Philosophy Now Forum

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

PhilX

That depends.
What is philosophical counselling intended to accomplish? And how is it supposed to work? What does the counsellor do and who consults him, for what reason?

It seems this is a new field that few, if any, know enough to say anything about it.

Normally when one goes for (psychological) counseling, it's to help deal with a personal problem. With philosophy, what would be the problem(s) involved? A guidance counselor at a school/college would advise the individual about what would be recommended for him/her. Beyond that, why would anyone go for philosophical counseling?

PhilX

It's always good to know psychology, eventually humans will be involved in the end result, I don't really know of any project that doesn't involve humans in one way or other.

..but why would anyone reasonable intelligent waste time on philosophical counseling? Philosophy is outdated, deal with it!

HexHammer wrote:It's always good to know psychology, eventually humans will be involved in the end result, I don't really know of any project that doesn't involve humans in one way or other.

..but why would anyone reasonable intelligent waste time on philosophical counseling? Philosophy is outdated, deal with it!

Psychology is largely a "soft science" because it deals with the human mind. Science is making steady progress when it comes to understanding such things such as consciousness. Until all the work is eventually finalized at some stage well into the future, philosophy will be relevant for a while to come.

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:It's always good to know psychology, eventually humans will be involved in the end result, I don't really know of any project that doesn't involve humans in one way or other.

..but why would anyone reasonable intelligent waste time on philosophical counseling? Philosophy is outdated, deal with it!

Psychology is largely a "soft science" because it deals with the human mind. Science is making steady progress when it comes to understanding such things such as consciousness. Until all the work is eventually finalized at some stage well into the future, philosophy will be relevant for a while to come.

I'm not sure that you really grasp the power of psychology, then tell me about the Millgram Experiment.
Tell me what is the dangerous aspect of "groupthink"!?
What is hysterical pregnancy?

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

PhilX

HexHammer wrote:It's always good to know psychology, eventually humans will be involved in the end result, I don't really know of any project that doesn't involve humans in one way or other.

..but why would anyone reasonable intelligent waste time on philosophical counseling? Philosophy is outdated, deal with it!

Yet you just proved that it's not!

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

Oh 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.

HexHammer wrote:

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

Oh 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.

Because HH is clairvoyant, and knows all; a real guru. He's always trying to goad, simultaneously stroking his hammer, validation the prize he seeks.

Ignore the unqualified, be secure in yourself, as surely to live so as to be boosted, at anothers expense, could only be the long bygone conclusion, of a much more wiser human, one that truly understands philosophy.

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:It's always good to know psychology, eventually humans will be involved in the end result, I don't really know of any project that doesn't involve humans in one way or other.

..but why would anyone reasonable intelligent waste time on philosophical counseling? Philosophy is outdated, deal with it!

Psychology is largely a "soft science" because it deals with the human mind. Science is making steady progress when it comes to understanding such things such as consciousness. Until all the work is eventually finalized at some stage well into the future, philosophy will be relevant for a while to come.

I'm not sure that you really grasp the power of psychology, then tell me about the Millgram Experiment.
Tell me what is the dangerous aspect of "groupthink"!?
What is hysterical pregnancy?

I don't doubt the power of psychology, but I don't see how that changes its soft science status. We are still dealing with the human mind.

HexHammer wrote:It's always good to know psychology, eventually humans will be involved in the end result, I don't really know of any project that doesn't involve humans in one way or other.

..but why would anyone reasonable intelligent waste time on philosophical counseling? Philosophy is outdated, deal with it!

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
Psychology is largely a "soft science" because it deals with the human mind. Science is making steady progress when it comes to understanding such things such as consciousness. Until all the work is eventually finalized at some stage well into the future, philosophy will be relevant for a while to come.

I'm not sure that you really grasp the power of psychology, then tell me about the Millgram Experiment.
Tell me what is the dangerous aspect of "groupthink"!?
What is hysterical pregnancy?

I don't doubt the power of psychology, but I don't see how that changes its soft science status. We are still dealing with the human mind.

Ginkgo, would you say that contained within it's history, as human kinds understanding of the mind becomes clearer, so does their understanding of the human psyche?

I'm sure you know where, I 'stand' on hammers.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Ginkgo, would you say that contained within it's history, as human kinds understanding of the mind becomes clearer, so does their understanding of the human psyche?

I'm sure you know where, I 'stand' on hammers.

I think science has gone a long way to explaining consciousness. So much so that people such as Dennett believe all the hard work is just about done. To my way of thinking Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained" reflects that belief. Science has provided the answers and will continue to provide the answers within the current framework.

On the other hand, people such as Jesse Prinz take philosophy of mind seriously, while at the same time adopting a scientific approach. As neurophilosophers they believe there is still a lot of work to be done. I am not saying Dennett doesn't take philosophy of mind seriously, after all he is a philosopher. It just seems to me he is putting all his eggs into the current scientific framework.

P.S.

At the risk of trivializing the issue we could say that science gives us a third person account of consciousness, while at the same time ignoring the first person account. In fact, science says the first person account is just an illusion. Prinz on the other hand, sees some merit in the first person account. After all it is a bit hard to ignore. Basically, he has come up with a theory that incorporates a first person and third person account that 'softens' the somewhat harsh and illusory objective account of consciousness.

Ginkgo wrote:I don't doubt the power of psychology, but I don't see how that changes its soft science status. We are still dealing with the human mind.

I just think you listen to the wrong crowd, psychology seems very underestimated by many.

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:I don't doubt the power of psychology, but I don't see how that changes its soft science status. We are still dealing with the human mind.

I just think you listen to the wrong crowd, psychology seems very underestimated by many.

True, but I guess that much of psychology takes it for granted that first person accounts are real -individual or collective.

See my P.S. on my last posting to Spheres.