Philosophy and Psychology

[reasonvemotion]

I read a paper written by Ian Heath on Philosophy and Psychology. I have taken a small section from it to pose the question, does limited psychological understanding of life, limit one's philosophical thought.

Does the traditional view of philosophy imply that it is the analysis and interpretation of value and standards, within our own experience of reality. If so, these values and standards are also the domain of pyschology. So both encroach upon each other.

The two disciplines separated, because there was the need to put logic and logical analysis on a mathematical basis.
Logic is only one of the two tools needed for analytical thinking. The other is the capability to recognise the associations between ideas and this is the psycholgical tool. Would you not agree that to be effective in your thinking in philosophy, it would require rational and psychological forms of analytical ability.

Would you also agree that the limited range of a person's psychological understanding of life, will also limit his range of philosophical thought. Without understanding, a person has to resort to their imagination when attempting to apply his ideas to identify aspects of reality that he himself has never experienced.

[SecularCauses]

I read a paper written by Ian Heath on Philosophy and Psychology. I have taken a small section from it to pose the question, does limited psychological understanding of life, limit one's philosophical thought.

Does the traditional view of philosophy imply that it is the analysis and interpretation of value and standards, within our own experience of reality. If so, these values and standards are also the domain of pyschology. So both encroach upon each other.

The two disciplines separated, because there was the need to put logic and logical analysis on a mathematical basis.
Logic is only one of the two tools needed for analytical thinking. The other is the capability to recognise the associations between ideas and this is the psycholgical tool. Would you not agree that to be effective in your thinking in philosophy, it would require rational and psychological forms of analytical ability.

Would you also agree that the limited range of a person's psychological understanding of life, will also limit his range of philosophical thought. Without understanding, a person has to resort to their imagination when attempting to apply his ideas to identify aspects of reality that he himself has never experienced.

AC Grayling published his thoughts on what education is required for a philosopher. He stated that a philosopher needed to be educated in science, history and art. Isn't a philosopher supposed to be a generalist? Well-rounded and able to see connections between various ideas that specialists will overlook?

By the way, as a bit of irony, the fact is that the vast maority of psychological experiments to date are questionable. In reviewing the literature, it has been discovered that the vast majority of the experiments were done on too small a sample size, so it is impossible to state if the actual results mean anything. Apparently, this error was even committed by those psychologists with a special background in statistics, they just went with sample sizes that were customary, without checking mathematically what sample size should be used. In other words, psychological findings have to be taken with a grain of salt. The authority I am using for this statement is the book Thinking Fast, and Slow.

[Arising_uk]

...
The two disciplines separated, because there was the need to put logic and logical analysis on a mathematical basis ...

Not sure if the above is a quote from this Ian Heath as you don't make it clear. But when were they ever joined? I thought Psychology was an opposition to Psychiatry due to a disagreement that all mental health problems are solvable by chemicals, i.e. purely physical. Psychology used Maths in the shape of statistics in an attempt to make it credible and 'scientific' is my thought and their error I think.

Its very kind of the psychologists to think Logic needed this but there was no need as Frege and Russell had already put Mathematics upon a logical foundation and Godel then showed the boundaries of Logic and all Formal Axiomatic systems with respect to Mathematics. Wittgenstein showed that Logic is without number or cardinality and asserted that the Theory of Knowledge, i.e. Epistemology, is the Philosophy of Psychology.

[Satyr]

This....is hilarious.
Never stop posting here, where you are protected by people like me.

Be happy, in your little shed...your barn.

[reasonvemotion]

But when were they ever joined? I thought Psychology was an opposition to Psychiatry due to a disagreement that all mental health problems are solvable by chemicals, i.e. purely physical.

?


I thought Philosophy dealt with the study of the theory of the nature of life, life hereafter and causation. Whereas Psychology deals with the study of the mind and its behavior and transformations. Does not a psychologist attempt to uncover the role of the functions of the mind in social behavior. Are not Pschology and Philosophy two different branches of knowledge.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I read a paper written by Ian Heath on Philosophy and Psychology. I have taken a small section from it to pose the question, does limited psychological understanding of life, limit one's philosophical thought.

Does the traditional view of philosophy imply that it is the analysis and interpretation of value and standards, within our own experience of reality. If so, these values and standards are also the domain of pyschology. So both encroach upon each other.

The two disciplines separated, because there was the need to put logic and logical analysis on a mathematical basis.
Logic is only one of the two tools needed for analytical thinking. The other is the capability to recognise the associations between ideas and this is the psycholgical tool. Would you not agree that to be effective in your thinking in philosophy, it would require rational and psychological forms of analytical ability.

Would you also agree that the limited range of a person's psychological understanding of life, will also limit his range of philosophical thought. Without understanding, a person has to resort to their imagination when attempting to apply his ideas to identify aspects of reality that he himself has never experienced.

Yes, in the past, here at PNF, I have linked the two of them together. I see that in fact they are closely tied. That our psychology forms/alters our philosophy and vice versa. They work hand in hand.

[baklazanek]

Psychology seems to be more "good" than psychiatry,its like evolution and revolution.