of time to go over and collect with so much painstaking what

is already known. Other sciences collect fresh and interesting facts. Psychology by introspection seems to the beginner to be a sterile occupation, dealing with what is trite and stale. But this is not found to be so by the adept.

Introspection begins with this dull process of inventorying the already familiar facts of mind, but it forthwith proceeds to the second and higher process of reflecting on the general form of our mental processes. It then begins to enter a field of generalization entirely unknown to ordinary consciousness and full of astonishing results. By reflecting on the forms of mental activity we come, for the first time, to see the real nature of mind. We begin to discern those most important of all fruits of human knowledge-the truths that sit supreme as directive powers on the throne of life-the truths of God, Freedom, and Immortality.

But we are met here by an objection. We are reminded that there are two hostile schools of psychology. There is one founded upon physiology which attempts to explain mind as a function of the body. It condemns introspection, and teaches that the soul has no subsistence apart from the body. All individuality is corporeal. The other school, founded on introspection, contends that true individuality is not corporeal by any possibility. The corporeal is moved by external forces, and is divisible, changeable, and perishable, while selfactive energy which is the substance of mind is incorporeal and the owner of all individuality. It denies, moreover, that any really psychical facts may be discovered by external observation-by taste, smell, touch, hearing, or seeing.

Here we must take notice of the broad distinction that exists between external and internal observation. There are two distinct and strongly-marked attitudes of mind. The first is directed outward to the facts in space, and may be called objective perception or senseperception. Its characteristic is found in the circumstance that it always sees things as related to environments: To it all things are dependent and relative.

The other attitude of mind is directed within, and beholds the self-activities of the mind itself. Self-activity is essentially different from relative and dependent being, because it does not receive its determinations from its environment, but originates them itself, in the form of feelings, volitions, and thoughts. All objects of introspection belong to one of these three classes, and every possible feeling, idea, or volition, is a determination of an activity which is, so to speak, polarized into subject and object. Each feeling, idea, or volition, is the product of an energy which is both subject and object. It is said to be self-determined. While external observation sees its object as separated into thing and environment, or effect and cause, internal observation sees its object as a unity containing both effect and cause in one. It is what Spinoza called causa sui. This is true individuality-called by Aristotle "entelechy," and by Leibnitz the "Monad."

Be this as it may, all must concede that no form of external experience applies or can apply to internal experience; our apparatus for observing material objects can not perceive feelings or thoughts. This being so, it is evident that physiological psychology can make no progress whatever without introspection. It is limited

to noting the relation of concomitance and succession between two orders of observation-the objects of the one being movements and changes of organic matter, and the objects of the other being feelings, ideas, and volitions. The progress of this science will be marked by a continually approximating accuracy in locating and defining physiological functions.

There has been recognized from the first an interconnection between mind and the body. Decapitation has always been recognized as a means of disconnecting the mind from the body. Alcohol, tobacco, coffee, opium, and many other drugs have been used since prehistoric times for their supposed mental effects-effects negative rather than positive, as they dull the action of the nerves of sensation, or diminish the mental control over the nerves of motion, and thereby allay the pain of weariness, or the worry that arises from a vivid consciousness of the body and the outer world. Physiology is engaged in determining more precisely the location of these ef fects and their extent. Although it will not discover how the corporeal becomes mental, or how the external becomes internal, for the reason that objective experience can never perceive thoughts and feelings; yet it will yield rich results in all departments wherein the mind uses the body as an instrument to gain knowledge, or to execute its volitions. Insanity, idiocy, the use and abuse of the five organs of sense, all that relates to the proper care of the body; the influence of age, sex, climate, race; the phenomena of sleep, dreams, somnambulism, catalepsy; whatever relates to these and the like important topics, will receive elucidation. The negative conditions of mental unfolding will be defined. But

« ForrigeFortsæt »