1: Anthropological Psychiatry in Germany during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century.- 1.1. Introduction.- 1.1.1. The Terms 'Anthropology' and 'Anthropological' in Medical and Psychiatric Literature (First Half of the Nineteenth Century).- 1.1.2. Anthropology - Philosophy or Empiricism?.- 1.1.3. A Note on the Traditional Situation.- 1.2. The Rise and Spread of the Anthropological Viewpoint in German Psychiatry from about 1820 to about 1845.- 1.2.1. Introduction.- 1.2.2. J. C. A. Heinroth as an Exponent of 'Psychicism'.- 1.2.2.1. Anthropology.- 1.2.2.2. Psychiatry.- 1.2.2.3. Heinroth's Platonism.- 1.2.3. The Standpoint of the 'Somaticists' (Nasse, Jacobi, Friedreich, etc.).- 1.2.4. M. Jacobi as a Representative of Psychiatric 'Somaticism'.- 1.2.5. Reinterpretation of the Conflict between Somaticists and Psychicists.- 1.2.6. Tradition in Clinical Psychiatry despite Discontinuity of Philosophical Presuppositions. Some Reflections on the Psychiatry of L. Snell.- 2: The Mechanistic Viewpoint in Nineteenth-Century Philosophy and Science (Psychology and Physiology).- 2.1. Mechanism: Term and Concept.- 2.2. The Philosophical Background.- 2.3. Kant and the Problem of the Relationship between Philosophy and Science.- 2.4. The Significance of Kant's Philosophy for the Mechanistic Self-Conception of Nineteenth-Century Psychology.- 2.5. The Implications of the Natural Science Self-Concept of Psychology.- 2.6. Kant and the Problem of the Possibility or Impossibility of Scientific Psychology.- 2.7. Kant's Influence on the Rise and Development of Nineteenth-Century Scientific Psychology.- 2.8. The Role Played by Physiology in Consolidating the Mechanistic Self-Conception in Nineteenth-Century German Science.- 2.9. Mechanism in Physiology. The Positivist Variant.- 2.10. Critical Positivism and Kantian Critical Philosophy.- 2.11. The Mechanism of Helmholtz, Du Bois-Reymond, Brücke, and Ludwig.- 2.11.1. H. Helmholtz.- 2.11.2. E. Du Bois-Reymond.- 2.11.3. E. W. Brücke.- 2.11.4. C. Ludwig.- 2.12. Materialistic Mechanism (Vogt, Moleschott, and Büchner).- 2.13. Schopenhauer's and Lotze's Criticism of Materialism and its Relevance to the Identification of the Self-Conception of the so-called 'Materialists' of the Eighteen-Forties.- 2.14. Schopenhauer's Criticism of Materialism (in the Proper Sense) and Naturalism.- 2.15. Lotze's Criticism of Materialistic Methodology.- 2.16. Schopenhauer and Lotze.- 3: W. Griesinger and the Mechanicist Conception of Psychiatry (from about 1845 to about 1868).- 3.1. Griesinger's 'Apprenticeship' (up to 1844).- 3.2. Lotze and Griesinger.- 3.3. Griesinger's Psychiatry in the Period 1845-68.- 3.3.1. Griesinger's Psychiatric Theory and the Mechanistic Concept of Science.- 3.3.2. The Basic Pattern of Griesinger's 'Philosophy': Naturalism on the Basis of Identity Theory.- 3.4. Griesinger's Thesis of the Identity of Mental Diseases and Diseases of the Brain.- 3.5. Griesinger and Herbart.- 3.6. Herbart's Metaphysics and Griesinger's 'Empirical Standpoint'.- 3.7. Griesinger's 'Ego Psychology': Assimilation of Herbartian Elements.- 3.7.1. The Ego Concept in Herbart.- 3.7.2. From Mathematical Psychology (Herbart) to Medical Psychology (Griesinger).- 3.7.2.1. Herbart's Interpretation of the Mind-Body Relationship.- 3.7.3. The Ego in Griesinger's Psychology. Mechanism or (Principle of) Teleology?.- 3.8. Griesinger's Relationship to Institutional Psychiatry.- 3.8.1. Griesinger and Zeller.- 3.8.2. Zeller's Position in Somaticist Institutional Psychiatry.- 3.8.3. Zeller and Griesinger: Opposition and Unity.- 3.9. Binswanger's Relation to (the Tradition of) Institutional Psychiatry in General and to Griesinger in Particular.- 4: Schopenhauer, Rokitansky and Lange: Towards an Explicit Philosophical Justification of German 'Materialism' (from about 1840).- 4.1. Schopenhauer and Physiology.- 4.1.1. The Position of Physiology in Schopenhauer's Classification of the Sciences.- 4.1.2. The Role of Physiology in Schopenhauer's Philosophy.- 4.2. Some Aspects of Schopenhauer's Theory of Knowledge.- 4.3. Rokitansky as an Exponent of Idealistic Naturalism.- 4.4. F. A. Lange (1828-75), Philosopher of Methodological Materialism.- 4.4.1. Lange's Relationship to Psychology.- 4.4.2. Lange's Philosophical Position.- 4.4.2.1. The 'Standpoint of the Ideal'.- 4.4.2.2. Methodological Materialism.- 4.4.2.3. Lange's Interpretation of Kant's Theory of Knowledge and the Impact of Schopenhauer's Philosophy on it.- 4.5. Conclusion.- Appendix: Main Lines in the History of Philosophy and Science Leading to 'Classical' Medical Anthropology and Anthropological Medicine (Psychiatry) in Germany from about 1780 to about 1820. A Philosophical and Historical Outline.- A1. The Scope of this Outline.- A2. Aristotle and the Beginnings of Anthropology.- A3. The 'Bio-Logical' Viewpoint in Aristotle's Anthropology and Psychology.- A4. The Foundation of 'Modern' Anthropology in the Italian Renaissance.- A4.1. The Beginning of the 'Renewal' in Christian Humanism and Platonism.- A4.2. Aristotelian Naturalism and so-called Italian Natural Philosophy.- A5. Anthropology as the Empirical Study of Man in the Period from about 1500 to about 1660.- A5.1. The Medical School of Thought (Anatomy, Physiology).- A5.2. The 'Psychological' Variant in (Medical) Anthropology in Germany (Sixteenth to Seventeenth Centuries). Descartes as 'Troublemaker'.- A6. Summa Ignorantiae.- Notes.- Text Notes.- Appendix Notes.- Name Index.

In the period between about 1820 and about 1870 German psychiatry was born and reborn: fust as anthropologically orientated psychiatry and then as biomedical psychiatry. There has, to date, been virtually no systematic examination of the philosophical motives which determined these two conceptions of psychiatry. The aim of our study is to make up for this omission to the best of our ability. The work is aimed at a very diverse readership: in the first place historians of science (psychiatry, medicine, psychology, physiology) and psychiatrists (psychologists, physicians) with an interest in the philosophical and historical aspects of their discipline, and in the second place philosophers working in the fields of the history of philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophical anthropology and philosophy of medicine. The structure and content of our study have been determined by an attempt to balance two different approaches to the historical material. One approach emphasises the philosophical literature and looks at the question of the way in which official philosophy determined the self-conception (Selbstverstiindnis) of the science of the day (Chapters 2 and 4). The other stresses the scientific literature and is concerned with throwing light on its philosophical implications (Chapters 1 and 3).