Wilhelm Dilthey
We explain nature from outside, but we understand human life from within – so the human sciences need their own method.
Placement
Foundation of the human sciences: we explain nature, but we understand the life of the mind.
Key ideas
- Understanding vs. explanation
- Philosophy of life
- Historicism
Teachers: Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg, Kuno Fischer
Students: George Herbert Mead, Martin Buber
Influence
Influenced by 5
Immanuel Kant
influenced by ✓
Dilthey called his project a ‘critique of historical reason’, doing for the human sciences what Kant had done for natural science (Introduction to the Human Sciences, 1883). W. Dilthey, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (1883); SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey”
Immanuel Kant › 1724–1804
Friedrich Schleiermacher
influenced by ✓
Dilthey wrote a Life of Schleiermacher (1870) and in ‘The Rise of Hermeneutics’ (1900) took Schleiermacher’s art of understanding as the basis of the human sciences. W. Dilthey, Leben Schleiermachers I (1870); “Die Entstehung der Hermeneutik” (1900); SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Friedrich Schleiermacher › 1768–1834
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
influenced by ✓
In Die Jugendgeschichte Hegels (1905) Dilthey opened up Hegel’s early theological manuscripts, and he took over Hegel’s objective spirit, without its metaphysics, for the human sciences (Aufbau, 1910). W. Dilthey, Die Jugendgeschichte Hegels (1905); Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften (1910); SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey”
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel › 1770–1831
Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg studied with
studied with
In Berlin Dilthey came under the influence of Trendelenburg and Boeckh, both pupils of Schleiermacher. SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey” (R. Makkreel), §1.2
Evidence: AI draft
Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg › 1802–1872
Kuno Fischer studied with
studied with
At Heidelberg Dilthey was introduced by Fischer to the idealist systems. SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey” (R. Makkreel), §1.2
Evidence: AI draft
Kuno Fischer › 1824–1907
Influenced 8
George Herbert Mead taught
taught
Mead took two courses with Dilthey during his study in Germany. SEP “George Herbert Mead” (M. Aboulafia, S. Taylor), §1
Evidence: AI draft
George Herbert Mead › 1863–1931
Max Weber
influenced disputed
In Roscher and Knies Weber cites several Dilthey essays with approval, but how far he followed Dilthey’s Verstehen is open, and the SEP entry sets Weber’s concept formation against Dilthey’s. R. Wanstrat, Das sozialwissenschaftliche Verstehen bei Dilthey und Max Weber (Duncker & Humblot; read via summary only); SEP “Max Weber” §2.1; the line is asserted in Randall Collins’s critique, no accessible source states it plainly
Evidence: AI draft
Max Weber › 1864–1920
José Ortega y Gasset
influenced
In ‘Wilhelm Dilthey and the Idea of Life’ (1933–34) Ortega found in Dilthey’s historical understanding of life a confirmation of his vital reason, which he had reached independently. J. Ortega y Gasset, “Guillermo Dilthey y la idea de la vida” (1933–34); SEP “José Ortega y Gasset”
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
José Ortega y Gasset › 1883–1955
Georg Lukács
influenced
In his 1962 preface to The Theory of the Novel (1916) Lukács traced its method to Dilthey’s Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung (1905) and the Geisteswissenschaften. G. Lukács, Die Theorie des Romans (1916; book 1920), preface (1962); W. Dilthey, Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung (1905)
Evidence: AI draft
Georg Lukács › 1885–1971
Martin Heidegger
influenced ✓
Heidegger took up Dilthey’s question of the historicity of life (Kassel lectures, 1925) and, via the Dilthey–Yorck letters, made historicality a structure of Dasein (Being and Time, 1927). M. Heidegger, “Wilhelm Diltheys Forschungsarbeit und der gegenwärtige Kampf um eine historische Weltanschauung” (Kassel lectures 1925; publ. 1992–93); Sein und Zeit (1927); SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey”
Martin Heidegger › 1889–1976
Karl Mannheim
influenced
Mannheim took up Dilthey’s theory of world views and of understanding to distinguish objective, expressive and documentary meaning (‘Beiträge zur Theorie der Weltanschauungs-Interpretation’, 1921–22). K. Mannheim, “Beiträge zur Theorie der Weltanschauungs-Interpretation”, Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 1 (1921–22); D. Kettler, V. Meja and N. Stehr, Karl Mannheim (1984); SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey”
Evidence: AI draft
Karl Mannheim › 1893–1947
Show all (8)Show fewer
Ernst Troeltsch
influenced disputed
Troeltsch tried to join Dilthey’s hermeneutic tradition with the neo-Kantian methodology of Windelband and Rickert, and is reported to have dedicated his last book to Dilthey and Windelband; the dedication was not checked in the book. Article “Para além do neokantismo: o conceito de ciências ético-históricas em Ernst Troeltsch” (revistas.ufg.br/teoria/article/view/44811), read via summary; dedication not checked in the book
Evidence: AI draft
Ernst Troeltsch › 1865–1923
Martin Buber taught
taught
Buber attended Dilthey’s lectures, as well as Simmel’s, during his semesters at the University of Berlin; his doctorate (Vienna, 1904) was taken elsewhere. The SEP calls Dilthey Buber’s teacher. SEP “Martin Buber”; M. Friedman, Martin Buber’s Life and Work: The Early Years (1981)
Evidence: AI draft
Martin Buber › 1878–1965
Criticism
Mutual critique 1
Wilhelm Windelband ⇄ mutual
criticised
Dilthey replied that many natural sciences have idiographic parts and many human sciences nomothetic aims, so Windelband’s division does not hold. SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey” (R. Makkreel), §2.2
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
In his Strasbourg rector’s address of 1894 Windelband rejected Dilthey’s way of marking off the human sciences by a distinct kind of experience and by descriptive psychology. SEP “Wilhelm Windelband” (K. Kinzel), §5; SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey” (R. Makkreel), §2.2
Evidence: AI draft
Wilhelm Windelband › 1848–1915
Criticized by 3
Edmund Husserl
criticised by
Husserl’s ‘Philosophy as Rigorous Science’ (1911) attacked historicism and worldview philosophy as leading to sceptical relativism; Dilthey felt targeted, and the two exchanged letters. E. Husserl, “Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft”, Logos 1 (1911); Dilthey–Husserl correspondence, June–July 1911; SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey”
Evidence: AI draft
Edmund Husserl › 1859–1938
Heinrich Rickert
criticised by
Rickert objected to Dilthey that psychology cannot ground the human sciences and that re-living past experience would not amount to understanding it, holding that the logical structure of historical science fixes its object. SEP “Heinrich Rickert” (A. Staiti, L. Oliva), §3
Evidence: AI draft
Heinrich Rickert › 1863–1936
Hans-Georg Gadamer influenced
influenced ✓
Gadamer took up Dilthey’s question of how the human sciences understand historical life and analysed his concepts of lived experience (Erlebnis) and expression (Truth and Method, 1960). H.-G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode (1960); W. Dilthey, Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften (1910); SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey”
criticised by
Gadamer argued that Dilthey remained caught in the aporias of historicism, modelling the human sciences on the natural sciences’ ideal of objectivity (Truth and Method, 1960, part II). H.-G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode (1960), part II, section I.2 (“Diltheys Verstrickung in die Aporien des Historismus”)
Evidence: AI draft
Hans-Georg Gadamer › 1900–2002
Criticizes 2
Auguste Comte
criticised
Dilthey rejected Comte’s sociology as a naturalistic metaphysics of history that forces the human sciences into the methods of natural science (Introduction to the Human Sciences, 1883). W. Dilthey, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (1883), Book I; SEP “Wilhelm Dilthey”
Evidence: AI draft
Auguste Comte › 1798–1857
John Stuart Mill
criticised
Dilthey rejected the claim of Mill’s Logic (1843, Book VI) that the moral sciences must borrow the methods of the natural sciences, setting understanding (Verstehen) against explanation. W. Dilthey, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (1883), Preface; Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie (1894); J. S. Mill, A System of Logic (1843), Book VI
Evidence: AI draft
John Stuart Mill › 1806–1873
Works
Understanding as the method of the historical world.
Position
Dilthey asked what makes the humanities – history, literature, law, religion – genuine knowledge, without borrowing the methods of physics. His answer: “We explain nature, but we understand mental life.” Human expressions such as texts, works and institutions are objectifications of lived experience, and we understand them by re-living their meaning from within. Life itself, historical and finite, is the ultimate ground of thought; there is no standpoint above history. This made him a founder of the philosophy of life and of modern hermeneutics, and shaped Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer and the sociology of Max Weber, though it also raised the problem of historical relativism.
Life & context
The son of a Reformed pastor near Wiesbaden, Dilthey studied theology and philosophy in Heidelberg and Berlin and made his name with a biography of Schleiermacher. After professorships in Basel, Kiel and Breslau he held the Berlin chair from 1882. Many of his projects remained unfinished; his influence spread largely through his students and posthumous editions.
Further main works
- Life of Schleiermacher (1870)
- Ideas Concerning a Descriptive and Analytic Psychology (1894)
- The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences (1910)
As of November 2026 · Sources · Improve this page · How Agora is made