Psychology foundation

Can philosophers help resolve the real problems that people have in their lives?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

HexHammer
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by HexHammer » Sun Nov 09, 2014 9:29 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:What you missed is that there are others who may miss what the internet offers about the Milgram experiment.
LOL? ..now you are just being pathetic!

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:01 pm

Gee wrote:It is true that science can not with any accuracy state where the mind is located, what it is made up of, or even prove that it exists, so of course, they would consider study of the mind as a soft science. What amazes me is that science does not seem to have any problem with using this 'soft science mind' to create and test their 'hard science'. That always gives me a chuckle.
I too enjoyed this bit, as I've noticed, for quite some time now, (an argument with Chaz Wyman back in 2011), how many arguments actually undermine themselves. Many people don't realize this, it would surely seem, as they stand on, what they believe is solid ground, only to site that which also serves to disprove itself.

A mind that can't decide what a mind is, yet it can decide that it can't, and that all other things are indeed what it decides! ;)

Poetic, no?

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by WanderingLands » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:07 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Should one be well versed in psychology before doing philosophical counseling? Also what forms of philosophy would be most suitable for counseling purposes?

PhilX
Both should be studied; it doesn't matter what specialized field you're in, as they both supplant one another with their ideas.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:46 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:What you missed is that there are others who may miss what the internet offers about the Milgram experiment.
LOL? ..now you are just being pathetic!
Talk about being pathetic. I can't throw pity towards one who has no regard for its fellow members, placing himself on a pedestal from which to rain down its insults on its fellow members. It even tries to communicate with its fellow members using poor grammar and misspelled words, when it only accomplishes the opposite purpose. I would say, at the very least, it should try to get itself a FREE spellchecker to raise itself up a step on its pedestal so at least others can understand what it's saying (being from another country such as Denmark is no excuse and it can still do much better).

PhilX

HexHammer
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by HexHammer » Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:17 pm

Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:04 am

HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
Look in the mirror when you say that (I don't know of any other forums that would tolerate what pours out of your mouth and trying to tell me what to do won't work here).

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:11 am

WanderingLands wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Should one be well versed in psychology before doing philosophical counseling? Also what forms of philosophy would be most suitable for counseling purposes?

PhilX
Both should be studied; it doesn't matter what specialized field you're in, as they both supplant one another with their ideas.
Are you saying there isn't any field of study that wouldn't relate here?

PhilX

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:17 am

HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
He said as he finally caught a glimpse of his true reflection in the mirror, though he shall never shut up; diarrhea, just works that way.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:11 am

HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
That's what HH said.

This shows he's lying:

"Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).

Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentOh still being the complete retard, you found it regardless of bad spelling, only showing that you don't comprehend the nature of relevance.

Even if you read the whole of Milgram Experiment on wiki you will not grasp the nature of it, as the wiki article is very incomplete and retards like yourself won't comprehends such deep things."

And I don't shut up for anybody including those who have diarrhea of the mouth.

PhilX

HexHammer
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by HexHammer » Mon Nov 10, 2014 3:41 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
That's what HH said.

This shows he's lying:

"Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).

Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentOh still being the complete retard, you found it regardless of bad spelling, only showing that you don't comprehend the nature of relevance.

Even if you read the whole of Milgram Experiment on wiki you will not grasp the nature of it, as the wiki article is very incomplete and retards like yourself won't comprehends such deep things."

And I don't shut up for anybody including those who have diarrhea of the mouth.
Lies and manipulation, the only thing you can do mr Retard, you just love to derail your own threads with all your irrelevant nonsense as usual!
Philosophy Explorer wrote:I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).

Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Even when you try your hardest you always fail, you can't help insulting left and right.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4441
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:05 am

HexHammer wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
That's what HH said.

This shows he's lying:

"Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).

Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentOh still being the complete retard, you found it regardless of bad spelling, only showing that you don't comprehend the nature of relevance.

Even if you read the whole of Milgram Experiment on wiki you will not grasp the nature of it, as the wiki article is very incomplete and retards like yourself won't comprehends such deep things."

And I don't shut up for anybody including those who have diarrhea of the mouth.
Lies and manipulation, the only thing you can do mr Retard, you just love to derail your own threads with all your irrelevant nonsense as usual!
Philosophy Explorer wrote:I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).

Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Even when you try your hardest you always fail, you can't help insulting left and right.
Well the master of the insult let some more diarrhea out of his mouth.

You should check that mirror. Everything you've said about me is a reflection of you.

PhilX

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Gee » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:39 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Gee wrote:It is true that science can not with any accuracy state where the mind is located, what it is made up of, or even prove that it exists, so of course, they would consider study of the mind as a soft science. What amazes me is that science does not seem to have any problem with using this 'soft science mind' to create and test their 'hard science'. That always gives me a chuckle.
I too enjoyed this bit, as I've noticed, for quite some time now, (an argument with Chaz Wyman back in 2011), how many arguments actually undermine themselves. Many people don't realize this, it would surely seem, as they stand on, what they believe is solid ground, only to site that which also serves to disprove itself.

A mind that can't decide what a mind is, yet it can decide that it can't, and that all other things are indeed what it decides! ;)

Poetic, no?
Spheres;

Well, I don't think that I would call it "poetic", more like damned funny, but at least you got the joke.

Sometimes I like to go to a Science forum and see what passes for logic in their Philosophy section. It can be very entertaining, if one does not take it too seriously.

Ginkgo;

Regarding my same above quote, you missed the joke. Lighten up and have some fun. I know you have a sense of humor.

Gee

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Gee » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:04 am

Skip wrote:
Gee - Some of the philosophical counselors use the Socratic Method to help people find truth, and it is true that the Socratic Method is very much like Freud's analysis. But again, a person can lead you to a place where you need to go with their questions, or they can lead you to a place where they want you to go. Some of the people also thought that the Socratic ideas of virtue and integrity were of value, but again, this could lead to something close to a religious ethic.
Ah! I didn't know about that. I can see some point to it. In an era of so many contradictions and sources of propaganda, having a single coherent world-view whereby one could set a standard of judgment and a basis for decisions, might be useful. (See how happy the Libertarians are!) Even more useful would be to lead confused people to some central principles they themselves believe; that would bolster their self-awareness and identity.
I can see a lot of value in it. The fact that they are so interested in Socratic ideas is the best part of this concept. What I can not see is the practical realities of distributing this idea -- the venue.

If you look at the Wiki link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_counseling, what you will find is that they want people with Doctorates or at least Masters degrees in Philosophy. So this means two things: first, they want people who have been trained by Universities in academic philosophy, and second, they want people who have a lot of debt to pay for those degrees. Then if you add psychology and a license for the psychologist, you have even more debt.

So what kind of venue would allow these people to distribute their knowledge and also keep them from starving? If they worked mostly with world leaders and the wealthy, then they could make a living. They would be very much like the advisers to Kings that existed in the old days. If on the other hand, they worked for the common people, then they would have to reach a lot of people in order to keep from starving. They would not be able to personalize their 'counseling' when trying to reach a large volume, so the 'psychological' aspect of this counseling would not work.

In the East, they have resolved the above problems by incorporating their philosophies into their religions which are also very accommodating with regard to psychology. The donations to their religion support their 'philosophical' teachers. But the East also has a respect for wisdom that the West does not have.

In the West, as soon as someone gets old enough to have some wisdom, we retire them to Florida or Arizona, unless they have health problems, then we send them to a 'home'. (chuckle) So we do our very best to insure that anyone with life experience that could provide us with a realistic view of reality is kept away from us, so that we can enjoy our delusional lies.

A person with a degree in philosophy will play hell even trying to find work, unless s/he can teach philosophy, and there aren't that many positions open. So we take our best minds and our wisest people and push them away from us with both hands, then wonder why we are so confused. We seriously need a back to basic reality kind of philosophy, but I don't see how it is going to work.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: Addressing you [Gee] specifically, and others as well. Are there any major colleges and universities that offer courses on philosophical counseling? Do you think it would be helpful to set standards to avoid corruption? Or do you think we risk limiting our freedom to explore and investigate by setting such standards? Do you have any ideas what the standards should be?
I don't know much about it, as I said, I had never heard of philosophical counseling before reading this thread. But I did hear some gossip about universities cutting philosophy altogether, so it does not look good. Getting a degree in philosophy does not necessarily translate to finding work in philosophy.

I suspect that initially, if this gets going, it will be self-regulating. An outside authority will only get involved if there is a reason, or if someone finds a way to make a profit.
Skip wrote: I can't imagine an authority competent to make those limiting decisions and set those conditions without prejudice. I say, leave it alone to evolve if it's viable, die if it's not. There is little enough creative exploration going in these days!
Agreed. Most of the really good philosophers that we have now, who can reach the general public, are comedians. Comedians show us what is real and make us laugh at ourselves, so they reach a wide range of people without ever letting us know that they are philosophers, who are teaching us about ourselves and reality.

The last person that I know of, who was widely respected by common people in the West, and who was also considered a philosopher, was Will Rogers. He was a businessman, but also wrote a column in newspapers, so that was his venue to reach the public. He also worked in vaudeville, so he understood comedy. Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Rogers

When I first started at this forum, I thought that Philosophy Now might be a magazine that dealt more with the realities of philosophy now, but from the articles that I have seen, it seems to be a little bit too academic for my tastes. But then, I have never read the magazine, so I could very well be wrong. I am going to have to order it.

Gee

Skip
Posts: 2224
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by Skip » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:17 am

Gee -
So what kind of venue would allow these people to distribute their knowledge and also keep them from starving?
I see the problem. The people who could benefit most - students; minds still forming; youth without too many axes as yet to grind - wouldn't have access. World leaders and business magnates might make a show of attending seminars, but do it without any intention of changing their views. About the only thing they might gain is improved spin - a more impressive language in which to frame their same old agenda.

Now, if the method were introduced to guidance counsellor in middle school, maybe....

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Psychology foundation

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:18 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
HexHammer wrote:Dear retard, just shut up then I won't say anything negative that makes you whine, or go elsewhere! There are plenty of forums that allows retards like you to pour out prolific nonsense and babble.
That's what HH said.

This shows he's lying:

"Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I found a Wiki link on the Milgram experiment (I had pointed out the importance of spelling before. Even if the spellchecker does point out that the additional L is wrong, one would strengthen his position by using the right spelling).

Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentOh still being the complete retard, you found it regardless of bad spelling, only showing that you don't comprehend the nature of relevance.

Even if you read the whole of Milgram Experiment on wiki you will not grasp the nature of it, as the wiki article is very incomplete and retards like yourself won't comprehends such deep things."

And I don't shut up for anybody including those who have diarrhea of the mouth.

PhilX
I was in fact aiming my commentary at HH, though I sometimes come off otherwise. In other words, sometimes it's hard to tell if I'm being rhetorical, metaphorical, sarcastic, using reverse psychology, being straight, playing devils advocate, etc, etc, etc.

I really believe that HH would be better served if he stopped the name calling like a 2nd grader, and that all others would be better served if they didn't let him get to them.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests