Integrating schools of Psychology

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Integrating schools of Psychology

Post by danh on Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:06 pm

Similar, but not quite the same thing.
Kant thought of the table as the constant and our perceptions being distorted,
James was pointing out that the universe sometimes throws a curveball at you.
You might only ever have seen tables that were solid and can't even imagine one that isn't solid.
Then some joker puts you in a room with a hologram of a table. You set your coffee cup on it just like you would with any other table.
The results destroy the truth of tables being solid.
However, once you realize what is going on you can modify your beliefs to include hologram tables and while the truth value of your belief in solid tables is reduced it is still a useful generality as long as you remember to check if the table really is solid before letting go of your coffee cup.
My explanation is probably not really clear and it might be better to just read the start of chapter 19 instead.

danh

Posts : 11
Join date : 2015-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Integrating schools of Psychology

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:10 pm

So its much the same as to what Kant called the 'phenomenon' and the 'noumenon'?

The phenomenon being our distorted perception of the absolute object, colored by our distorted and subjective perception of it?
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Integrating schools of Psychology

Post by danh on Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:10 am

I should repeat that I don't agree with everything he said.
James was writing over a century ago and the world has moved on. Yet the ideas William James, Peirce, and Popper presented have a lot of relevance to how people look at reality and to how people think about science.

danh

Posts : 11
Join date : 2015-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Integrating schools of Psychology

Post by danh on Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:59 am

It is a bit more complicated than that.
He also said that facts are not true or untrue but that facts simply are facts. He believed there is an objective reality. The way he defined truth isn't the same as the way we normally use the word when referring to facts. He believed truth depends upon how useful a belief is.
""Truths emerge from facts, but they dip forward into facts again and add to them; which facts again create or reveal new truth (the word is indifferent) and so on indefinitely. The 'facts' themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are. Truth is the function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them"

James talks a bit about this in Principles of Psychology. Chapter 19 is called The Perception of 'Things'.
He talks about illusions and hallucinations but it is the first part of the chapter that gives me an idea of what he meant.
When he talks about the table he isn't saying the table isn't a real object. He is pointing out how we interpret it based on what we already know about tables. Our beliefs about tables have truth value only in how well they correspond to the real table, and sometimes the real object surprises us by not being what we thought it was.

danh

Posts : 11
Join date : 2015-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Integrating schools of Psychology

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:13 pm

I'm a great believer in summarizing 'in your own words'.
Even one's own theories, should be re-expressed at every opportunity in 'real-time', with a unique set of non-memorized sentences.

This way the verbosity of academicization, gives way to a more real form
of language, and contradictions as well as paradoxes are looked at from
many different angles.

For instance,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James
James claims that 'truth' and 'fact' are not the same,
The 'facts' themselves meanwhile are not true.
which seems contradictory. The wiki articles notes that this appears
to be relativism, but James denies this.
This leaves me thinking that James' theory is somewhat contradictory.

I am not a fan of relativism, whether it be in Psychology or Physics.
;-j
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Integrating schools of Psychology

Post by danh on Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:31 pm

I find William James much more interesting than Freud. I might not agree with everything he thought but The Principles of Psychology is a very interesting text.
It is a bit dated since it was published in 1890 but it includes a philosphical perspective on how we perceive reality that most texts miss.
James might be considered as the founder of American psychology and his approach was pragmatic with a large emphasis on empericism. He did a lot to turn psychology into a science.
If you are unfamiliar with James a good place to start is Wikipedia and then look up his book, which is available for free either at
https://archive.org/details/theprinciplesofp01jameuoft
or
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/

danh

Posts : 11
Join date : 2015-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Integrating schools of Psychology

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:45 pm

I have found developmental psychology to be a good place to start.
At first glance it does not appear too mysterious; but on closer
inspection, it necessitates much of Freudian philosophy.

For example, a person develops through her history,
and her personality is largely an accumulation of her past experiences.

Very little of her thinking process is set in the 'now', and how the past
interacts with the 'now' is largely subconscious.

So the development of the psychological 'self' hinges on accepting that
past memories reflect themselves subconsciously. So we begin to realize
that the concepts of Id, Ego and Superego are also part of the psyche.

Now how can we accept Freud, without transcending him with Jung?

Of course much of developmental psychology is observed through the
rigors of old-fashioned behaviorism and ugly-old statistics.

Philosophy of ethics also has to be appreciated; and like it or not,
most of this is inherited from Christianity, which also integrates with Jung.

But the medium prevalent in my approach these days, may seem quite obscure
to most psychologists. This medium is: Cosmology. I have found that using
an abstract set of ideas, seemingly quite distant from psychology-proper
helps to 'keep it real', and allows the mind time to reflect without becoming
too self-conscious of its own consciousness.

What do you think?
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Integrating schools of Psychology

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:32 pm

Psychology is a schizophrenic study.

There are so many schools of thought,
all thinking about thought, in so many diverse ways,
that I thought that this thread would be a good place
to think about how we think about thought.

What a Face
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Integrating schools of Psychology

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum