This is a question that still might not be able to be answered. Both of their schools of thought were appropriate for the time, and in turn, allowed for more development in the field. As we see today, Brentano and his use of the knowledge ancient philosophical thought brought us influences our studies of things like Abnormal Psychology and personality, while Wundt proved that psychology is a science, and Physiological Psychology is an extremely important area of study to understand things such as addiction. Both were right, but, it seems to me, they needed each other to progress. Luckily we have both.

It seems to me that Brentano was much more philosophically inclined, and Wundt physiologically. It may be suggested that if they had worked together, could have created a much closer version to what we see as modern psychology today, much sooner, but in the end, Wundt pursued psychology with much more scientific vigor than did Brentano.

Demonstrates that, even with the vast advancements Wundt was able to make, he still did not have enough information to determine what psychology really was, or what it should be. But, it did lay a solid foundation on which to build.

Again it seems to be brought to our attention that Wundt is lacking in integrating philosophical thought into his psychological inquiries.

This is where it seems Wundt is lacking in integrating philosophy into his psychology, and focusing very much on the hard scientific exploration instead.

Wundt's process here seems to be much closer to how we treat psychology today versus what Brentano had in mind, even though we're on the path to philosophy and psychology intermingling even further. It's interesting to see just how close these two were, but still on two different paths.

Reminds me of the philosophical journey Rene Descartes went though, trying to rationalize his beliefs from the ground up.

Here we can really begin to see the way Wundt took a much more "scientific" approach to psychology, while Brentano, it seemed, was much more logically and philosophically based in his psychology.

Interesting that Wundt's first approximation would be descriptive, but Brentano was the one who made the clear distinction between genetic psychology and descriptive psychology.

So far, there is a basic agreement for foundational beliefs in what these two men believed psychology to be. Had the beliefs been too different, for instance like moral theory considerations in philosophy, where they can completely contradict one another, there may have been no room for exploration.

The distinction between the two lanes of thought is once again mentioned, showing that had someone else had a similar idea sooner and recorded it, or even one of these men were interested in slightly different things, modern psychology may not be what we have today.

Important to note just 12 years after his first considerations of psychology, he deemed it worthy to be considered viable as its own independent science.

As noted previously, it is interesting to see just how recently psychology started to be considered, stemming from other studies such as physiology and philosophy.

Important to note that, had more philosophical-turned-psychological thinkers, had the forethought to write more of their ideas down, the advancement of psychology may have happened differently.

The description of the divergence between the two, Brentano and Wundt, within their paths of studying psychology, scientific and philosophical, defines an important point of in the development of modern psychology, clearly important to the history of Psychology.