Good points. Psychology is nothing but re-directing the stray individual back into society. It never aims to define how the norms in the society should be. Hence the difference between psychology and psychiatry (psychology stopped explaining what morality is good for the biological health)
Philosophy at least tried to set these rules and well, to think upon it. Psy replaced everything with its egocentric megalomania (psychology as a virtual person)
What has my atheistic view got to to with the fact that I believe there are far too many philosophical idiots who pass their ideas about how the human mind works off as psychology when there is no scientific basis or justification for their model? Or better still, scientific psychology directly contradicts the model they hold as true?
I admit to seeing a parallel, but understand: my remark is in response to your title. I have purposely ignored your OP.
Well, to address one point at least, psychology has never held the position that a negative and lazy/apathetic person is a 'sub-standard failure' or that something is necessarily wrong with them. Socially it may be viewed as such by many people, but not by psychology.
I don't think that either philosophy or psychology are things that people today tend to show an overt interest in. That said, it's hard to know for sure how interest today really matches up with interest thousands or hundreds of years ago because the literature that remains from those periods doesn't necessarily reflect what everyday people thought about most of the time - it just reflects what people over time considered significant enough to pass on.
I could be wrong, but by psychology you also seem to mostly mean the manipulative kind used in subliminal advertising and politics and such rather than just a general interest in how the mind works. This goes toward supporting the observation however that psychology seems to generally just be employed for marketing purposes or for some other short term objective rather than for pursuing something more meaningful.
This could however just be a somewhat false impression since what is meaningful varies a lot from person to person - individual people may have a greater personal interest in philosophy than suspected because the comparison is between personal/private pursuits and those that are overtly manipulative and mass marketed. A person with philosophical interests doesn't make those interests known by advertising and trying to gain minions.
did someone really say all you need in your life (to find all the answers) is god?
and did someone else really just reply dismissing god claiming god was nothing more than a made up fairy tail
This is a forum that's meant to support the free-thinking brain and your both just dismissing things you don't understand/ you don't want to believe in.
God made you with a free thinking brain! if you don't use this to try and find out about the world and just sit on your lower posterior saying things like oh its gods plan or science says so i personally feel like your wasting this gift.
now if you always just trust god or science or philosophy your not really searching are you?
you always need to look at both sides of an argument to find the truth.
I see far to many people now days turn there back on science or religion because it doesn't make sense to them, so rather than taking the time to try and make sense of it they come up with a half baked answer of yep you guess it "because god says so" or "science tells me"
they don't try to find the meaning in science or in there religion because they don't want to spend the time exploring the possibility and finding out exactly what they have been taught. so we (humanity) ends up with old half baked out of date theory instead of anything new
so I also want to know (like the person who started this topic) where are all the free-thinkers and have we really lost the ability to "think for our-self"
science and philosophy does jsut fine on its own? dont make me laugh science has oh thats a unique case syndrome where it trys to bullshits its way out of something it cant understand by saying well it wont happen again it was unique.
as for philosophy what good is it if questioning things if you never find the answer because science cant explain it?
I hate to point this out, but sometime unique circumstances occur. So sometimes, it's legitimate to say 'this is a very unusual case'. That said, if you are referring to Muamba again, I've explained to you, your ignorance of the situation is the issue. Not the science.
Philosophy is good for breaking down things which don't fit so well into an inductive logic style resolution, which is what science is. Between philosophy and mathematics, you have an engine of deductive logic style resolution. Which means between the three fields, you have all kinds of soluble problems solved, in the end.
Simple, the human being has a longer childhood, in which it needs taking care of. This helps to foster the creation of bonds which will be mutually beneficial. Ultimately, the skills which allowed us to survive take time to develop. We don't want to rely on parents, but we have to if we want those skills. Our parents, however, have all their chips vested in our success. The continuation of their genome is resting on us. They thus take care of us to provide for the continuation of their lineage. As for the animals with neurones connected to sight, these are cases of animals which once lived in areas where their ancestors had sight, but which now live in areas where it isn't needed i.e. caves etc. Rather than waste energy developing eyes, evolutionarily speaking, the eyes became vestigial and ultimately shrank out. We are simply in the process of continuing to watch their evolution. Either these sight neurones are useless, in which case they'll die off, or they are serving some other purpose, and they'll be carried down. It's not hard. Buy a book on evolutionary biology and psychology. Your questions have already been answered, many times, by men and women far better equipped to give the answer and with far more citations.
What does humans life cycle and the length they stay children have to do with the parent gene believe it or not we are not the only animal that needs parents?
Also your age debate makes no sense
there's animals that live longer than humans i.e Tortoise and turtles can live up to 200 years yet there parents don't look after them at all.
Therese also animals that never leave there parents I.e Male orcas stay with their mother's pod for life, leaving temporarily only during the mating season.
Yet you somehowe claim we have the longest childhood?
also when are we officially grown up my friend? In the old days 10 and 11 year old's used to work in mines and have to fend for themselves. In third world countries some kids parents have died before they even reach 8 so they have to find work and look after there brothers and sisters. Yet in places like England some people live with there parents into the later 20s and maybe even further. When do you believe your old enough to leave?
I asked why do some animals have a parenting gene and some don't. I asked Why do some animals start as vunable kids while others can fend for themselves? I asked Why do some animals take so long to grow up? And your very basic answer simply does not cover any of these questions. All it says is that we take forever to grow up it doesn’t address why.
I also said every animal has neurons related to site not some animals every animal this is because every animal follows the same basic blueprints (hence why the concept of evolution was born.)
but you want to suggest that animals got site then lost it as they don't need it so you believe e-coil once had eyes?
its funny how you always seem to suggest I need to read more whenever I question anything you say and how you believe the answer to everything exists in old books.
I personally believe you need to open your eyes and look at the world around you and learn to ask more questions rather than simply accepting everything you hear in a book.
Listen, as I said, buy one of these books. Your questions have been answered. Thousands of times. As much as I love dishing out knowledge, there are some fatal misconceptions that you seem to have about the nature of genetics, human life cycles and human familial social psychology which I am simply not going to redress. I'm not a miracle worker, and to redress this balance in the space of a single thread, believe me Jim, I'd need to be. Peace!
exactly this is why jargon exists, if something seems complex and above are level of understanding rather than risking looking stupid and asking what on earth does that mean a lot of people just nod and agree.
I first found this out when i started my computer degree many years ago now and half the class had no idea what the teacher was and ended up doodling. Yet they tried to make me feel dumb when I asked what the teacher what the jargon meant (probably as they where bored and just wanted the class to end.)
long story short i didn't do the end paper how it was meant to be done (it required we found a formula based on entering end results into a program we had to make.) but i made the program use a shorter formula that did the same thing (quicker) so originally I got a bad mark for not following the paper (instructions), but after talking to the right people I got the highest mark possible for making a formula that worked better than a so called asthmatically geniuses.
Could you image if i hadn't talked to the right people? I would of been punished for not doing it how the book said or to put it another way i would of been punished for thinking for myself.
now if all university's teach like that its no wonder we have no free-thinking individuals
The hard thing is when explaining things is to try and make it sound simple, its easy to use big sounding words, and of course big sounding words convince many people that the arguement is valid. It can be a sham to convince a third eye.
"long story short etc etc" -- i've gotten into myself into similar situations because i wanted to race ahead, I'm suprised that you were told that you were expected to do it a certain way to show that you understood what was being taught.
"Could you image if i hadn't talked to the right people?" -- i actually dropped out of college because of my impatience, but that was totally my own fault,100%.
yeah i was tempted to drop out of college when i had to do a report on a technology of the future in 1993 and i picked DVDS and i was told my report wasn't convicting enough when i stated things like they will revolutionize how we watch films and the computer market.
Because the teacher simply didn't believe me the next year i gave the exact same presentation to a different teacher and got a low pass
as college was ending and DVDS where taking off i went back and demanded a remark lol.
I did college and uni to try and prove a point so I was determined to stick them threw.
you see when i was younger i was put in a learning disability class because i have never liked being told something is the only way and teachers didn't know how to cope with me.
in the few weeks i was in that class i did what was meant to be 4 years work (and got accused of cheating) but i showed them how i did it, so they took me out that class and put me in a group that was way to high for me (on purpose to try and prove a point/ to try and show i couldn't do it).
now of course the class was way to hard for me as i had not been taught to that level so it was all new to me. But rather than telling the teachers it was to hard and letting them have there victory .
I taught myself in my spare time and set myself the goal of one day having a uni degree and a job in computing.
It was a hard struggle because my understand of words is very basic and dyslexia wasn't recongised back then/ didnt exist as an excuse, so I was often getting marked down for my bad use of english.
but long story short I got the grades needed to go to college and passed college with the highest mark possible and then struggled threw uni.
It didn't land me my dream job but I proved to myself that I could learn anything and showed to myself that my old teachers knew nothing.
" i was tempted to drop out of college" -- i would say to anyone that would have been a bad decision, stick it out, get your qualification and then you will be free to do what you want.
its funny you mention special class because over here teachers seem very quick to push any student that requires effort into special class, still, you made it into college so you cant have been that much of a dumbass
"and dyslexia wasn't recongised back then" -- i keep telling my niece that two of the capable people i know have dyslexia, she gets a bit down on herself about it.
Philosophy is, basically, the search for wisdom. Back in the day, it used to encompass pretty much every and any topic of though, which is why many of the great ancient philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, etc) were very knowledgeable in many different topics, things that would be considered physics, religion, ecology, mathematics, psychology, medicine, etc. As time went on and more knowledge was accumulated, these topics became studied more inclusively, and evolved into separate intellectual domains. So, by definition, as long as people keep thinking and problem-solving, it is impossible to be "philosophically bankrupt"
And what exactly do you mean by "Psychological ploys"?
As someone who studies Psychology and has more than a passing interest in Philosophy, I have no idea what you're talking about. But judging from what you've written, I'd say that you have an extremely narrow, simplistic, negative and fundamentally flawed view of both topics.
Theres definitely nothing wrong with you explanation of what philosophy, I disagree that something cannot be philosophically bankrupt simply because any thoughts with an agenda cannot be considered open, Any thought that works toward a predetermined answer cannot be considered philosophically viable.
I mean psychological ploys. To me the world today seems to be a much more nervous, before it seemed to me that people were a lot less likely to give a sh1t. People are more aggressive now, there are more doubts, the only factor i can attribute this change to is advertising.
We are constantly told we would be better off with this product because of reason x. Or that reason X is why we should buy this, Seems to me that people have a lot more reason X in their systems than ever before.
You study psychology? think psychology is good? from a philosophical point of view.
I'm not talking about thoughts working towards a predetermined answer, I'm talking about thoughts working to discover unknown answers.
You may see the world as more "nervous" and people as more aggressive, but that is simply your perspective. Perhaps you were simply less aware of it in the past? You only have to look back to the Cold-War era to see an even higher level of "nervousness" (in the US, at least) stemming from the fear of communism, and that communist spies could be anywhere. Or you could look back to colonial times, when colonists were afraid of Asian immigrants becoming too numerous, and imposed strict taxes and immigration laws against them, or the post-World-War 2 Japanese internment camps, where innocent Japanese-Americans, born in the US and Canada were forcibly placed for fear that they might be sympathetic to the Japanese enemies.
As for aggression, the only place there seems to be an increase of it is in the media.
While there is an aspect of psychology involved with advertisement, the two are not the same thing. That would be like saying soccer is sports. It is a sport, but not all sports.
Overall, yes, I think Psychology is good. It takes many philosophical questions (what is real? How do our perceptions differ from reality? What do we know? How do we know? Are people inherently god or bad? Is moderation better than excess?) and tries to answer them in a somewhat scientific manner, looking for evidence. It's the study of the brain, the mind and how we interact with the world. And it was born out of philosophy.
Your issue seems to be with modern advertising and modern media, which I agree can have a bad influence on people, not with psychology or philosophy.
What unknown human answers are there? psychology is a self fulfilling fallacy, no point looking there.
The fact that i find people more aggressive and nervous may be down to my own particular mad. I was on about people at ground level than the world at large anyway.
I am a great believer that people are what they eat and i think its incredable naive to suggest that the media has no influence people. I went two years without tv and i can tell you first hand that the difference between tv and no tv is beyond the comprehension of somebody who hasnt done it.
"what is real?How do our perceptions differ from reality?" -- an important question, are these questions healthy? is it worth making a science out of?
You are right to assume that i think irresponsible advertising can have a bad influence, i also have big issues with the field of psychology for two main reasons, 1. i dont like the language and the reality of the language. 2. i dont like the way some people try to use it as a moral imperative against the christian view of the human condition.
TheNAUGHTicalLifeFeatured By OwnerJan 5, 2013Professional Writer
We aren't more philosophically sophisticated than we were in 400 BC. Society is much more taken with whimsy &/or religion and the modern philosophers have all been poets or comedians or obnoxious scholars.
Considering my degree is currently in psychology (though granted I'm using it as a means to an end to work my way to psychiatry) I'm a wee bit baffled by your statements. I feel as if you don't have a firm grasp of what the subject of psychology is...
First lets break down the Greek root. Psyche meaning "mind" or "soul", and Logos meaning "study" or "reason". It is first and foremost the study of the mind, behavior, and habits of humans. It was once synonymous with philosophy whose own Greek root "philosophia" means the love and study if wisdom. Both fields seek an understanding of the human condition. As with all sciences both hard and soft it advances with knowledge gained. We alter it as we learn more, which is why its stances and methods have changed over the years. This isn't a plot or ploy, nor is it some attempt at control, it is the natural advance of science. Just as we once thought the earth was flat, this theory changed when we gained the knowledge to disprove it. As we learn more about the mind, many of the old conventions will change.
Elaborate on the point you are trying to make here because right now your statement seems like stream of consciousness ramble.
Psychology is bullsh1t, its boring and convoluted, If people are good at anything its making the simple complicated.The brain isnt complicated.
You interpretation of philosophy is wrong, its only since kant that the human mind has become a topic for study and interpretation. Which is why i hate kant.
"with knowledge gained. We alter it as we learn more,"-- seems to me as if life is imitating art.
My concern is to do with words, If the "off" of the word small is big then the "off" of the word hard is soft or easy.
My criticism of advertisers and "positive thinkers" is that they dont pay heed to their meassages "offs". For instance an ad appears on telly and the message used is sexy+fit+happiness, the offs may only be trace but ugly+unhealthy+unhappy have still been created in the head. and thats just the ads that dont try and use fear. How many ads are there that dont try to tell you'd be better off without their products?
Is the pursuit of happiness the only philosophy? thats psychology trying to pass itself off as a philosophy.
Good, not only do you have no grasp of Psychology, you have no grasp of Philosophy either. You really think Kant was the genesis point for topics of the mind? Spinoza ring a bell? How about Descartes? Both had their ideas about thought, human emotion, and the workings of the mind. Study of the mind goes back even further still. The early Greeks pondered its workings, as did the ancient Chinese. Hell a basic google search will yield to you all the philosophers and cultures over the years who have studied the mind and its workings.
The brain isn't complicated.... Wow...I don't even know what to say to that notion. All those neurologists and psychiatrists out there are wasting their time then. Clearly they should bow to your superior wisdom.
Why shouldn't we study the mind? People like you would have us living in ignorance, still believing that mental illness is caused by evil demons.
"seems to me as if life is imitating art." Science thrives off scrutiny. Theories are made, evidence gathered, and the best possible result is worked out. As more evidence is gained, certain theories are either kept, expanded upon, or phased out. This is the scientific method. The same method that is responsible for every modern convenience you see today. What is so hard to understand about that?
I've already seen your debate with Midnight, and the others in this thread. I hardly expect this to go anywhere useful. Just another scientifically illiterate mook preaching the evils of something he couldn't hope to understand. This isn't about science complicating things, it's about your inability to comprehend it.
Modern thought began when decarte said "i think therefore i am" Most of the stuff since has been self-fulfilling tripe.
I'll tell you straight out not an expert but considering modern philosophy is little more than a facile luxury anyway i wont be too upset. I'm beginning to think you may not be the great shake you think you are either, the essence(you know what that is) of philosophy didnt start off its concern with the mind.
Its started off with questions of what are we, how did we get here what is the world, granted that probably all ended with "cogeto ergo sum."
"Clearly they should bow to your superior wisdom."-- they should, because i know the key.
"Why shouldn't we study the mind?"-- because its like a never ending popup, there isnt much there, the more you look the more you find but its all popup.
" still believing that mental illness is caused by evil demons."-- maybe thats less damaging.
" preaching the evils of something he couldn't hope to understand."-- that is probably more true than you imagine.
"cogeto ergo sum." No one really takes that line seriously anymore, it's actually rather faulty. Kierkegaard summed it up nicely, it presupposes the existence of "i", it's pointless fluff.
Of course the essence of philosophy didn't start with the mind, but the mind has played a role in major philosophies the world over. I was just pointing out that such thought didn't start with Kant. Nowhere in my statement did I say it was the core of the field, don't equivocate my words. Or did you merely misunderstand me? As I said, the name itself comes from the Greek term meaning "The love (or study) of wisdom". It is the search for knowledge, for explanation. Many say there are five core branches of philosophy, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Aesthetics, and Logic. I've also seen some include "politics" but I'd wager that as a more recent addition. The mind has been the subject of thought for years. While it may not be the core, it has most undoubtedly been a subject.
"maybe thats less damaging". Once again, willfully championing ignorance as if it is a valid substitute for knowledge. Would you want to live in a world without medical science too? The mental health and social science fields help millions each year, don't judge the entire thing just because you have a piss poor grasp of it. I joined the field because I was once a patient, I was helped and so I developed the urge to "return the favor" as it were.
"I'll tell you straight out not an expert" The first logical thing you've said all day...granted you said it in a most confusing way.
"No one really takes that line seriously anymore"-- really? you could have fooled me. Seems to me that everybody factors it in somewhere. There world is becoming increasingly pluralist.
Philosophy doesnt mean love of wisdom, it means love of knowledge. a small point but it makes a difference. I am aware that philosophers thought about reason etc, how else could decarte have arrived at cogeto ergo sum(see, i have actually read stuff)
Any philosophy that doesnt factor in Gods role is doomed to fall short.
Yeah, political philosophy is huge, my main gripe when i started the thread was with consequences of capitalist philosophies.
"I joined the field because I was once a patient"-- thats ok, i signed myself in for two weeks on the ground floor many years ago, it was the sane thing to do.
".granted you said it in a most confusing way."-- the trick is to avoid reading between the lines,
You demonstrate a little more knowledge in the subject then I first gave you credit for, but I still wholly disagree with you on most everything.
I think therefore I am was used as the basis for existence to him. It was the "logical" result of his systematic self doubt that he hoped would lead him to the one undoubtable thing, his own existence. He considered it the basis of all reason. The argument is faulty though because as I said it presupposes the "I". Also, I wouldn't attribute pluralism to Descartes at all, he is considered the western genesis of "dualism" which stands in stark contrast to pluralism.
And yes, the Greek root of the word Philosophy, "philosophia" literally translates as "the love of wisdom". Clearly your reading didn't include etymology.
"Any philosophy that doesnt factor in Gods role is doomed to fall short." There have been countless philosophies that came before your sand god that still stand pretty firm, and there have been many after it that have yet to fail. Your logic is faulty. There are more people in the world then your sand gods flock, and they truck along just fine without him.
Yea since you have missing words between the lines, does make it a little hard.