Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
In the twentieth century, the rise of cognitive approaches, as well as neuroscience are central in explaining mental states. This was important in the twentieth century but the crossover has become more and more significant. In some ways, philosophy looks more for explanations whereas psychology for the application for understanding how this applies in human life. However, it is not that simple and the two overlap in putting together so many explanations for human behaviour. So, I am asking for your thoughts on the relationship between philosophy and psychology, and where this may go in the future potentially?
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
Here is Epictetus 2000 years ago:
And here is Albert Ellis, founder of rational emotive behavior therapy, the precursor of cognitive behavioral therapy, about 70 years ago:"Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself.", Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"
It's not like Ellis dug up these long lost ideas. Instead, they have carried along all those years and always been some part of us, often expressed as "common sense" notions. However, they were not so common until philosophy created or discovered them some 2000 years ago.“When I started to get disillusioned with psychoanalysis I reread philosophy and was reminded of the constructivist notion that Epictetus had proposed 2,000 years ago: "People are disturbed not by events that happen to them, but by their view of them." I could see how that applied to many of my clients.”, Albert Ellis
“Too many people are unaware that it is not outer events or circumstances that will create happiness; rather, it is our perception of events and of ourselves that will create, or uncreate, positive emotions.", Albert Ellis
I don't think predictions of the future are worth much beyond a few laughs. I'll just say that these ideas are in play and fairly widely used right now, in therapy and in self-help programs like AA or STOP.
This is a most compelling subject, though I'm not quite sure where you are trying to go with it.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
Thanks for your reply and I am glad that you trace the development of the ideas in psychology back to philosophy. This sometimes is not done enough and the idea of psychology as a science may miss this basis of psychology. My very first studies of psychology were in experimental psychology and the underlying models of mind and thinking seemed missing, with behaviour as opposed to thought being the focus.chewybrian wrote: ↑April 11th, 2022, 7:26 am I think you grossly underestimate length of time that psychology has been with us, whether it carried that label or not. It did, I think, emerge from philosophy, rather than these two areas of study emerging on their own. I would even say that it is more properly categorized as a kind of philosophy rather than another category of study or activity. This is the philosophy that moves me, and the type I think should be the focus of most philosophers, for it is a philosophy of action. However, it is not the kind that justifies selfish action or causes us to hurt others because we follow our dogma. Rather, it encourages self-improvement, humility, growth, empathy and virtue, and healthy doses of minding your own business and cleaning up your own house before trying to clean up the world.
Here is Epictetus 2000 years ago:
And here is Albert Ellis, founder of rational emotive behavior therapy, the precursor of cognitive behavioral therapy, about 70 years ago:"Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself.", Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"
It's not like Ellis dug up these long lost ideas. Instead, they have carried along all those years and always been some part of us, often expressed as "common sense" notions. However, they were not so common until philosophy created or discovered them some 2000 years ago.“When I started to get disillusioned with psychoanalysis I reread philosophy and was reminded of the constructivist notion that Epictetus had proposed 2,000 years ago: "People are disturbed not by events that happen to them, but by their view of them." I could see how that applied to many of my clients.”, Albert Ellis
“Too many people are unaware that it is not outer events or circumstances that will create happiness; rather, it is our perception of events and of ourselves that will create, or uncreate, positive emotions.", Albert Ellis
I don't think predictions of the future are worth much beyond a few laughs. I'll just say that these ideas are in play and fairly widely used right now, in therapy and in self-help programs like AA or STOP.
This is a most compelling subject, though I'm not quite sure where you are trying to go with it.
Even when I was first introduced to the cognitive behavioral therapy model in relation to psychiatric nursing the roots in philosophy were not really considered. However, from reading in this field it occurred to me that the model was a way of introducing those coming for such therapy to a basis of starting to look at life philosophically. I had not come across the writings of Epictectus at all. The techniques of Ellis and Beck are a way of enabling the examination of beliefs, and of seeing how underlying thoughts affect emotions and behaviour.
The possibility of drawing on philosophy in psychology in such a way do open up horizons for enabling those who undertake therapeutic work to begin critical analysis, although from what I have seen in psychological action in practice, it may depend on how the individual practitioners are able to interpret the model in such a way. If it is understood as being about a thorough examination of the basis of thought it may be able to enable reflective explanations.
The therapeutic applications of psychology are very important, but having placed the thread in the section on metaphysics and epistemology, it may be that the thread will also focus on the nature of various models of the mind. These vary, and it is likely that the emphasis on evidence based research are dominant and some aspects of thought are ranked as of lesser importance. In particular, the psychoanalytic school of thought may have faded although the psychodynamic model of Freud, Klein and Winnicott remains central to psychotherapy and art psychotherapists.
It is probably better focus on what may be happening in psychology presently, rather than of hypothetical guesses about future directions. As far as I am aware, the physicalist model has a big sway over many thinkers, with great attention to the biological aspects of the brain, including genetics and neurotransmitters, especially in psychiatry.
In writing this thread my intention was to look at the way in which philosophy influences psychology and vice versa. It is likely that the philosophy of mind draws upon developments in psychology. I am interested in all of these areas, but keep an open mind to how this particular thread could develop, because it depends on who chooses to participate in the discussion.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
A couple of areas in the convergence between philosophy and psychology which I would like to explore are the nature of self and identity. Also, another aspect is the nature of perception in psychology and in relation to the philosophy of phenomenology. Nevertheless, the area in between psychology and philosophy is large, and I am willing to explore in conjunction with the interests of any who reply to the thread.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
I know that you are opposed to speculation but if both psychology and the philosophy are summed up in this way there would be no point in education and reading books at all. We might as well be machines or computers if everything which is speculation were to be dismissed on that basis.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
That's speculative fabrication.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 1:50 amI know that you are opposed to speculation but if both psychology and the philosophy are summed up in this way there would be no point in education and reading books at all. We might as well be machines or computers if everything which is speculation were to be dismissed on that basis.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
One aspect of the phenomenological aspect in between psychology and philosophy is spoken of by Michael Slote in his, 'Between Psychology: East and West' is the way in which in Western philosophy there has been an emphasis of mind in relation to the 'function in purely intellectual, rational or cognitive terms, without any emotion(al disposition). He argues that this misses out the role of plans and intentions. He suggests,JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 11th, 2022, 5:56 pm In my above post I may have appeared vague in my intentions for the thread. That is simply because sometimes I had clear wishes for how I would like some threads to develop, but it never happened. That was because in the interaction with the people who replied it became difficult to pursue particular directions.
A couple of areas in the convergence between philosophy and psychology which I would like to explore are the nature of self and identity. Also, another aspect is the nature of perception in psychology and in relation to the philosophy of phenomenology. Nevertheless, the area in between psychology and philosophy is large, and I am willing to explore in conjunction with the interests of any who reply to the thread.
'My own autobiographical phenomenology tells me that I never plan or intend to get coconut ice cream rather than cappuccino, even though I am at some level aware that I will always choose the coconut if both are available. To that extent, mere preference, like mere wishes, doesn't engage with the mind's cognitive apparatus the way desires do'.
Slote goes on to say, 'the so-called mind' may be most accurately be 'conceived as a heart-mind'. The author's understanding goes beyond the dualistic split which emerged in Western philosophy, which placed cognition 'in the head' and may be particularly important for understanding the complex nature of mood in relation to desires and wishes. This is significant for understanding the way in which thwarting of wishes affects wellbeing, in leading to clinical depression. So, while antidepressants may contribute to the maintenance of mood, the nature of wishes do need to be addressed too.
The cognitive model and recovery model in mental health do take this into account through an emphasis on enabling people to identify goals and aspirations to work with as a way of achieving a greater individual sense of wellbeing.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
- Ontology. The question "What is X?" and mechanically applying or even creating a definition, can often be done by a computer.
- Epistemology. A mechanical proof assistant can mechanically verify if the purported proof truly proves the theorem. Hence, machines can often verify justification (but rarely produce it).
- Logic migrated into a subdiscipline of mathematics a long time ago already, while verification in math revolves around mechanical procedures.
- Morality To the extent that a moral system is constructed from foundationalist rules, checking that a moral advisory necessarily follows from its foundations, could often be carried out by a computer.
Hence, entire subdivisions in philosophy are quite unrelated to psychology because they do not even require a human to be involved. There is simply no such thing as the psychology of a computer.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
Thanks for your reply and I welcome you to the forum. It does seem that the questions of philosophy, especially epistemology and logic cannot be reduced to psychology alone. Some of this may be what was described by Immanuel Kant as a priori logic.heracleitos wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 9:58 pm There are at least four important subdisciplines in philosophy that do not necessarily require a human to be involved:
- Ontology. The question "What is X?" and mechanically applying or even creating a definition, can often be done by a computer.
- Epistemology. A mechanical proof assistant can mechanically verify if the purported proof truly proves the theorem. Hence, machines can often verify justification (but rarely produce it).
- Logic migrated into a subdiscipline of mathematics a long time ago already, while verification in math revolves around mechanical procedures.
- Morality To the extent that a moral system is constructed from foundationalist rules, checking that a moral advisory necessarily follows from its foundations, could often be carried out by a computer.
Hence, entire subdivisions in philosophy are quite unrelated to psychology because they do not even require a human to be involved. There is simply no such thing as the psychology of a computer.
I guess that one question is whether a priori logic exists apart from the human minds which think it because there is no basis for knowledge of it apart from that which is realised by human consciousness. It is like the question as to whether a falling tree makes a source if there is no one to hear it.
Of course, it can be argued that the knowledge learned by human consciousness is independently of human consciousness and a basis could be that of Plato's theory of forms. Such a viewpoint does suggest an objective realm of ideas independently of the human mind.
In regard to your inclusion of morality as being outside of psychology, this is questionable. This is because it can be asked to what extent morality is rational or based on human values of specific human beings? Certain principles can be deduced by rationality and a computer may be able to come up with answers based on the information put into it. But, it would be different from the human approach because moral feeling would not come into play. People make moral choices on the basis of conscience, which includes internalised social norms. Also, another factor in morality is compassion and I am yet to meet a compassionate computer.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
Thanks!JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Thanks for your reply and I welcome you to the forum.
The basic rules of morality are themselves probably of biological or revealed origin or similar.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am In regard to your inclusion of morality as being outside of psychology, this is questionable. This is because it can be asked to what extent morality is rational or based on human values of specific human beings?
As I see it, the question what the basic rules of morality should be, is not a question in morality, but about morality. In my opinion, morality cannot answer questions about itself.
As far as I see it, morality a (boolean) predicate formula that accept as argument the description of a particular behavior. This predicate returns true if the behavior is moral. It returns false when it is immoral.
I think that the design of this predicate formula is not a question in morality but one about morality, which morality itself cannot answer.
In general, a predicate formula cannot output another predicate formula, because in that case it is not a predicate formula. A predicate formula is limited to returning true or false.
Yes. Agreed. That is what I understand by the term morality: deciding if the behavior described, is moral or not.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Certain principles can be deduced by rationality and a computer may be able to come up with answers based on the information put into it.
Where exactly we get the predicate formula from, must be decided by another field of inquiry.
In my opinion, deciding the morality of a behavior described should not involve emotions. What exactly would we achieve by doing that?JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Also, another factor in morality is compassion and I am yet to meet a compassionate computer.
Furthermore, there is no obligation to compassion. Nobody has a inalienable right to it. At the discretion of the person involved, he may grant mercy or not. In the end, it is still his prerogative.
For example, it is possible to waive the next month of rent for a tenant who is sick and in the hospital, but the contract may not grant the tenant such right. I do not believe that it is immoral to still demand payment of the rent, even in those circumstances.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
Your approach to morality is one which is according to the letter of the law. Of course, in many ways it is possible to take that approach. In the example of the tenant who has been sick and in hospital many landlords do stick to clauses in the contract. It is likely that many lost their accommodation through such circumstances, with Covid_19 or other problems, including the pandemic.heracleitos wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 11:37 pmThanks!JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Thanks for your reply and I welcome you to the forum.The basic rules of morality are themselves probably of biological or revealed origin or similar.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am In regard to your inclusion of morality as being outside of psychology, this is questionable. This is because it can be asked to what extent morality is rational or based on human values of specific human beings?
As I see it, the question what the basic rules of morality should be, is not a question in morality, but about morality. In my opinion, morality cannot answer questions about itself.
As far as I see it, morality a (boolean) predicate formula that accept as argument the description of a particular behavior. This predicate returns true if the behavior is moral. It returns false when it is immoral.
I think that the design of this predicate formula is not a question in morality but one about morality, which morality itself cannot answer.
In general, a predicate formula cannot output another predicate formula, because in that case it is not a predicate formula. A predicate formula is limited to returning true or false.Yes. Agreed. That is what I understand by the term morality: deciding if the behavior described, is moral or not.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Certain principles can be deduced by rationality and a computer may be able to come up with answers based on the information put into it.
Where exactly we get the predicate formula from, must be decided by another field of inquiry.In my opinion, deciding the morality of a behavior described should not involve emotions. What exactly would we achieve by doing that?JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 4:08 am Also, another factor in morality is compassion and I am yet to meet a compassionate computer.
Furthermore, there is no obligation to compassion. Nobody has a inalienable right to it. At the discretion of the person involved, he may grant mercy or not. In the end, it is still his prerogative.
For example, it is possible to waive the next month of rent for a tenant who is sick and in the hospital, but the contract may not grant the tenant such right. I do not believe that it is immoral to still demand payment of the rent, even in those circumstances.
But, some landlords may take a different approach. I once knew a landlord who kept a person's room for 6 months while a the person was in prison for shoplifting.But, in this thread I am not trying to make any prescriptive judgements but wish to look at the interplay between philosophy and psychology..
From a psychological perspective, empathy may take place within a person to enable them to see the other's predicament and pain. For example, there could be some understanding of a person's background, such as traumas a person has been through. Each individual in life situations comes from their own understanding of psychology, whether through academic knowledge or experience in the world. This psychological perspective is in conjunction with a philosophy of morality or moral action. In life, understanding of psychology and philosophy inform any individual' s approach to ethics, especially in the area of values for approaching the various situations which confront them. The two work together dynamically and some individuals are more able to explain consciously the basis of their own approaches than others. It is more about philosophy and psychology as the two strands of Socrates' idea of 'the examined life.'
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8384
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
Psychology is dreadfully damaged (IMO) by its efforts to present itself as a 'science', maybe in order to gain status, credibility, finance, or sponsorship. But let's assume it is a 'science'.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 14th, 2022, 12:16 am In this thread I am not trying to make any prescriptive judgements but wish to look at the interplay between philosophy and psychology.
What we need is the philosophical equivalent of psychology, and I don't think there is one. We need a 'school' of philosophy that focusses on the human mind, of itself, and in its interactions with other human minds, and with life, the universe and everything else too. But from a philosophical perspective, of course, to complement the scientific perspective taken by psychology. I'm thinking here of analytic philosophy, and the common ground it shares with science.
I expect this is one of those sundry topics that is dropped into the bin marked "metaphysics"?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
What is philosophy? What is psychology? What is morality? Clearly what you conceive those terms to denote and imply will determine what questions you ask and what you count as answers to those questions.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3288
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
There is an overlap between the two areas and I have always found this interesting, as soon as I found the two sections in the library. Some people seem to gravitate more towards psychology and some more to philosophy. It may be about the balance between finding individual meaning or looking for answers beyond this. It is complex because each person has individual leaning in finding explanations but rational basis of understanding in philosophy is important too. These aspects can be looked at consciously rather than just being underlying tendencies.GE Morton wrote: ↑April 15th, 2022, 12:57 pm An interesting discussion, especially the divergence of answers to such questions as,
What is philosophy? What is psychology? What is morality? Clearly what you conceive those terms to denote and imply will determine what questions you ask and what you count as answers to those questions.
Here, the questions asked are important and can be about understanding personal values or looking for ideas which go beyond the personal. It may be important to separate philosophy and psychology as a way of disentangling individual biases. On the other hand, even though philosophy may be about looking be looking beyond the personal meanings, with a view to an objective basis for explanations. It is likely that both the psychological and philosophical provide a basis for understanding but psychology points to a way of being aware of the aspects which of individual significance, especially moral values, or political ones. Awareness of these personal aspects may be important as a starting point for philosophical awareness, with the psychological involving awareness of what matters personally as a basis for critical thinking. Understanding subjective meaning and values is a way of being aware of the basis on which one begins to approach the philosophy questions.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023