"Traditional philosophical concepts" are blind to, or uninformed by, "how our minds work"; thus, folk assumptions / biases distort much of philosophical discourse (vide Wittgenstein, Churchlands, Lakoff, Dennett, Kahneman, Metzinger, Bakker ...)... is philosophy based more on how our minds work than it does on traditional philosophical concepts? — Don Wade
Sometimes we may intend for our responses to be philosophical, but they end-up as being more psychological. Which then brings up the question: is philosophy based more on how our minds work than it does on traditional philosophical concepts? — Don Wade
Having always being interested in both psychology and philosophy, especially the way in which the two overlap, I have been thinking recently that the whole philosophy of mind is such an interesting area in this respect. I am also aware of vast areas arising in between the two disciplines during the time I have been using the site, especially phenomenology. — Jack Cummins
Psychology conversely is supposed to be an empirical, scientific investigation, which therefore depends for its justification on the validity of the scientific methods, and arguing about the validity of such methods is a philosophical matter, so to that extent psychology is logically dependent on philosophy. — Pfhorrest
An extension of that thought seems to also validate that philosophy is dependent on psychology. Doesn't one (think) about justification (justified true belief) ? The "thinking" part seems to be based on psychology. — Don Wade
Philosophy is a thoughtful act, of course, and so is functionally dependent on having a working thinking-machine, i.e. on having a mind. Something's got to do the thinking to do philosophy. But not just any act of thinking is psychology; only particular kinds of thinking about thinkers is psychology. When doing philosophy, we don't appeal to specific facts about the mind, not as empirically observable in the third person, at least, because that would be circular, those facts depending for their justification on empirical methods that are one of the things at stake in a philosophical investigation. — Pfhorrest
Philosophy is supposed to be logically prior to any empirical investigation, including psychology. I.e. if your philosophy hinges on particular contingent findings about the human mind then it’s not really fully philosophical per se.
Psychology conversely is supposed to be an empirical, scientific investigation, which therefore depends for its justification on the validity of the scientific methods, and arguing about the validity of such methods is a philosophical matter, so to that extent psychology is logically dependent on philosophy. — Pfhorrest
Anyway, my point of view is that philosophical reflection can help one develop cognitive habits that counter, or offset, but do not eliminate, one's biases — 180 Proof
But yes, logic is the ultimate "gentlemen's agreement" from which we proceed to all other sciences. — James Riley
Sometimes we may intend for our responses to be philosophical, but they end-up as being more psychological. Which then brings up the question: is philosophy based more on how our minds work than it does on traditional philosophical concepts? — Don Wade
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.