Does Philosophy trump Psychology?

[tragula]

If philosophy is about discovering truth. And truth helps guide our actions and decisions in life, isn't personal philosophy ultimately much more important than personality!

For example, if indisputable research shows that status and material goods do not increase happiness, shouldn't it be possible to convince all types of this FACT? Thereby changing their basic approach to life's choices...

or.

If you come to believe that taking life by the horns and making a difference in the world is what life is really about, then shouldn't that trump whatever natural inclination towards inaction you have?

Psychology and philosphy are competing frameworks for understanding behaviour and need to be reconciled with each other somehow! :huh:

[Sam172]

Well, as i'm currently doing philosophy in an educational framework currently, and not psychology....I voted for philosophy :D

*enter stereotype mode*
Psychology turns you into a scary old man (or woman) who can predict what people are going to do and can freak people out with inkblots
Philosophy turns you into a scary old man (or woman) who keeps confusing people with seemingly cyclic paradoxes and keeps on quoting Socrates, Descarté, Lao Tzu and Confucious

[mgb]

I look at the two as seperate but converging.

For instance when I think of Philosophy I think of a system of governence for humans as being the end result of a philosophical theory.

I look at psychology as as being a system of governence for ourselves.

There is a lot of crossover as both lend themselves very well to the other. For instance, MBTI as a method of dividing people in society. Huxley used something like this in A Brave New World.

Most philosophies try and begin with "the nature of man" and move up from there. Psychology, on the other hand, almost looks at people within the context of a society on a more personal level than sociology. I see philosophy and psychology as being integral parts of one another.

[Johnny]

If philosophy is about discovering truth. I think philosophy is more of a game than anything else. Still, I think philosophy permeates just about every human pursuit...including psychology. It's not really about one being better than the other, but that psychology is the philosophy of the human psyche as it pertains to what we observe using whatever methods and tools of observation we have at our disposal (including the testing of different models and theories for efficacy with observation and predicability).

For psychology as science it's not as much about truth as it is about usefulness, and there's a whole branch of philosophy that embraces exactly this. It's called pragmatism.

[jimkopelli]

People are always stuck with both philosophy and psychology... but psychology is closer to home, more personal. We've been able to manipulate psychology, but all we've been able to do with philosophy is argue and produce more of it.

[Lucas]

psychology is closer to home, more personal. We've been able to manipulate psychology, but all we've been able to do with philosophy is argue and produce more of it.

Well said. Although, just because philosophy doesn't contribute all that much to most peoples' lives doesn't take anything away from it or make it any less important.

I'm all for nerdy, insignificant studies and research! **(goes back to reading about past subsistence strategies among the Dobe Ju/'Hoansi of the Kalahari desert)**

[Sackanaka]

I dunno, does broccoli trump mustard cabbage?

[Edmond Zedo]

For example, if indisputable research shows that status and material goods do not increase happiness, shouldn't it be possible to convince all types of this FACT? Thereby changing their basic approach to life's choices

Yeah, they did this a few hundred years ago, and called it the Roman Catholic church. It let all those little followers be happy for eternity, as long as they slaved their lives away for nothing material. But you know, a few had money, and had no trouble holding on to it.

[mgb]

I dunno, does broccoli trump mustard cabbage?

I would think that most things trump mustard cabbage...

[jimkopelli]

A dead cat would still probably trump mustard cabbage.

Broccli is actually pretty good, though... as long as you have salt and/or cheese and it's cooked right...

[cuspuser]

I doubled majored in both phil and psych ... so i'm not choosing either :)

psychology is philosophy, like every other science before it psychology is an offshoot of philosophy, it is a specific set of questions which those in the scientific community are trying to answer using a specific method, which was at one point considered to be philosophy (the method).

basically much of what we consider to be philosophy now are those questions that we don't have the technology or which don't lend themselves to being investigated empirically.

psychology is still in its infancy, and in many cases it is giving us good information, but i am not completely statisfied that the scientific method will give us as much as a complete understanding of the human mind and behaviour as physics has given us about the motion of objects, and the laws governing matter.

as for the original question, i think personal philosophy can affect personality, but that personality also drives what philosophies you are interested in ... but personality isn't psychology, at least not the the scientific area psychology.

btw, Descartes was also a scientist (method of doubt - scientific method) and possibly the first psychologist :) (much of his work on animals is in all those first chapters of psychology texts)

My problem with psychology and most science is that the people who are doing it (up until brillant people come along and put it altogether) is that it is very atomistic (the word i'm searching for isn't that - but it will do) and i much prefer bringing together information rather than having a whole bunch of pieces of information that seem unrelated ... however, this is mostly due to how science has to been done, you have to seperate all the factors and see what each individual one does, leaving interactions as a problem.

while my problem with philosophy is we get these great theories but we don't have the ability to test for them yet, which leads to many unresolved and conflicting opinions ... a little certainty would be nice ... again a problem with the nature of the endevor.

anyways, the two are the same, in my intro cognition text (i chose it b/c its my fav area of psychology) the first people or movements they talk about are (introspection - idealism, i'd say more specifically phenomology and husserl), (behaviourism - empiricism), (cognitive revolution - attributed to kant), later they briefly discuss Wittgenstein ... mind you the details of the philosophy's are often lost, esp. in Wittgenstein's case.

[cuspuser]

Oh and philosophy effects everyones day to day life alot more than you'd think, slowly philosophy seeps into a culture's collective consciousness and shapes what it becomes ... think of capitialism or marxism those are philosophies ... but even more subtle than they, philosophy has come up to define words like justice, has come to shape opinions about topics like abortion ... philosophy is as much about giving reasons and justifying what should be the (read: creating) truth as it is trying to find truth.

[Vylence]

I agree Cuspuser.

[Aryan]

No, philosophy definitely loses to psychology.
After all its all humans, people dont think much about psychology and though the effect of philosophy is more in life, its psychology that actually effects us.

Philosophy is thinking about one's existence and related metaphysical questions.
Psychology is thinking about philosophy of each person and analysing it.Well talking about philosophy and psychology, the INFJ type is both a philosopher and a psychologist.
Here's a description that shows this connection between philosophy and psychology: http://209.87.142.42/y/book2/Book_062.htm

[Sackanaka]

I just mentioned broccoli v mustard cabbage because they're from the same group of veggies, just bred/used differently (broccoli has heavy flower emphasis, mustard cabbage has heavy leaf emphasis), thereby making them separate entities until you look at cross-polination potentials.
Where's the choice for "Good question, next question?"

[SheepDog]

Where's the choice for "Good question, next question?"
A response that I keep in reserve is, "That's a good question, and I'm glad you asked. Any other questions?"

[EternalCynic]

Good question (sorry if someone has already said this.. i'm in a rush and no time to read currently x_x), to me they are equel.. sort of. I look at psychology as philosophical theory.. for the most part there is no black and white yes or no right or wrong in psychology yet, a lot of scientific proof but then, how much can science be trusted (personal opinion)?

I'm going to go into the field of psychology, but still take it all with a grain of salt. They are both equels, in my eyes :)

**Edit
Although I did vote for philosophy on the poll, don't judge me!;P

[alex]

obligatory Nietzsche quotation (from Beyond Good & Evil)

Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir;

[SheepDog]

For some reason this thread reminds me of a quote: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

It also makes me want to counter with "which is better, pliers or a hammer?"

[Sackanaka]

For some reason this thread reminds me of a quote: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

It also makes me want to counter with "which is better, pliers or a hammer?"
I'd say if someone were to choose between the two, the person is either poor in sight, judgment or wealth to not see/accept/use the obvious toolbox.

[tragula]

I guess what I'm getting at is that psychology sometimes seem to take free will out of it, and make us seem like programed machines.

What I like about philosophy is that it is empowering. What you believe determines what you do with your life. I've always believed that.

Now I'm having a bit of a crisis of faith as I'm starting to see everybody's opinions and values as pre-determined by the way they are wired....

[SheepDog]

When I've considered free will vs. determinism, I've seen one argument that says basically that if god knows everything that is going to happen, then we don't really have free will even if we think we do. In this case, it seems to be saying that psychology is figuring us all out, so therefore we're determined to acted based on our "personality", which also means that we have no free will.

This seems to be making some huge leaps, but perhaps I missed what you were saying here?

[Miss Anthropic]

Philosophy: A pursuit of wisdom. A search for general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means....
Psychology: The science of mind and behavior.
Hmmmm. First I ask, is psychology really a science...and secondly wouldn't our individual seaches for a general understanding of values and reality or pursuit of wisdom be profoundly influenced by our personal perception filters, which would ultimately be a psychological phenomenon?

[Miss Anthropic]

Now I'm having a bit of a crisis of faith as I'm starting to see everybody's opinions and values as pre-determined by the way they are wired....

Hey, better nature than nurture. I'd rather be a victim of genetics than believe that I'm a victim of my environment....

[tragula]

The whole free will thing is more about other people's free will. I mean if you can't hope to talk to someone and explain to them that 2+2=4 and have them get it, then what hope is there for the world!

[Lucas]

Philosophy: A pursuit of wisdom.
Hmmmm. First I ask, is psychology really a science...and secondly wouldn't our individual seaches for a general understanding of values and reality or pursuit of wisdom be profoundly influenced by our personal perception filters, which would ultimately be a psychological phenomenon?

By personal perception filters I assume you mean our culture, (the sum of everything we've learned, experienced and thought in our lives). Yes this lens does shade everything we see, interpret, value, and believe. Culture is not a psychological phenomenon, it is an infinitely complex socio-cultural construct. While existing within our brains, culture can't ultimately be reduced to a psychological phenomenon.

Psychology is a science. It relies on the scientific method, using empirical evidence/observation to understand people. Just because it doesn't follow the model of the hard sciences exactly doesn't make it unscientific, as certain sci-purists would say.

[coffeezombie]

The reason that one chooses a certain philosophy over another one is psychological. Philosophy is therefore inherently biased because of the workings of the human mind. If we were to ever meet an alien culture, they might have philosophies that were completely alien to our own.

[Edmond Zedo]

The reason that one chooses a certain philosophy over another one is psychological. Philosophy is therefore inherently biased because of the workings of the human mind. If we were to ever meet an alien culture, they might have philosophies that were completely alien to our own.
Hopefully they would be a lot smarter than us, and straighten this shit out once and for all. And kill anyone who disagreed with them.

[jetboots]

I think if you keep on zooming out philosophy is within psychology. If this is whats interpreted as "trumped", then sure, philosophy gets trumped.

To me putting the two together for analysis simply fully explains why there are an infinite amount of ways to interpret reality.

[coffeezombie]

I think if you keep on zooming out philosophy is within psychology. If this is whats interpreted as "trumped", then sure, philosophy gets trumped.

To me putting the two together for analysis simply fully explains why there are an infinite amount of ways to interpret reality.

Of course, I think intuitives are actually able to step outside their minds and consider alternate philosophies and evaluate them against each other. Still whichever philosophy intuitives choose to be interested in is a result of their own personal psychology. I've argued philosophy extensively with my INFP brother, and in the end, it comes down to his intense feelings versus my relative lack of them more than it does one of our philosophies being "more right" than the other.

[Edmond Zedo]

I'll just painfully bastardize an old analogy for you.

"Dancing vs. Architecture...Make up your mind, and be quick about it, will you?"

[euterpenc]

Well I think that it's a rather silly question, as when it comes down to it, does it even matter? The most breakthrough psychological theories were just that, theories. Take the wonderful instance of Jung. Everyone though he was crazy for his ideas of the collective unconcious. It can't be proven, so it's kind of a philosophy, or way of looking at things. By definition Psycology is Philosophy as psychology involves knowledge and Philosophy is the study of knowledge.

There's nothing wrong with comparing things just look before you leap. Don't compare Apples with green apples.

[cuspuser]

i realized this problem when the question was first posed, but people seemed to keep going with the definition of psychology of being the discipline, not personal psychology, which later replies seem to be addressing, you get very different answers with the different definition of the word "psychology" ...

[euterpenc]

Good point. God it's amazing to find there's actually other people at least a little bit like me lol. Most people if asked that question would just be like wow you loser why are you even thinking about that. Ah, so difficult it is being an INTP/intellectual.

[booyalab]

I don't understand the point or alleged dichotemy in this question. Psychology has a great deal of basis in philosophy and one's philosophy could be holistically derived from psychology.

[tragula]

Hmm. I did a little diagram to help me sort this out. (I'm a bit pleased with it actually..) :whistle:

It sort of explains my issues with Psychology, and how psychology is so interested in everything being all relative and subjective, while Philosophy is focused on objective truth.

I think it's fine to say that we are predisposed to have certain beliefs and act in certain ways, but we need a system (Philosophy) to evaluate whether those beliefs are True--correspond to reality.

Unfortunately everyone seems to disagree about what reality is. (But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!) Which is probably why people don't hire Philosophers to help them sort out their problems...

It would be ironic to think that INTP is actually much more in touch with reality then other types, wouldn't it?

[Claverhouse]

It would be ironic to think that INTP is actually much more in touch with reality then other types, wouldn't it?
Ironic ?

Merely an aspect of the real reality.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[tragula]

Excellent point! I like that--the real reality.

I think I'm gonna start a new thread about reality to pick up from here with a fresh start!!

[cuspuser]

oh no, not the really real that we can't really know :S

[Biff_Loman]

Individuals engage in philosophy for psychological reasons.

[Edmond Zedo]

Individuals engage in philosophy for psychological reasons.
And strangely, the inverse is also true. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[QrioCT]

yeah, i agree. a person's philosophy depends on their psychology.

[Bonfanti]

Philosophy is the wellspring of science. It aims to examine the nature of understanding. If a philosophical idea produces anything that can have scientific method applied to it then it ceases to be philosophy. Psychology is regarded as and sometimes even practiced as a science (though it does have a very powerful sub-strain known as bullshit). Personal philosophy is a complicated idea and is commonly used to indicate a belief system (a religion or an ethic)which could in turn be studied as an item of psychology or sociology or anthropology. Philosophy makes the cards - the sciences play with them.

[Star Cannon]

Now that I think about it, I think psychology leads to philosophy. We each are who we are with different personalities that react differently to situations/ a situation. I'm not sure how to word this, but I think philosophy is just compilations of what we observe and conclude. How we observe and conclude is based on our own psychology.*shrug*

It's a good question, though.

[songbird36]

Philosophy has been around for thousands of years and psychology for about 100. I regard psychology as a pseudo science, to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

Lots will disagree with this view I know (being a site populated by psychology afficionados). But hey, I'm wearing my flak jacket..

:lol:

[jimkopelli]

Agreed... still possibly underdeveloped.
Only time will tell.
*takes off flak jacket, for he lives in a bunker*

[Architectonic]

Philosophy has been around for thousands of years and psychology for about 100. I regard psychology as a pseudo science, to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.


Much, but not all of it is pseudo science.
But I agree psychology is in dire need of actual scientific understanding of the biological processes of the brain and how this relates to behaviour.

[Jacque]

I think if you keep on zooming out philosophy is within psychology. If this is whats interpreted as "trumped", then sure, philosophy gets trumped.

Well...philosophy possesses a very large scope. Unlike psychology, has much more to say beyond human consciousness. Philosophy is more speculative in nature, but when it sought to examine the mind in particular through experiment (Wilhem Wundt) it split into psychology.

I like untestable theories as well as testable ones. One is built upon the art of persuasion, the other on hard numbers and logical relationships...with a little art also.

I think you can make philosophical extrapolations from facts and figures the same way philosophers do from observation and reflection. Nature vs nurture is the same a priori vs a posteriori battle philosophy has been waging. It's just been recast.

Then there's the striking relationship between Freud's psychoanalytic theories and Schopenhauer's philosophy. I was reading _The World as Will and Representation_ when the similarities struck me as odd. I looked it up discovered that someone else had thought so as well:

http://www.uno.edu/~asoble/pages/SCHOPENY.htm

Ironically, Freud discovered "contact barriers" before Sherrington had discovered and called them synapses. Perhaps some neuroscientist out their is in possession of some novel discovery or idea that will give rise to another science that will offer a much better understanding of who we are.