Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Laucken, U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Modes of Thinking

Reflecting on Psychological Concepts

Uwe Laucken

University Of Oldenburg, Germany

This article is a contribution to theoretical psychology. It is composed of three parts. The first part is postulatory; it explicates the minimal logical prerequisites for scientific cognition. Cognition requires at least a goal, an object, means of cognition and a cogitating subject. This set will be called the logically demanded voids of cognition. It will be shown that a `psychologizing' of the process of cognition leads to logical antinomies. The second part distinguishes between clearly distinctive programmes of psychological research, called modes of thinking. To become operative the differentiated set of voids of cognition has to be filled by content. Each specific mode of thinking is a consistent contentbased specification of this set. This will be explained by examples. The third part deals with the question of how to relate the conceptually separated modes of thinking. Is there a possibility of doing this with conceptual clarity and empirical productivity?

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 3, 401-428 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354395053008
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
K. J. Gergen
Emerging Challenges Redux
Theory Psychology, February 1, 2000; 10(1): 23 - 30.
[Abstract] [PDF]