There is one: Philosophy of MindPattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 15th, 2022, 8:00 am What we need is the philosophical equivalent of psychology, and I don't think there is one.
Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
-
- 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?
Desires and preferences (which are ordered desires) only "engage the cognitive apparatus" when the means of securing them is not ready at hand and presents difficulties, obstacles which must be overcome.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 7:53 am
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,
'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'.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
It is true that there is a tendency for psychologists to argue for psychology as a science, giving it rigour alongside the hard, physical sciences. That was the main reason why I chose not to study psychology as a main subject at university, because doing 'A' level had been a letdown. There are some courses which may offer a more integrated approach, drawing upon the inbetween areas. Nevertheless, I have met many people who studied psychology at degree level and beyond in recent years and it does seem that most of them had not done courses which embraced the full spectrum of possibilities.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 15th, 2022, 8:00 amPsychology 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"?
There is an evidence-based practice in psychology and I was introduced to this in psychology within mental health nursing. Of course, it is important to look at what interventions work or do not work. However, some evidenxe-based approaches can be about citing references in a superficial way. Also, the use of evidence can be used as a way of supporting cost effectiveness. In particular, psychotherapy availability is in decline because it is hard to measure outcomes but also cheaper, short term interventions are offered.
In some ways, psychoanalytic therapy does give more attention to introspective reflection. Cognitive behavioral therapy can do so if the emphasis is on cognition rather than simply behaviour.
One school of thought which does draw together psychology and philosophy is transpersonal approaches. One writer who is influential is Ken Wilber and he speaks of the flatness of many aspects of psychology. Another important writer is Thomas Moore whose books include one called 'Care of the Soul' and 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. The only reason why I came across it was a 1 day workshop on it was given when I was studying art therapy. I found the approach to be inspiring and do read in this direction. However, I have mentioned it to a number of people who were training to be clinical psychologists and very few were familiar with it.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
It does seem that difficulties in fulfilling desires, especially obstacles seem to be the starting point for beginning to exercise cognition. For this reason, it is likely that those who have suffered rejection and failure seem to go deeper in thinking. I have found that such experiences make me question and look from different angles. The art may be about not allowing the spirit to be broken by difficulties, which may not be easy sometimes if too many are experienced or these occur repeatedly. Of course, most people prefer to have minimal frustrations of goals and desires, but if they have more conflicts it can lead down the philosophy paths and enable the development of resilience.GE Morton wrote: ↑April 15th, 2022, 10:48 pmDesires and preferences (which are ordered desires) only "engage the cognitive apparatus" when the means of securing them is not ready at hand and presents difficulties, obstacles which must be overcome.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 7:53 am
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,
'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'.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- 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?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 15th, 2022, 8:00 am What we need is the philosophical equivalent of psychology, and I don't think there is one.
Oh, I didn't realise that philosophy of the Mind was that broad in its scope. ☺
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
Philosophy of mind is philosophical psychology.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 8:55 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 15th, 2022, 8:00 am What we need is the philosophical equivalent of psychology, and I don't think there is one.Oh, I didn't realise that philosophy of the Mind was that broad in its scope. ☺
Footnote: There is a (nonsharp) distinction between philosophical psychology and the philosophy of psychology. The former is part of metaphysics, and the latter is part of the philosophy of science.
See e.g.: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Psychology
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
Also recommendable: Philosophy of Mind in the Twentieth and Twenty-First CenturiesConsul wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:29 amSee e.g.: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Psychology
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- 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?
Consul wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:29 amPhilosophy of mind is philosophical psychology.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 8:55 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 15th, 2022, 8:00 am What we need is the philosophical equivalent of psychology, and I don't think there is one.Oh, I didn't realise that philosophy of the Mind was that broad in its scope. ☺
Footnote: There is a (nonsharp) distinction between philosophical psychology and the philosophy of psychology. The former is part of metaphysics, and the latter is part of the philosophy of science.
See e.g.: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Psychology
Thanks. The latter link is more (and better) than I expected, but still a little dry and, er, scientific.Consul wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:31 am Also recommendable: Philosophy of Mind in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries
Shouldn't "philosophical psychology" - a "part of metaphysics" - have a more human note? Or is that me being daft?
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
"Philosophy of psychology and philosophy of mind
In order to fix more clearly what the philosophy of psychology is, it will be useful to explain how I see it differing from the philosophy of mind. This is not an area in which it is possible to draw a sharp dividing line since both branches of philosophy are obviously concerned with the mind in a broad sense. Yet they are concerned with the mind in different ways, and the differences are differences of substance rather than emphasis, even though, as one would expect, the two branches of philosophy are deeply complementary.
Many of the issues that dominate the philosophy of mind have to do with the metaphysics of the mind – with how we are to categorize the mind and its states in ontological terms. Textbooks and courses in the philosophy of mind typically begin by discussing the attractions and drawbacks of dualism and then go on to discuss the alternatives to dualism that have been canvassed in the philosophical literature – various forms of the identity theory, functionalism, eliminative materialism, and so on. Discussion then typically moves on to how, if at all, it is possible for the mind to have a causal impact on the world. Again the emphasis is primarily metaphysical. The point at issue is how the mind fits into the world. Other central problems and topics in the philosophy of mind have a more epistemological dimension, most obviously the problem of other minds (the problem of explaining the grounds of our beliefs about the mental states of other people) but also the problem of explaining the distinctive character of our access to the contents of our own minds.
In contrast to these metaphysical and epistemological preoccupations the concerns of the philosophy of psychology are more directly focused on the activity of cognition and on the explanation of behavior. How does cognition take place? What sort of representations does it involve? How should we understand transitions between those representations? How, if at all, are they subject to criteria of rationality? Is a particular type of cognitive architecture required for cognition? Can we make any inferences from the nature and structure of high-level conscious thought to the nature and mechanisms of the psychological mechanisms that underpin it? These are typical questions in the philosophy of psychology that will recur throughout this book and that are clearly distinct from the metaphysical and epistemological questions predominating in the philosophy of mind.
Whatever position one takes on the details of dividing up the intellectual terrain between the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of psychology (and different authors will do it in different ways), it seems clear that there is a broad methodological divergence between the two branches. This divergence concerns the scope for interdisciplinarity. To the extent that the guiding problems in the philosophy of mind are metaphysical and epistemological in nature, there will be little need in tackling them to go into much empirical detail. So, for example, no amount of neurophysiological and neuropsychological research establishing neural correlates for conscious personal-level psychological states could possibly entail the truth of the claim that psychological states are identical to brain states. The existence of correlations between mental states and brain states is compatible with every position on the metaphysical nature of those states, and nothing that one might say about the metaphysics of the mind is empirically refutable. No self-respecting dualist would want to rule out the possibility, for example, that there might be neural correlates for non-physical mental states. Indeed, the most plausible contemporary version of dualism, the property dualism propounded by David Chalmers, incorporates a program for studying the physical correlates and counterparts of non-physical phenomenal properties (Chalmers 1996).
In summary, then, the philosophy of psychology (as I understand it and as I will be presenting it in this book) differs from the philosophy of mind in two basic ways (although we should view these differences as shifting positions relative to each other on a continuum, rather than as sharp qualitative distinctions). First, the philosophy of psychology is concerned primarily with the nature and mechanisms of cognition, rather than with the metaphysics and epistemology of the mind. Second, and as a direct consequence of the previous point, the philosophy of psychology lacks the insulation from scientific research and concerns that more traditional debates in the philosophy of mind possess in virtue of their metaphysical and epistemological dimension."
(Bermúdez, José Luis. Philosophy of Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2005. pp. 13-5)
<QUOTE
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
What do you mean by "human note"? Anthropocentrism?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:37 amShouldn't "philosophical psychology" - a "part of metaphysics" - have a more human note? Or is that me being daft?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- 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?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:37 amShouldn't "philosophical psychology" - a "part of metaphysics" - have a more human note? Or is that me being daft?
No, "anthropocentrism" sounds very scientific; clinical. I meant something more ... human. Something more connected with emotional and irrational social apes. You know the sort of thing.
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
1. behavior & action (ethology/praxeology)
2. cognition & intelligence (cognitive science or "noesiology", as I call it—from Greek "noesis")
2. consciousness & experience (phenomenology or "empiriology", as I call it—not to be confused with empiricism!)
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
The first time I began thinking about the nature of consciousness was reading the writing of the behaviourist psychologist, B F Skinner, mainly, 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity'. Skinner's philosophy and ideas on free will had a big impact on both psychological theory and the philosophy of mind. The ideas of Daniel Dennett seem to relate to the queries about the mind raised by Skinner, especially the idea of consciousness being an illusion.Consul wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:52 am Both philosophical and scientific psychology is about and deals with
1. behavior & action (ethology/praxeology)
2. cognition & intelligence (cognitive science or "noesiology", as I call it—from Greek "noesis")
2. consciousness & experience (phenomenology or "empiriology", as I call it—not to be confused with empiricism!)
One writer who also explores such ideas is Stephen Pinker, including his book, 'The Stuff of Thought'.His focus on language is important. He says the following:
'Like other alternations, possessor-raising involves a conceptual gestalt shift, in this case between construing a person as a kind of material soul who possesses his body parts (cut Brian's arm), and constuing him as an incarnate hunk that is his body parts (cut Brian)... The mind-body dualism here is made plain when you try to use the construction with insensate objects rather than bodies. You can't say The puppy bit the table on the leg. Sam touched the library on the window, or A rock hit the house on the roof, because unlike bodies, the objects are not thought to be endowed with a unified sentience that permeates every part.'
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Philosophy and Psychology as Twins: Where is this Relationship Heading in the Twentieth First Century?
Some of the writing on philosophical psychology can be a bit dry and that is because it is theory based. It can be hard to look at theory and models in such a way as to make it come to life. Apart from writers like Dennett, who is popular in the field of writing on consciousness, it may be that the area between philosophy and psychology doesn't appeal to many readers. This could be because many approach psychology more from the angle of wishing to understand practical aspects of human life rather than about human nature itself. Within psychology the philosophy of mind may be seen by some as being a little obscure and esoteric. That may be why the philosophy of mind often remains in philosophy rather than being a focus in psychology itself. However, all psychologies begin from premises about mind, including the psychoanalysts on consciousness and the unconscious or Abraham Maslow's understanding of motivation and human nature. The cognitive behavioral thinkers also begin from the premises of the way in which beliefs affect human emotions and behaviour. The dialogue between philosophy and psychology may be important for opening up ways of thinking about humans and consciousness in a deeper way.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:37 amConsul wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:29 amPhilosophy of mind is philosophical psychology.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 8:55 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 15th, 2022, 8:00 am What we need is the philosophical equivalent of psychology, and I don't think there is one.Oh, I didn't realise that philosophy of the Mind was that broad in its scope. ☺
Footnote: There is a (nonsharp) distinction between philosophical psychology and the philosophy of psychology. The former is part of metaphysics, and the latter is part of the philosophy of science.
See e.g.: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of PsychologyThanks. The latter link is more (and better) than I expected, but still a little dry and, er, scientific.Consul wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:31 am Also recommendable: Philosophy of Mind in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries
Shouldn't "philosophical psychology" - a "part of metaphysics" - have a more human note? Or is that me being daft?
-
- 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?
Others conflate the two.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 15th, 2022, 7:49 pmThere 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.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.
There seems to be two broad approaches to all three of the questions I posed above (What is philosophy? What is psychology? What is morality?) --- an introspective approach and an extrospective one. For the former the motivation is the Socratic admonition to "Know thyself." For the latter, it is to know the universe, which includes oneself, of course, but only as one element among the vast manifold of phenomena that is the universe. So a priority question arises: Can one know thyself without first knowing something of the universe? Or can one know anything about the universe if one doesn't know thyself?
That difference in approaches leads to differences in focus, which are reflected in the two "branches" of psychology, the theoretical branch and the therapeutic branch. The former seeks general rules --- "laws" --- governing and explaining animal behavior. Because those laws must be general, they must also be objective, supported by publicly verifiable empirical evidence. The therapeutic branch, on the other hand, is concerned solving some particular problem expressed or exhibited by a particular individual, and so must delve into the subjective world of that individual; the general laws proposed by the theoreticians are never sufficient to solve the present, individual problem. But that presents problems of its own -- because that world is subjective it is not accessible to therapist. He can only make inferences about it from the subject's behavior, which inferences will be strongly influenced by the therapist's own psychological makeup. As a result "psychological" (as opposed to pharmacological) therapies are ineffective for most patients.*
* Success rates vary with the type of problem treated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/
Psychological therapies are more efficacious in treating depression than than for many other problems. Nonethless, "It is of concern that half of all patients, regardless of type of intervention, did not show reliable improvement."
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com ... 017-1370-7
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