Psychology and Philosophy - Uneasy Siblings

Most of us who function in some aspect of philosophy have had the experience of attempting to clarify to a person that philosophy is not psychology. To those members of the philosophical set, the distinction may appear apparent, but any try to spell it out calls for some cautious thought and reflection, which is what I attempt to do in this physical exercise.

Is Psychology a sibling of Philosophy? Certainly in the past they were close siblings, members of the similar household, philosophy. These days the connection in between the two is much more problematic. Does operate in philosophy have any relation to the student's psychological state? The answer also is not a clear-cut one particular. Philosophy can support a person psychologically, but this is not central to the function of philosophy.

Some Background:

Historically in Western Philosophy, Psychology was component of philosophy until the 19th century when it became a separate science. In the 17th and 18th centuries, several Western philosophers did pioneering operate in areas that later came to be known as "psychology." Ultimately psychological inquiry and study became separate sciences some of which could be characterized as the study and investigation into the thoughts. In short, psychology became identified as the science of thoughts insofar as its function is to analyze and clarify mental processes: our thoughts, experiences, sensations, feelings, perceptions, imaginations, creativity, dreams and so on. It is mainly an empirical and experimental science even though the field of psychology does involve the additional theoretical Freudian psychology and the more speculative Jungian psychology.

When we study Western Philosophy, we find a concentrated effort to sustain a distinction among philosophical and psychological considerations. But these have not consistently been kept separate. Even at present some areas of philosophy remain intermixed with psychological considerations. It could be that some forms of philosophy can never break away completely from psychological issues.
.
Traditionally, philosophers in the Western tradition did not generally observe a wall of separation in between philosophy and psychology. For instance, Baruch Spinoza's amazing perform, Ethics, contains quite a few observations and insights about our reasoning processes and feelings. The early functions in Epistemology (theory of knowledge) by such thinkers as Rene Descartes, John Locke, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant involve a good deal of observations and statements about psychological processes connected with understanding and belief. In other words, these writings tend to mix psychological statements (procedure of realizing) with conceptual philosophy.

But there are differences amongst psychology and philosophy which are important and should certainly be observed in careful writing in either location. In our critiques of these 17th and 18th works in epistemology, we try to separate the philosophical theme (logic, conceptual and propositional evaluation) from the psychological aspect (causes of belief, psychological method underlying perception). Scientific function that seeks to understand and explain the workings of the brain and the neurological processes which underlie believed and experience (viz., psychology) is various from philosophical inquiry into thoughts, consciousness, know-how and experiences. Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, takes excellent pains to keep his philosophy separate from empirical psychology. But it is not clear that his evaluation (or other analyses) of the phenomenology of unique experiences remains a thing clearly distinct from psychology.

But in massive element the situation remains, especially in such areas of philosophy of mind, of keeping philosophical operate totally free of psychology altogether. Moreover, we need to not assume that in all situations these have to be kept separate, as some function in philosophy certainly demands consideration of the psychological sciences.

Even now the student will likely be surprised by the quantity of psychological insights that Spinoza presents in this fantastic work, Ethics, back in the 17th century and related psychological observations by Friedrich Nietzsche in the 19th century. William James, the good American pragmatist, includes considerably psychology in his philosophy. He has substantially to say about the stream of consciousness and unique experiences, such as religious experiences.

Present Issues:

Philosophy of mind: There is a sense in which the thoughts is a psychological construct there is one other sense in which it is not. "My mind is such and such" can be restated as "my thinking is such and such." Sometimes it is the psychology behind my thinking that is the issue but other instances we're interested in what could be called the conceptual-propositional troubles and nonetheless other occasions we may be extra interested in the literary-artistic expression of ideas, values, and perspectives. (In this latter connection, see Walter Kaufmann's book, Discovering The Thoughts.)

In Epistemology we're concerned with the notion of expertise but our primary interest is not one of describing the psychology of knowing. Our interest is not in the approach by which we come to know one thing, but in the clarification of ideas connected with information and belief and in the logic of propositions connected to information. Included among the philosophers who engage in the philosophy of understanding are Bertrand Russell, D.W. Hamlyn, and Richard Rorty.

In the area of academic philosophy, besides the significant field of epistemology, we have philosophy of thoughts, theory of consciousness, philosophy of language, Cartesian Idealism, and the no cost will problem. Ordinarily these are not noticed as types of psychological inquiry. They are extra directed to conceptual and propositional concerns. Included among the philosophers who engage in operate on understanding, language, and mind in this vein are Ludwig Wittgenstein, Gilbert Ryle, D.W. Hamlyn, John Austin, and Daniel Dennett

But psychology is pretty significantly a element of those philosophical scientific studies of unique expertise, such as the religious experience, the mystical knowledge, and even moral experience. A great representative of this method is the terrific American pragmatist, William James. Significantly of his operate in philosophy does not stray too far from his psychological interests.

Some aspects of philosophy are concerned with the nature of human thought. This interest is distinct from psychological study, description and theory. But to be sufficient and credible it needs to take into account the perform of psychologists and the cognitive scientists. The topic of human believed is a significant topic which can be approached from several directions. One particular of these is philosophy another is psychology and the cognitive sciences. Nonetheless other individuals are literary art, the fine arts, and history.

Suppose I ask about Spinoza's thought with regard to moral obligation how does he defend the thesis that morality and rationality are closely intertwined? As a student of philosophy, my interests could be strictly philosophical interests. I want to know how he develops and defends his philosophical thesis. On the other hand, I could be curious about the causes of Spinoza's thinking or maybe interested in feasible motives that he could have had for adopting his specific philosophy. What events in his childhood or family life led him to embrace the values of rationality and the ideals of the geometric technique? In this latter case, I would be proceeding as an amateur, folk psychologist.

There are several techniques of attempting to understand the believed of a person, e.g. a writer or a philosopher. We take one way when we ask about the causes and motivations behind the person's suggestions i.e., we ask about the psychological 'workings.' An additional way is to do philosophical criticism and evaluation of the person's ideas. But the two (psychology and philosophy) can be combined in a single study.

Philosophy and the psychological well-becoming of the individual:

A different way of considering the interaction of psychology and philosophy is at the private level. Do a person's meditation on philosophical questions bring about (or bring closer) some degree of psychic harmony? To the extent that philosophical work and believed contribute to a person's sense of properly-becoming and fulfillment, 1 could argue that philosophy is a form of therapy. Is there a sense in which philosophy can be therapeutic?

If the unexamined life is not worth living (Socrates), then it might follow that the examined life (the "philosophical life") is worth living. This could be seen as suggesting that philosophical believed results in a form of private fulfillment and good psychological health.

Contrary to this we have the view (mostly the prevailing view) that philosophy is an intellectual discipline which has tiny or nothing to do with anyone's striving to attain some form of personal, psychic fulfillment. Add to this the reality that most people who perform in philosophy (e.g. academic philosophers or professors of philosophy) are not specially noteworthy for lives of psychic properly-being. In this regard, consider of persons like Blaise Pascal, S. Kierkegaard, F. Nietzsche and Ludwig Wittgenstein. How psychologically wholesome and properly balanced were they? They were emotionally and mentally tormented, and won't be talked about significantly as models of psychic calm and properly-being. Furthermore, some philosophers are driven to engage in philosophy, considerably like artists, poets, and composers are driven to do their inventive operate. Right here we have a form of psychological compulsion that does not seem to be a form of therapy. In fact, some folks even refer to philosophy as a sort of illness.

Closing Thoughts:

The student of philosophy generally is not a psychologist, but nothing says that the student cannot proceed as a psychologist of sorts. I imagine scenarios in we try to get clear about our thoughts and values and try to be truthful about our motivations for all that we do. Consumers applied to say back in the 1960s era: I am just attempting to get my "head straight."

Suppose that a psychologist can tell me about the causes, the psychological processes, and hidden motives that underlie my thinking and behavior. He may possibly say that in order to actually fully grasp what I am about I need to have some understanding of these "psychological" things i.e., I ought to acknowledge and expose them. If I had been to accept his tips and attempt to do those issues, would I be acting in accordance with the Socratic maxim to "know thyself"?

The professional is concerned with empirical, descriptive psychology and with research into neurological and psychological processes. But we, the amateurs, are primarily indulging a form of folk psychology: Trying to say what I think about my personal thinking. Or attempting to deal much better with my psychic life. Occasionally I apply this 'folk psychology' to myself (I try to figure out what I am about) or to other individuals (I try to recognize their motives for saying such and such or carrying out so and so.)

On a much more practical level, we can imagine an individual asking: "What do I actually want in life? How do I get there?" Can philosophy aid us here? Perhaps not, but then once again think of two of our amazing figures in Western Philosophy, Socrates and Spinoza. They are typically cited as models of psychological harmony and wisdom. Ultimately, are not we all psychologists to some degree, even those of us who flounder about in philosophy? Yes, we are to some degree 'psychologists' insofar as we are awake, alert, conscientious, and honestly engage in self-examination. This does not will need to be kept separate from our work in philosophy.