Revival: The Psychology of Reasoning (1923)

Eugenio Rignano

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138555884
• eBook ISBN: 9781351339964
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This Book owes its origin to the indefinable sense of uneasiness and discontent into which I was thrown by the perusal of some of the best treatises on Logic. These treatises had failed to explain the nature of the logical or reasoning faculty, though purporting to indicate the laws which govern its proper functioning. Even the work of John Stuart Mill, which still remains in my opinion the best, was no more convincing than the rest. And the more I read of such books the less satisfied I became and the stonger became my desire to understand clearly what constituted reasoning.

As for the psychologists I found to my surprise that they either omitted reasoning altogether, or alluded to it in a most superficial manner.

CHAPTER I

ON THE MNEMONIC ORIGIN AND NATURE OF AFFECTIVE TENDENCIES

I

OBSERVATION of the behaviour of the various organisms from the unicellular up to man, shows that a large number of their movements or acts, and especially the most important ones, may be interpreted as manifestations of a tendency of the organism to maintain or to restore its “stationary” physiological state (to use Ostwald’s terminology).

In other words, if we reserve the term “affective” for that particular class of organic tendencies which appear subjectively in man as “desires” or “appetites” or “needs” and are objectively translated in both man and animals as “non-mechanised movements”, completed or incipient, then a whole series of the principal “affective tendencies” thus defined may be at once reduced to the single fundamental tendency of each organism towards its “physiological invariability”.

We see, for instance, that hunger, the most fundamental of all affective tendencies, is in reality nothing but the tendency to maintain or to restore that qualitative and quantitative condition of the nutritive circulating medium of the body which will make possible a continuation of the stationary metabolic state. This tendency of an organism towards the invariability of its own metabolism has become, in the course of its phylogenetic evolution, an inherent propensity to perform all acts that have nourishment for their object; yet in doing this it has never lost its original character. This is proved by the fact that all inclination on the part of the animal to procure new food ceases ipso facto as soon as the internal nutritive system has attained its normal state.

Accordingly, the hydra or sea-anemone does not react positively to food except when its metabolism reaches a state requiring more nutriment (“unless,” says Jennings, “metabolism is in such a state as to require more material”); for instance, when the large sea-anemone, Stoichactis helianthus, does not experience a sensation of hunger, a bit of food placed upon its disk occasions the same characteristic “rejecting reaction” as if it were any other disturbing object. And all other organisms, the higher as well as the lower, behave in exactly the same fashion.¹

Schiff’s experiments on the injection of nutritive substances into the veins of dogs are direct evidence, on the other hand, that the fundamental condition of hunger is the decrease of histogenetic substances in the blood; for these injections resulted not only in nourishing the animal but also in appeasing its hunger.

Moreover the fact that hunger, especially when it is only moderate, assumes in man the form of a particular localized sensation originating in the wall of the stomach, and that this sensation is sufficient to cause the same acts which would be induced by real hunger, is—it is hardly necessary to state—a natural consequence and of but secondary importance. It is only one of many forms in which we find the substitution of the part for the whole, a phenomenon characteristic of all mnemonic physiological processes and true similarly for the tendency to physiological invariability, which is also essentially mnemonic, as we shall see more clearly later on. In fact, this peculiar sensation, localized in the gastric mucous membrane and due to its swelling or to some similar change caused by the empty condition of the stomach, usually takes place before or simultaneously with the actual decrease of histogenetic substances in the blood, and so finally becomes a representative and vicarious sign of hunger.

The same is true of thirst and of its apparent localization in the upper part of the alimentary canal.

We might pass on from hunger and thirst to the other more or less fundamental organic “appetites” or “needs”. All would show us in their different manifestations that they are directed simply and solely toward the restoration of the stationary physiological state, which has been destroyed or in some way disturbed.

Thus there exists for every animal species an optimum of environment with reference to the degree of concentration of the solution in which the animal lives, to the temperature or to the intensity of light, etc., above and below which the organism cannot maintain its normal physiological state and in which the animal consequently makes every effort to maintain itself.

The infusorium Paramcecium, for instance, at 28° C. reacts negatively to a rising but not to a falling temperature, whereas at 22° C. it reacts negatively to a falling but not to a rising temperature; and Euglena in a moderate light reacts negatively to a decrease but not to an increase in the intensity of light, whereas in a stronger light the reaction is reversed.¹

The tendency of organisms to invariability in their stationary physiological state consequently resolves itself into a tendency to invariability in their external and internal environments. Thus, for instance, oysters and actinians close when exposed to the air; that is, they behave so as to keep the standard of moisture unaltered within themselves.²

Amongst the environmental factors, whose invariability is wanted by the organism, will be found also its position with regard to the direction of the various forces to which it is exposed, especially gravity. Hence the tendency to preserve or restore its normal position. Thus, for instance, the amoeba draws in its pseudopodia when they come in contact with solid non-edible bodies; but if it is lifted off the bottom of the aquarium and is suspended in the water it stretches out its pseudopodia in all directions. As soon as one of these touches a solid object, the amoeba takes hold of it, draws its body over to it and resumes its old position on this new support. Likewise a starfish when inverted tries to turn over, that is, to return to its normal environmental conditions with relation to gravity.³

All “needs” to throw off substances which have been produced by the general metabolism and which the organism can no longer use, conform to this general rule. For, although the need for eliminating them may be called forth by certain vicarious local sensations capable of evoking the act of expulsion in advance, yet in reality, whether in the case of the smallest and simplest infusorium or of the most highly developed vertebrates, it is due only to the circumstance that the accumulation of this waste material within the organism would eventually disturb its normal physiological function. To this class of eliminative affective tendencies the sexual “instinct” or “hunger” seems to belong. For we know that certain recent theories are inclined to regard the whole organism rather than any one definite part of the body as the seat of sexual hunger just as in the case of hunger proper, and at the same time to regard it as due to the need of eliminating the germinal substance.¹

In other words, sexual hunger seems to be nothing but the tendency of the organism to free itself of the physiological disturbance which the germinal substance, in virtue of its nature as a nuclear substance awaiting fertilization, produces by means of its hormonic secretions, or substances of disintegration, and spreads throughout the entire organism.

The brilliant or striking “wedding garments,” which nearly all animals assume when in love, are due to an abnormal condition of general hypersecretion occasioned by the hormonic products of the germinal substance. At any rate they show how deep is the physiological disturbance caused in all somatic cells by the germinal substance.

The tendency to expel so disturbing an element then becomes a tendency to copulation as the means of effecting this expulsion.

Hence the fundamentally selfish character (nature foncièrement égoiste) of sexual love which Ribot rightly emphasizes: “In the immense majority of animals, and frequently in men, the sexual instinct is not accompanied by any tender emotion. The act once accomplished, there is separation and oblivion.”²

This hypothesis which attributes to the sexual instinct no further significance than a tendency to eliminate a disturbing element, permits us to present this instinct in very different light from that in which it has hitherto appeared. For were this hypothesis to be accepted, the sexual instinct would not have originated and developed for the “good” of the species, but of the individual. It would therefore not represent the “will of the species” imposing itself upon the individual, as many still maintain with Schopenhauer, but rather, here as always, the “will” of the single individual that is, the usual tendency to keep unchanged its stationary physiological condition.

This “elimination” hypothesis, moreover, is sufficient by itself to explain certain peculiarities of this instinct which would be quite incomprehensible from the stand-point of Schopenhauer.

Ribot, for instance, is surprised that an instinct which is so exceedingly important for the continuance of the species is so often exposed to perversions which seem to involve its complete negation.¹

But we need not consider cases of true pathological perversion, for the very facility with which normal people can adopt neo-malthusian methods accords ill with the hypothesis that the only reason for the existence of such an instinct is the need for the continuance of the race.

Finally, the fact that both animals and man now desire copulation or even certain secondary sexual relations on their own account, i.e., independently of the act of the elimination of the germinal substance, perhaps even in default of any to eliminate—this also, as we shall see better at a later stage, is only the consequence of the mnemonic law already mentioned of the substitution of the part for the whole, and of its derivative, the law of the transference of affective tendencies. According to this law, all phenomena that constantly accompany the satisfaction of certain affectivities become also in their turn objects of desire, and all habits acquired for the satisfaction or in the satisfaction of certain affectivities likewise become affective tendencies.

If the sexual instinct can thus be referred to the class of tendencies which serve to maintain the stationary physiological condition of the organism, then the above law, as regards the fundamental organic tendencies, is open to no exception. Hence we can sum it up as follows:

Every organism is a physiological system in a stationary condition and tends to preserve this condition or to restore it as soon as it is disturbed by any variation occurring within or outside the organism. This property constitutes the foundation and essence of all “needs”, of all “desires”, of all the most important organic “appetites”. All movements of approach or withdrawal, of attack or flight, of seizing or rejecting which animals make are only so many direct or indirect consequences of this very general tendency of every stationary physiological condition to remain constant. We shall soon see that this tendency in its turn is only the direct result of the fundamental mnemonic characteristic of all living matter.

This single physiological tendency of a general kind is then sufficient to give rise to a large number of the most diversified particular affective tendencies. Thus every cause of disturbance will produce a corresponding tendency to repulsion with special characteristics determined by the kind of disturbance, by its strength, and by the methods capable of avoiding the disturbing elements; and for every incidental means of preserving or restoring the normal physiological condition, there will be a quite distinct corresponding tendency such as “longing”, “desire”, “attraction” and so forth.

Even the “instinct of self-preservation”—when understood in the usual narrow sense of preservation of one’s own life—is only a particular derivative and direct consequence of this very general tendency to preserve physiological invariability. For every condition which would eventually prove fatal first presents itself as a mere disturbance, and it is only as such that the animal tries and learns to avoid it. Jennings’ amoeba, for instance, which though completely swallowed by another amœba, attempted to escape and succeeded, did not in all probability flee from a phenomenon that endangered its life, but from a condition in its environment which, even though a profound disturbance, was nevertheless nothing but a disturbance.

Quinton, as is well known, was the first to develop a theory that organisms tend to maintain in their internal intercellular environment the same chemical and physical conditions that obtained in the primordial environment when life first appeared on earth.¹

But our theory is clearly limited to a consideration of the tendency to invariability only so far as it manifests itself each moment in the behaviour of each individual. Therefore instead of serving as too one-sided a starting point for the explanation of the evolution of species, it forms the basis upon which all the most important affective tendencies of the animal world may be built up.

As a factor of invariability for the individual, this tendency to preserve the stationary physiological condition is indeed one of the most important factors in the variation...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• CHAPTER I. ON THE MNEMONIC ORIGIN AND NATURE OF AFFECTIVE TENDENCIES
• CHAPTER II. ATTENTION.
• CHAPTER III. ATTENTION.
• CHAPTER IV. WHAT IS REASONING?
• CHAPTER V. THE EVOLUTION OF REASONING.
• CHAPTER VI. THE EVOLUTION OF REASONING.
• CHAPTER VII. THE HIGHER FORMS OF REASONING.
• CHAPTER VIII. THE HIGHER FORMS OF REASONING.
• CHAPTER IX. THE HIGHER FORMS OF REASONING.
• CHAPTER X. “INTENTIONAL” REASONING.
• CHAPTER XI. “INTENTIONAL” REASONING.
• CHAPTER XII. THE DIFFERENT LOGICAL TYPES OF MIND
• CHAPTER XII. THE PATHOLOGY OF REASONING.
• CHAPTER XIV. THE PATHOLOGY OF REASONING.
• CHAPTER XV. THE PATHOLOGY OF REASONING.
• CHAPTER XVI. CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS REASONING
• CONCLUSION.
• INDEX.