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.
Previous discourse on Sophocles (Székely, 1979) has generated several other questions, one of which concerns an essay of Hartmann (1927). This paper investigated the relationship between the so-called geisteswis-senschaftliche1) psychology of Dilthey, Jaspers, Gruhle, Spranger and others and psychoanalysis, arriving at the conclusion that psychoanalysis was not an understanding psychology in the sense meant by these writers. Roberto, who took part in the discourse, asserted that Hartmann was wrong, whilst Ludovico, his adversary, disagreed and furthermore maintained that there was a profound divergence between these authors' written exposition of the theory of psychological understanding as a method, on the one hand, and their presentation of understanding in daily clinical practice, on the other. Lucovico once worked with Gruhle and can testify that the usage of understanding by these psychologists has very little in common with its use in the everyday vocabulary of psychoanalysis. Therefore, Hartmann was right not to lump psychoanalysis and geistes-wissenschaftliche psychology together into the same heap. An excellent opportunity to prove Ludovico's thesis presents itself: Jaspers (1922) wrote an essay on van Gogh from the standpoint of the geisteswissens-chaftliche understanding of the life and illness of the artist. Nagera (1967)