philosophy requires psychology
philosophy requires psychology
The root of philosophy is psychology. You cannot independently derive all answers in philosophy both because of the limited span of a human life and in a practical sense because you will inevitably be exposed to philosophical ideas. To understand previously accepted ideas are reasonable one must first accept the basic psychology that people do not generally intend to mislead, especially when putting forth an idea they apparently believe themselves.
If someone comes to you with an extraordinary claim, logistics permitting, it makes sense to believe that they believe it and that if they are wrong it's for a specific reason that can be known. If you already can point out the reason, their basic psychology will accommodate your retort if they actually care about truth. If they make a claim you cannot refute, it makes sense to believe by drilling down to the discrepancy between what the two of you accept you will learn something. Extraordinary claims should not be dismissed without at least first verifying you're using the same words to mean the same concepts and second to understand the basic psychology of wanting to be right. Everyone wants to be right and anyone serious about it will have a reasoned basis for their beliefs, even if it's bad reasoning.
I've just hinted at a few obvious ways understanding "universal" psychological principles can help clear up philosophical disagreements but perhaps y'all have a more regularized version?
If someone comes to you with an extraordinary claim, logistics permitting, it makes sense to believe that they believe it and that if they are wrong it's for a specific reason that can be known. If you already can point out the reason, their basic psychology will accommodate your retort if they actually care about truth. If they make a claim you cannot refute, it makes sense to believe by drilling down to the discrepancy between what the two of you accept you will learn something. Extraordinary claims should not be dismissed without at least first verifying you're using the same words to mean the same concepts and second to understand the basic psychology of wanting to be right. Everyone wants to be right and anyone serious about it will have a reasoned basis for their beliefs, even if it's bad reasoning.
I've just hinted at a few obvious ways understanding "universal" psychological principles can help clear up philosophical disagreements but perhaps y'all have a more regularized version?
-
- Posts: 12908
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: philosophy requires psychology
The root of philosophy-proper is NOT psychology.
Philosophy-proper is an inherent function to facilitate the survival of the individual and therefrom the group.
In this sense, psychology is one tool of philosophy-proper.
Philosophy-proper is an inherent function to facilitate the survival of the individual and therefrom the group.
In this sense, psychology is one tool of philosophy-proper.
Philosophy-proper relies on whatever relevant tools there is to facilitate the survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the group, i.e. Science, logic, maths, IT, etc., including philosophy as a subject itself.Psychology is the science of mind and behavior. Psychology includes the study of conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought. It is an academic discipline of immense scope. Psychologists seek an understanding of the emergent properties of brains, and all the variety of phenomena linked to those emergent properties, joining this way the broader neuro-scientific group of researchers. As a social science, it aims to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.
Re: philosophy requires psychology
It's untrue there is one root one origin for any event. Each event is connected to every other event.
Academic philosophy is an event. Academic psychology is another event.The human brain-mind is another, biological, event.
That philosophy requires psychology is a good example of necessary but not sufficient (Russell).
Academic philosophy is an event. Academic psychology is another event.The human brain-mind is another, biological, event.
That philosophy requires psychology is a good example of necessary but not sufficient (Russell).
-
- Posts: 4402
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: philosophy requires psychology
the attendees at the potato dance might disagreeBelinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:57 am It's untrue there is one root one origin for any event. Each event is connected to every other event.
Academic philosophy is an event. Academic psychology is another event.The human brain-mind is another, biological, event.
That philosophy requires psychology is a good example of necessary but not sufficient (Russell).
-Imp
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: philosophy requires psychology
Before 1860, there was no such discipline as, "psychology," (when it was invented by Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt). If philosophy depended on psychology it would mean there was none before 1860.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:35 pm The root of philosophy is psychology. You cannot independently derive all answers in philosophy both because of the limited span of a human life and in a practical sense because you will inevitably be exposed to philosophical ideas. To understand previously accepted ideas are reasonable one must first accept the basic psychology that people do not generally intend to mislead, especially when putting forth an idea they apparently believe themselves.
If someone comes to you with an extraordinary claim, logistics permitting, it makes sense to believe that they believe it and that if they are wrong it's for a specific reason that can be known. If you already can point out the reason, their basic psychology will accommodate your retort if they actually care about truth. If they make a claim you cannot refute, it makes sense to believe by drilling down to the discrepancy between what the two of you accept you will learn something. Extraordinary claims should not be dismissed without at least first verifying you're using the same words to mean the same concepts and second to understand the basic psychology of wanting to be right. Everyone wants to be right and anyone serious about it will have a reasoned basis for their beliefs, even if it's bad reasoning.
I've just hinted at a few obvious ways understanding "universal" psychological principles can help clear up philosophical disagreements but perhaps y'all have a more regularized version?
Re: philosophy requires psychology
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=476990 time=1603648771 user_id=16196]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476463 time=1603301721 user_id=15238]
The root of philosophy is psychology. You cannot independently derive all answers in philosophy both because of the limited span of a human life and in a practical sense because you will inevitably be exposed to philosophical ideas. To understand previously accepted ideas are reasonable one must first accept the basic psychology that people do not generally intend to mislead, especially when putting forth an idea they apparently believe themselves.
If someone comes to you with an extraordinary claim, logistics permitting, it makes sense to believe that they believe it and that if they are wrong it's for a specific reason that can be known. If you already can point out the reason, their basic psychology will accommodate your retort if they actually care about truth. If they make a claim you cannot refute, it makes sense to believe by drilling down to the discrepancy between what the two of you accept you will learn something. Extraordinary claims should not be dismissed without at least first verifying you're using the same words to mean the same concepts and second to understand the basic psychology of wanting to be right. Everyone wants to be right and anyone serious about it will have a reasoned basis for their beliefs, even if it's bad reasoning.
I've just hinted at a few obvious ways understanding "universal" psychological principles can help clear up philosophical disagreements but perhaps y'all have a more regularized version?
[/quote]
Before 1860, there was no such discipline as, "psychology," (when it was invented by Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt). If philosophy depended on psychology it would mean there was none before 1860.
[/quote]
Call it social skills if you like. It's still psychology, even if they didn't think of it that way back then - how people's minds work. Also, by philosophy i mean the doing of deep thinking in relation to others', not a semantic argument about the limits of the realm of either discipline..
[quote=Advocate post_id=476463 time=1603301721 user_id=15238]
The root of philosophy is psychology. You cannot independently derive all answers in philosophy both because of the limited span of a human life and in a practical sense because you will inevitably be exposed to philosophical ideas. To understand previously accepted ideas are reasonable one must first accept the basic psychology that people do not generally intend to mislead, especially when putting forth an idea they apparently believe themselves.
If someone comes to you with an extraordinary claim, logistics permitting, it makes sense to believe that they believe it and that if they are wrong it's for a specific reason that can be known. If you already can point out the reason, their basic psychology will accommodate your retort if they actually care about truth. If they make a claim you cannot refute, it makes sense to believe by drilling down to the discrepancy between what the two of you accept you will learn something. Extraordinary claims should not be dismissed without at least first verifying you're using the same words to mean the same concepts and second to understand the basic psychology of wanting to be right. Everyone wants to be right and anyone serious about it will have a reasoned basis for their beliefs, even if it's bad reasoning.
I've just hinted at a few obvious ways understanding "universal" psychological principles can help clear up philosophical disagreements but perhaps y'all have a more regularized version?
[/quote]
Before 1860, there was no such discipline as, "psychology," (when it was invented by Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt). If philosophy depended on psychology it would mean there was none before 1860.
[/quote]
Call it social skills if you like. It's still psychology, even if they didn't think of it that way back then - how people's minds work. Also, by philosophy i mean the doing of deep thinking in relation to others', not a semantic argument about the limits of the realm of either discipline..
Re: philosophy requires psychology
A great and respected master of philosophy; scholar of Heiddeger, and Nietzsche on any occaision when encoutnering the word psychology in any paper handed him by a student was in the invariable habit of striking the word through with a red pen, and ignorning the sentence it appeared in. Students' grades would be affected by this, not necessarily negatively.
Such a new and brash "science" (cough!!) as psychology relies heavily on philosophy, but the reverse cannot be said. Historically we have had philosophy from the earliest times, and it has got along pretty well long before any such thing as psychology came along.
Philosophy is the root of all mental study.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10469
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: philosophy requires psychology
Yep. The dude had it the wrong way around.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:14 pmA great and respected master of philosophy; scholar of Heiddeger, and Nietzsche on any occaision when encoutnering the word psychology in any paper handed him by a student was in the invariable habit of striking the word through with a red pen, and ignorning the sentence it appeared in. Students' grades would be affected by this, not necessarily negatively.
Such a new and brash "science" (cough!!) as psychology relies heavily on philosophy, but the reverse cannot be said. Historically we have had philosophy from the earliest times, and it has got along pretty well long before any such thing as psychology came along.
Philosophy is the root of all mental study.
Re: philosophy requires psychology
Philosophy can be informed by any academic discipline and also by everyday experiences. However psychology , as theories of human nature, is an important consideration for philosophers. Other academic disciplines such as nuclear physics, history, social anthropology, economics, and politics are also important for philosophy.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10469
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: philosophy requires psychology
The PRIMAL important thing is physics..whatever one considers beyond that point of consideration, better be fucking good.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:15 am Philosophy can be informed by any academic discipline and also by everyday experiences. However psychology , as theories of human nature, is an important consideration for philosophers. Other academic disciplines such as nuclear physics, history, social anthropology, economics, and politics are also important for philosophy.
Re: philosophy requires psychology
Philosophy is the baseline of all disciplines. Those disciplines that fail to address their own philosophies critically are just spouting hot air, with no ground and no deeper understanding of what it is they are trying to say.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:15 am Philosophy can be informed by any academic discipline and also by everyday experiences. However psychology , as theories of human nature, is an important consideration for philosophers. Other academic disciplines such as nuclear physics, history, social anthropology, economics, and politics are also important for philosophy.
Philosphy is essential for nuclear physics, history, social anthropology, economics, and politics ad infinitem.
Re: philosophy requires psychology
You mean natural philosphy.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:23 pmThe PRIMAL important thing is physics..whatever one considers beyond that point of consideration, better be fucking good.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:15 am Philosophy can be informed by any academic discipline and also by everyday experiences. However psychology , as theories of human nature, is an important consideration for philosophers. Other academic disciplines such as nuclear physics, history, social anthropology, economics, and politics are also important for philosophy.
From the earlist times philosophy has provided insights, and grounding for all disciplines especially maths and physics, which were amoungst the earliest spin-offs from philosophers' investigations.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10469
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: philosophy requires psychology
No. I mean - and without averages, in this current time, PHYSICS. Everything considered beyond physics, still resides upon PHYSICS.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:34 pmYou mean natural philosphy.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:23 pmThe PRIMAL important thing is physics..whatever one considers beyond that point of consideration, better be fucking good.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:15 am Philosophy can be informed by any academic discipline and also by everyday experiences. However psychology , as theories of human nature, is an important consideration for philosophers. Other academic disciplines such as nuclear physics, history, social anthropology, economics, and politics are also important for philosophy.
From the earlist times philosophy has provided insights, and grounding for all disciplines especially maths and physics, which were amoungst the earliest spin-offs from philosophers' investigations.
Re: philosophy requires psychology
You are so confused.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:56 pmNo. I mean - and without averages, in this current time, PHYSICS. Everything considered beyond physics, still resides upon PHYSICS.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:34 pmYou mean natural philosphy.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:23 pm
The PRIMAL important thing is physics..whatever one considers beyond that point of consideration, better be fucking good.
From the earlist times philosophy has provided insights, and grounding for all disciplines especially maths and physics, which were amoungst the earliest spin-offs from philosophers' investigations.
You do not know the difference between the object of study and the study itself.
We are talking about what humans do.
Nothing whatever, has ever, nor ever will rely on physics.(def 1)
From a definition:
1. the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.
2.the physical properties and phenomena of something.
eg. "the physics of plasmas"
Try and look for your brain.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10469
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: philosophy requires psychology
Personally, U want me to look at MY brain>> ? BRIAN confused?Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:28 pmYou are so confused.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:56 pmNo. I mean - and without averages, in this current time, PHYSICS. Everything considered beyond physics, still resides upon PHYSICS.
You do not know the difference between the object of study and the study itself.
We are talking about what humans do.
Nothing whatever, has ever, nor ever will rely on physics.(def 1)
From a definition:
1. the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.
2.the physical properties and phenomena of something.
eg. "the physics of plasmas"
Try and look for your brain.
I fink not.
Attempt to describe a reality where physics does not apply.
Good luck..