Most of us who work in some aspect of philosophy have had the experience of trying to explain to someone that philosophy is not psychology. For those members of the philosophical set, this distinction may seem obvious, but any attempt to describe it requires some careful thought and reflection, which I am trying to do in this exercise.
Is psychology a brother of philosophy? Of course, in the past they were close brothers and sisters, members of the same family, philosophy. Today, the relationship between them is more problematic. Does philosophy have any relation to the student’s psychological state? The answer is also not clear. Philosophy can help a person psychologically, but this is not the central element of the function of philosophy.
Some story:
Historically, in Western philosophy, psychology was part of philosophy until the nineteenth century, when it became a separate science. In the 17th and 18th centuries, many Western philosophers did innovative work in areas that later became known as “psychology”. Sometimes psychological research and research have become separate sciences, some of which can be described as the study and study of the mind. In short, psychology began to identify itself as a science of the mind, because its function is to analyze and explain mental processes: our thoughts, experiences, sensations, feelings, perceptions, fantasies, creativity, dreams, etc. This is mainly an empirical and experimental science; despite the field of psychology, it includes a more theoretical Freudian psychology and a more speculative Jungian psychology.
When we study Western philosophy, we find concerted efforts to preserve the distinction between philosophical and psychological considerations. But they are not always saved separately. Even today, some areas of philosophy remain mixed with psychological considerations. Perhaps some forms of philosophy can never completely separate from psychological problems.
,
Traditionally, the philosophers of the Western tradition did not always observe the wall of separation of philosophy and psychology. For example, the great work of Baruch Spinoza, Ethics , includes many observations and understanding of our judicious processes and emotions. Early works in epistemology (the theory of knowledge) by thinkers such as René Descartes, John Locke, David Hume and Immanuel Kant include many remarks and statements about the mental processes associated with knowledge and persuasion. In other words, these essays, as a rule, mix psychological statements (cognitive process) with conceptual philosophy.
But there are differences between psychology and philosophy, which are significant and must be observed with careful writing in any field. In our criticism of these 17th and 18th works in epistemology, we try to separate the philosophical theme (logical, conceptual and propositional evaluation) from the psychological aspect (the reason for faith, the mental process underlying perception). Scientific work that seeks to understand and explain the work of the brain and the neurological processes that underlie thought and experience (namely, psychology) differs from philosophical research in consciousness, consciousness, knowledge and experience. Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, makes great efforts to separate his philosophy from empirical psychology. But it is not clear that his analysis (or other analyzes) of the phenomenology of various experiences remains something completely different from psychology.
But to a large extent, the problem remains, especially in such areas of the philosophy of mind, that philosophical work is completely free from psychology. Moreover, we should not assume that in all cases they should be separated, since some works in philosophy will necessarily require consideration of the psychological sciences.
Even today, a student will probably be surprised by the amount of psychological ideas Spinoza offers in this wonderful work, Ethics , back in the 17th century and similar psychological observations of Friedrich Nietzsche in the XIX century. William James, the great American pragmatist, incorporates a lot of psychology in his philosophy. He can say a lot about the stream of consciousness and special experiences, such as religious experiences.
Actual problems:
Philosophy of mind: there is a sense in which the mind is a psychological construct; there is another meaning in which it is not. “My consciousness is such and such” can be reformulated as “my thinking is such and such.” Sometimes it is the psychology behind my thinking that is the problem; but in other cases we are interested in what can be called conceptual-propositional issues; and in other cases we might be more interested in the literary and artistic expression of ideas, values and perspectives. (In connection with this connection, see Walter Kaufman’s Book, Mind Detection .)
In epistemology we deal with the concept of knowledge; but our main interest is not in the description of the psychology of knowledge. Our interest is not in the process in which we learn something, but in explaining concepts related to knowledge and beliefs; and in the logic of knowledge-related propositions. Philosophers involved in the philosophy of knowledge include Bertrand Russell, D.V. Hamlin, and Richard Rorty.
In the field of academic philosophy, including a large area of epistemology, we have a philosophy of mind, a theory of consciousness, a philosophy of language, Cartesian idealism and free will. Usually they are not considered as forms of psychological research. They focus on conceptual and propositional problems. Among the philosophers who study knowledge, language and reason in this vein are Ludwig Wittgenstein, Gilbert Ryle, D.V. Hamlin, John Austen and Daniel Dennett
But psychology is very important in those philosophical studies of special experience, like religious experience, mystical experience, and even moral experience. A good representative of this approach is the great American pragmatist William James. Most of his work in philosophy does not go too far from his psychological interests.
Some aspects of philosophy are related to the nature of human thought. This interest is different from psychological research, description, and theory. But to be adequate and reliable, it is necessary to take into account the work of psychologists and cognitive scientists. The theme of human thinking is a big topic that can be approached from all sides. One of them is philosophy; the other is psychology and cognitive science. Still others - literary art, visual art and history.
Suppose I ask about Spinoza's thought about moral obligation; How does he defend the thesis that morality and rationality are closely intertwined? Being a student of philosophy, my interests can be exclusively philosophical interests. I want to know how he develops and defends his philosophical thesis. On the other hand, I would be interested to learn about the causes of Spinoza’s thought; or perhaps interested in possible motives that he could accept to adopt his particular philosophy. What events in his childhood or family life led him to realize the values of rationality and the ideals of the geometric method? In this case, I will act as an amateur, a national psychologist.
There are different ways to understand the thought of a person, for example, a writer or a philosopher. We take one path when we ask about the causes and motives of a person’s ideas; those. we ask about psychological actions. Another way is philosophical criticism and evaluation of human ideas. But two (psychology and philosophy) can be combined in one study.
Philosophy and psychological well-being of a person:
Another way to consider the interaction of psychology and philosophy is on a personal level. Does meditation on man's philosophical questions (or approximates) some degree of mental harmony? To the extent that philosophical work and thought contribute to the feeling of well-being and satisfaction of a person, it can be argued that philosophy is a form of therapy. Does it make sense that philosophy can be therapeutic?
If an unexplored life is not worth living (Socrates), then this may mean that the studied life (“philosophical life”) is worth it. This can be regarded as the assumption that philosophical thought leads to a form of personal satisfaction and good psychological health.
Contrary to this, we have an idea (mainly the prevailing opinion) that philosophy is an intellectual discipline, which has little or no connection with the fact that someone seeks to achieve some form of personal, mental fulfillment. Add to this the fact that most people who work in philosophy (for example, academic philosophers or professors of philosophy) do not pay much attention to the life of mental well-being. In this regard, think about people like Blaise Pascal, S. Kierkegaard, F. Nietzsche and Ludwig Wittgenstein. How psychologically healthy and well balanced are they? They are emotionally and morally tormented and will not be referred to as models of mental calmness and well-being. Moreover, some philosophers are forced to pursue philosophy, as artists, poets and composers are forced to do their creative work. Here we have a form of psychological coercion that does not seem to be a form of therapy. In fact, some people even treat philosophy as a type of disease.
Final thoughts:
A student of philosophy is usually not a psychologist, but nothing says that a student cannot act as a psychologist. I imagine situations in which we try to understand our thoughts and values; and try to be honest about our motives for everything we do. People used to say back in the 1960s: I’m just trying to get my head straight.
Suppose a psychologist can tell me about the causes, mental processes and ulterior motives that underlie my thinking and behavior. He could say that in order to truly understand what I am, I must have some understanding of these “psychological” things; those. I have to recognize and expose them. If I accepted his advice and tried to do this, would I act in accordance with Socrates to “know myself”?
The professional is engaged in empirical, descriptive psychology and the study of neurological and psychological processes. But we, amateurs, first of all indulge in the form of folk psychology: we try to say what I think about my own thinking. Or try to better cope with my spiritual life. Sometimes I use this psychology. (I try to find out what I mean) or others (I try to understand their motives to say such and such and such).
At a more practical level, we can imagine that someone asks: “What do I really want in life? How do I get there? ”Can philosophy help us here? Maybe not, but then again we will think about our two great figures in Western Philosophy, Socrates and Spinoza. They are often called models of psychological harmony and wisdom. After all, aren't we all psychologists to some extent, even those of us who are deceiving philosophy? Yes, we are to some extent psychologists. because we are awake, fighting, faithfully and honestly doing self-analysis. It does not need to be separated from our work in philosophy.
