Meaning: Wilhelm Dilthey, a German historian, philosopher, and psychologist, made significant contributions to the fields of hermeneutics and the philosophy of history. The quote provided reflects Dilthey's perspective on the limitations of the substance doctrine of rational psychology and the need for new and improved methods to validate lived experiences.

Dilthey's critique of the substance doctrine of rational psychology can be understood in the context of his broader intellectual project, which aimed to establish the autonomy of the human sciences, or Geisteswissenschaften, as distinct from the natural sciences. The substance doctrine, rooted in Cartesian and early modern philosophy, posited the existence of an enduring, substantial self or soul as the foundation of human experience and identity. Dilthey, however, argued that this approach failed to capture the rich diversity and context-dependent nature of lived experiences.

According to Dilthey, the scientific expression of lived experiences requires methods that are attuned to the unique features of human subjectivity, historical situatedness, and cultural embeddedness. He advocated for the development of interpretive or hermeneutic approaches that could elucidate the meanings and significances inherent in human expressions, such as language, art, and historical artifacts. By emphasizing the importance of understanding the "lifeworld" (Lebenswelt) of individuals and communities, Dilthey sought to provide a framework for grasping the subjective dimensions of human existence that eluded the substance doctrine.

Dilthey's call for new and better methods can be seen as a response to the challenges posed by the growing influence of positivist and naturalistic approaches in the 19th century, which sought to apply the methods of the natural sciences to the study of human phenomena. He recognized that while the natural sciences were adept at uncovering general laws and regularities, they were ill-equipped to capture the unique, historical, and context-specific character of human experiences. As such, Dilthey sought to carve out a distinct methodological and epistemological space for the human sciences, one that acknowledged the irreducibility of human subjectivity and historical contingency.

In his work on the philosophy of history, Dilthey further underscored the need for interpretive methods to grasp the meaningful coherence of historical events and the lived experiences of individuals and communities across time. He rejected the idea that history could be reduced to a mere accumulation of factual data or that historical understanding could be achieved through a purely objective, detached stance. Instead, Dilthey argued for an approach that recognized the role of empathy, imagination, and contextual understanding in reconstructing the past and appreciating its significance for present concerns.

Dilthey's emphasis on the validation of lived experiences reflects his commitment to recognizing the full range of human phenomena and the importance of developing appropriate methods for their study. By advocating for new and better methods, he sought to address the limitations of existing approaches and to create a foundation for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of human subjectivity, culture, and history.

In conclusion, Wilhelm Dilthey's quote encapsulates his critique of the substance doctrine of rational psychology and his advocacy for new and better methods to validate lived experiences. His work continues to inspire scholars in the fields of philosophy, history, psychology, and the human sciences more broadly, as they grapple with the enduring challenge of understanding and interpreting the complexities of human existence.