What do you think?
Rate this book
Historia Y Sistemas de la Psicologia
For courses in History, Systems of Psychology, and History of Science or Philosophy. Now in its sixth edition, History and Systems of Psychology effectively introduces the complexities of psychology's origins. The material is presented with full support for students learning the context of historical, cultural, social, and philosophical developments.
376 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1899
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 10, 2018
When introducing utilitarianism to the world, Jeremy Bentham defined utility as the sum of pleasure derived by one’s actions, minus the troubles caused by it.
Though I try to be as objective as I can when it comes to my reviews, had I followed his school of thought, my guilty pleasure shelf would be brimming with undeserved rankings of 4+ stars, and this would get a zero.
It is not that Brennan’s History and Systems of psychology is a dreadful book. More like it’s rather... useless. While the author promises to clarify the diversity encountered in the titular field of study, he ends up contributing to the sense of confusion inevitably experienced by those virginally introduced to it.
While it should be recognized that the undertaking of this book is nothing short of ambitious -truly, it is remarkable he managed to sum up a story that coincides with the time men realized they were men- the outcome is a mendley of information, more often than naught entirely unnecessary and unnecessarily complicated to the point the reader doubts whether the author grasps what they are on about, let alone if he spared a moment of their time to consider their (presumably) less educated reader.
The thing is, I’ve taken philosophy classes before -and though I am millions miles away to be considered an expert- some things, when you major humanitarian fields, are so commonly used, they end up being familiar. Plato’s idealism, Skinner’s work as well as Aristotle are three things I strive to know by heart, and yet reading about them in this book, I almost ended up hating them. Though, no doubt, the mediocre translation is partly to blame (I have the Greek edition), the chaotic bombardment of information that only indirectly make their point has no place -in my opinion- in a work directed to scientists.
The thing is, if I had a bookshelf field with books that introduced me to the systems discussed in this, thoroughly as individuals, acquiring Brennan’s work might have been a pleasant installment in my collection. The author fails to cohesively present the schools of thought -an anthology of random autobiographies is one of the kinder ways I personally like to call it- and it is certainly rather eclectic when it comes to the things it introduces you to.
If you are a sorry lot like me who must study this for uni, I pity you like Dumbledore suggests one must pity the living. However, I found something that might be of help so here you go:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/histo...
Though I try to be as objective as I can when it comes to my reviews, had I followed his school of thought, my guilty pleasure shelf would be brimming with undeserved rankings of 4+ stars, and this would get a zero.
It is not that Brennan’s History and Systems of psychology is a dreadful book. More like it’s rather... useless. While the author promises to clarify the diversity encountered in the titular field of study, he ends up contributing to the sense of confusion inevitably experienced by those virginally introduced to it.
While it should be recognized that the undertaking of this book is nothing short of ambitious -truly, it is remarkable he managed to sum up a story that coincides with the time men realized they were men- the outcome is a mendley of information, more often than naught entirely unnecessary and unnecessarily complicated to the point the reader doubts whether the author grasps what they are on about, let alone if he spared a moment of their time to consider their (presumably) less educated reader.
The thing is, I’ve taken philosophy classes before -and though I am millions miles away to be considered an expert- some things, when you major humanitarian fields, are so commonly used, they end up being familiar. Plato’s idealism, Skinner’s work as well as Aristotle are three things I strive to know by heart, and yet reading about them in this book, I almost ended up hating them. Though, no doubt, the mediocre translation is partly to blame (I have the Greek edition), the chaotic bombardment of information that only indirectly make their point has no place -in my opinion- in a work directed to scientists.
The thing is, if I had a bookshelf field with books that introduced me to the systems discussed in this, thoroughly as individuals, acquiring Brennan’s work might have been a pleasant installment in my collection. The author fails to cohesively present the schools of thought -an anthology of random autobiographies is one of the kinder ways I personally like to call it- and it is certainly rather eclectic when it comes to the things it introduces you to.
If you are a sorry lot like me who must study this for uni, I pity you like Dumbledore suggests one must pity the living. However, I found something that might be of help so here you go:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/histo...
November 9, 2007
This book is full of (boring) informations. But if you realy want to know about the progress in Psychology from time to time, and if you like history, you might find this book interesting.
January 20, 2018
Lord help my soul, I had to study this for Uni and boooooooooooi did it take half of my life to finish it. Like... no one cares about Abelard's birthplace or what university he attended, James! And Abelard is famous so I can forgive that, but did you seriously have to mention every single person's personal life? That wasn't a History and Systems of Psychology, it was more like "important people throughout the ages" and it wasn't even interesting. And when psychology was mentioned it was obviously biased and full of unnecessary comments.
May 31, 2024
This was a required textbook for a course I recently completed. It gave a good overview of the history of psychology.
April 23, 2020
In my opinion this book tells more of the myths psychology tells itself about its own scientific identity than what psychology is or how it emerged and changed throughout history.
The historical part is biased, contains a lot of generalizations and misinterpretations and presentism. This does not really surprise me, as the book has a severe lack of sources that in my view should disqualify it as scientific (not even my first-semester students would get a positive grade on a paper that badly researched). Especially a narrow 'rational science vs irrational religion'-conflict thesis, that has no empirical basis, clouds Brennans interpretation of historical figures and their finding. Deeply religious thinkers like Bacon and Galileo are retrospectively secularized and seen as prosecuted heroes that finally freed 'real science' from oppressive religion - a myth that could be debunked by reading the Wikipedia-articles on these thinkers. The complex intertwining of political power struggles, inner-theological discussions, different schools of thought and the advancement of methods and scientific organization is reduced to a simple, ahistorical narrative of faith vs truth, inherently good science vs inherently bad religion.
Since its beginnings as a scientific discipline, psychology has had the problem of legitimizing its own scientific status, since it works on the basis of science-external assumptions about human existence, which are often contradictory within different schools (see historical and comparative research on psychological systems). This problem of legitimacy seems to tempt psychologists in particular to defend the scientific status of their discipline as a means of identity politics. This temptation is especially strong in the historical part when Brennan tries to construct a linear history of the progress of psychological knowledge that results in today's scientific psychology as a rational science without irrational, or even worse, 'faith' assumptions. That this depiction of psychology corresponds to the historical or current reality of psychological research - I dare to doubt.
The historical part is biased, contains a lot of generalizations and misinterpretations and presentism. This does not really surprise me, as the book has a severe lack of sources that in my view should disqualify it as scientific (not even my first-semester students would get a positive grade on a paper that badly researched). Especially a narrow 'rational science vs irrational religion'-conflict thesis, that has no empirical basis, clouds Brennans interpretation of historical figures and their finding. Deeply religious thinkers like Bacon and Galileo are retrospectively secularized and seen as prosecuted heroes that finally freed 'real science' from oppressive religion - a myth that could be debunked by reading the Wikipedia-articles on these thinkers. The complex intertwining of political power struggles, inner-theological discussions, different schools of thought and the advancement of methods and scientific organization is reduced to a simple, ahistorical narrative of faith vs truth, inherently good science vs inherently bad religion.
Since its beginnings as a scientific discipline, psychology has had the problem of legitimizing its own scientific status, since it works on the basis of science-external assumptions about human existence, which are often contradictory within different schools (see historical and comparative research on psychological systems). This problem of legitimacy seems to tempt psychologists in particular to defend the scientific status of their discipline as a means of identity politics. This temptation is especially strong in the historical part when Brennan tries to construct a linear history of the progress of psychological knowledge that results in today's scientific psychology as a rational science without irrational, or even worse, 'faith' assumptions. That this depiction of psychology corresponds to the historical or current reality of psychological research - I dare to doubt.
January 5, 2022
First of all I'd like to remind people that writing even a semi-comprehensive book on any scientific approach is challenging,to say the least.
Brennan does a good job overall of going through dozens of approaches to psychology, different philosophies, describes the Zeitgeist of each era, and so on.
It *can* get boring because oftentimes there's just too many biographical information on some of the scientists/philosophers or thinkers in general. If you're supposed to read this book to sit for an exam and someone expects of you to remember these parts, it's going to be annoying after a point.
Still, if you're reading this because you are curious and don't have to memorise it, then I think it's a good introductory book. You learn enough about each school of thought to have an idea of whether you want to read more about it or not.
Brennan does a good job overall of going through dozens of approaches to psychology, different philosophies, describes the Zeitgeist of each era, and so on.
It *can* get boring because oftentimes there's just too many biographical information on some of the scientists/philosophers or thinkers in general. If you're supposed to read this book to sit for an exam and someone expects of you to remember these parts, it's going to be annoying after a point.
Still, if you're reading this because you are curious and don't have to memorise it, then I think it's a good introductory book. You learn enough about each school of thought to have an idea of whether you want to read more about it or not.
May 22, 2020
I struggled with this book in the beginning as it read more as a history than a psychology book. The material is rather dense, but I did enjoy the second half of the book more than the first. Not my favorite psychology text, but it is informative.
May 21, 2025
2,5/5 ☆
Just an academic read
Just an academic read
December 7, 2018
No frills, economical yet historically deep little text on the history and systems of psychology, with just enough philosophy thrown in to make you obnoxious.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews