You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The philosopher, Herbert Feigl, in light-hearted moments has told the story that at one of the testimonial dinners to Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell introduced his speech with: “I do not know how appropriate my being here is, for it is well known that Alfred considers me simple-minded and I consider him muddle-headed.” The remark,
whether true or not, has had a history that is well known in the field of psychology. Psychological theorists have a tendency to class all writers into two dichotomous groups: the simple-minded and the muddle-headed. The simple-minded syndrome is characterized as mindless empiricism, tough-minded, precise and careful thinkers about minute detail, usually statistically or mathematically inclined, and with a predilection for experimental control rather than clinical observation. The muddle-headed syndrome is characterized as incoherent rationalism, tender-minded, loose and careless thinkers about important problems, usually insightful and artistically inclined, and with a predilection for clinical observation rather than experimental control. Although die descriptions do not exactly classify any thinker with range or depth, if I were given a forced choice problem of identifying the intellectual tradition out of which came the Irrational Man, I would call it muddle-headed.
Barrett has given us a series of comments on the state of the professional philosopher, on religion, art, literature, the state of science and society, all of which lead up to the definition and meaning of Existentialism. Existentialism, however, turns out to be a general revolt that has many specific formulations about die development of values for contemporary man. Thus the Existentialisms discussed, and most sympathetically, are variations of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre. And all of this is to prepare the ground for some statements about the structure of man and what is happening to “Being in the West.” The argument runs somewhat as follows: t