"The sciences which take socio-historical reality as their subject matter are seeking, more intensively than ever before, their systematic relations to one another and to their foundation"
About this Quote
Dilthey is diagnosing a kind of intellectual restlessness that hits whenever the modern world accelerates: the human sciences can no longer afford to act like separate guilds guarding separate territories. History, sociology, psychology, philology - all of them claim “socio-historical reality,” yet each tends to explain it with its own house vocabulary. His line catches the late-19th-century moment when specialization was becoming the prestige model of knowledge, and the resulting fragmentation started to look less like rigor and more like blindness.
The phrase “more intensively than ever before” isn’t a neutral progress report; it’s a warning wrapped in optimism. Dilthey is responding to the success of the natural sciences, whose authority came from method, system, and foundations. The subtext is competitive: if the disciplines that study human life want comparable legitimacy, they need coherence. But he’s not proposing that they imitate physics. Dilthey’s whole project is to defend a different basis for knowing: not explanation alone, but understanding (Verstehen) grounded in lived experience, interpretation, and historical situatedness.
“Systematic relations” does two things at once. It promises synthesis - a map of how these fields connect - and it smuggles in a philosophical demand: each discipline must justify its assumptions about what counts as evidence, causality, and meaning. “Their foundation” is the loaded term. Dilthey is pressing for an epistemological reckoning, arguing that the human sciences share a common ground in historical life, not in timeless laws. The line works because it captures an academic anxiety we still recognize: when reality is entangled, siloed expertise starts to look like a luxury.
The phrase “more intensively than ever before” isn’t a neutral progress report; it’s a warning wrapped in optimism. Dilthey is responding to the success of the natural sciences, whose authority came from method, system, and foundations. The subtext is competitive: if the disciplines that study human life want comparable legitimacy, they need coherence. But he’s not proposing that they imitate physics. Dilthey’s whole project is to defend a different basis for knowing: not explanation alone, but understanding (Verstehen) grounded in lived experience, interpretation, and historical situatedness.
“Systematic relations” does two things at once. It promises synthesis - a map of how these fields connect - and it smuggles in a philosophical demand: each discipline must justify its assumptions about what counts as evidence, causality, and meaning. “Their foundation” is the loaded term. Dilthey is pressing for an epistemological reckoning, arguing that the human sciences share a common ground in historical life, not in timeless laws. The line works because it captures an academic anxiety we still recognize: when reality is entangled, siloed expertise starts to look like a luxury.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Wilhelm
Add to List







