Anyone who has studied psychology is expected to be familiar with Wilhelm Wundt. But what this familiarity entails quickly becomes an open question. With his many thousands of published pages, it is an almost insurmountable project to get an overview of his contributions. Hence, the short version is that he established the first psychological laboratory and thereby laid the foundation for psychology to become empirical and scientific. Admittedly, he used self-observation in this laboratory, and he also completely turned his focus to folk psychology for the last 25 years of his life. Many have, however, questioned this perception of Wundt. This chapter focuses on those who have been skeptical of this most widespread perception of him. The main purpose is to take a closer look at the details of the actual research Wundt conducted in his laboratory to examine whether or not it actually only represented rudimentary empirical psychological research. This is analyzed with the help of a classical hermeneutic review of a number of selected texts by Wundt. These are texts that primarily present and discuss various aspects of the activities in this laboratory. These texts span a period of almost 60 years from the 1860s to Wundt’s death in 1920. The findings from this review show first and foremost a major difference between Wundt’s scientific approach and the approach that characterizes empirical psychological research in the West after the Second World War. This is reflected in the fact that Wundt’s starting point was a holistic approach to consciousness, which means that the elements he uncovered were not perceived as building blocks and objects, but as probable factors within the framework of the apperception processes, he uncovered. This more gestalt-psychological understanding of consciousness runs like a red thread through all his experiments. These are exemplified by musical examples, which in turn were used as a means of showing that non-linguistic factors define the conditions of possibility for human thinking. In addition, self-observation turns out to have been a social-psychological process in which the student groups working with him were absolutely crucial. This made the fall of 1879 an important year, not because of the laboratory per se, but because it was only then that he was able to draw students into his laboratory and thus get socially anchored results from the experiments.