Page xiINTRODUCTION
In his quest to understand the universe in which he lives, man is confronted with three fundamental facts of nature:
the existence of matter, of life, and of consciousness.
In response to the first of these phenomena, he developed the sciences of physics and chemistry; in response to the
second, he developed the science of biology; in response to the third, he developed the science of psychology. It is
notorious that, to date, the greatest advances in knowledge have been achieved in the field of physics—the least, in
the field of psychology.
The explanation of this difference in the comparative rates of progress lies, at least in part, in the respective
challenges posed by these three sciences. In seeking to identify laws of nature, man basically is seeking to identify
the principles of action exhibited by entities in their behavior: to grasp what entities do in different contexts and
why. Given this task, the job of the physicist is simpler than that of the biologist: the number of variables with
which he must cope in studying the action of inanimate matter, the variety of actions possible to inanimate entities,
is far less than that encountered in the behavior of living organisms. But the job of the biologist is simpler than that
of the psychologist: a conscious living organism such as man exhibits a complexity and variety of behavior greater
by far than that exhibited by any other entity, living or nonliving.
As a being who possesses the power of self-consciousness—the power of contemplating his own life and activity—
man experiences a profound need for a conceptual frame of reference from which to view himself, a need for a self-
intelligibility which it is the task of psychology to provide. This book is offered as a step toward the achievement of
that goal.
It is no part of my intention, in this context, to engage in polemics against contemporary psychology or to argue
that it has