Summary
This work, "The Psychology of Intelligence And Will," by H. G. Wyatt, argues that knowledge is composed of two complementary elements: the observation of isolated particulars and a knowledge of laws or causes. The author contends that while empirical observation provides probability, necessity is purely intellectual. The book explores the controversy between "Intuitionalist" (a priori) and "Empiricist" (a posteriori) philosophies of knowledge, suggesting that these opposing schools often argue at cross-purposes.
The central discussion revolves around the nature of knowledge itself, distinguishing between a priori knowledge, which is independent of experience and inherent to thought, and a posteriori knowledge, which is derived from observations. The work highlights that all empirical knowledge contains an intellectual component essential for correlating data and forming judgments. A reader learns that genuine knowledge requires both sensory input and intellectual processing, and that the division between innate knowledge and experiential knowledge is not as absolute as some philosophical traditions suggest.
Key concepts
- A priori knowledge — Knowledge regarded as independent of experience and belonging to the essence of thought.
- A posteriori knowledge — Knowledge derived from particular observations, moving from effect to cause.
- Intellectual element in empirical knowledge — The component of pure thought necessary for correlating empirical data and forming judgments.
- Complementary spheres of knowledge — The idea that knowledge from particulars (empirical) and knowledge of laws or causes (intellectual) work together.
From the book
For other versions of this work, see Encyclopædia Britannica . ← 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica ( 1911 ) Title page → related portals : Reference Works Shortcut : EB11 or EB1911 Notes on reading the Wikisource edition . A special disclaimer for this project . Collaboration page for contributors . 12543 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 Table of contents This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1931. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works . Public domain Public domain false false← Addison's Disease 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 "Address, The" Adelaer → See also Address on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia…
He is commonly known as Rab.← Abbadie, Jakob 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 'Abbahu Abba Mari → See also Abbahu on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 12925 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — 'Abbahu ʼABBAHU, the name of a Palestinian ʼamora ( q.v. ) who flourished c . 279–320. ʼAbbahu encouraged the study of Greek by Jews. He was famous as a collector of traditional lore, and is very often cited in the Talmud.
He was author of Quaestiones ( Sheiltoth ), a collection of homilies (at once learned and popular) on Jewish law and ethics. This is recorded to have been the first work written by a Jewish scholar after the completion of the Talmud.← Alphabet 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 'Al-Phasi, Isaac Alphege, Saint → See also Isaac Alfasi on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 1202415 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — 'Al-Phasi, Isaac ’AL-PHASI, ISAAC (1013–1103), Jewish rabbi and codifier, known as Riph , was born near Fez in 1013 and died at Lucena in 1103. ’Al-Phasi means the “man of Fez” (medieval Jews were often named after their birthplaces). He was forced to leave Fez when an old man of 75, being accused on some unknown political charge. He then…
Popular questions readers ask
- If you had to explain "The Address" to someone unfamiliar with government, how would you describe its fundamental purpose and the roles of the key participants, avoiding complex parliamentary terms?
- The text outlines specific formalities, such as the three sections of the sovereign's speech and the Houses' separate responses. Why do these distinct procedural steps matter for the symbolic and practical function of "The Address"?
- Explain why a defeat on an amendment to "The Address," seemingly a mere thank-you, is considered a vote of no-confidence by the government. What does this signify about the actual power dynamics at play?
- Consider the shift from answering the royal speech "paragraph by paragraph" to a "single resolution." What does this change suggest about the evolving nature of parliamentary debate or the relationship between the government and the sovereign?
- Beyond its procedural aspects, how does "The Address" function as a critical tool for the opposition to scrutinize government policy, and what democratic purpose does this serve?