The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology?

Marcus de Brun

An erudite Philosopher on this forum has made the following assertion:

"What was Wittgenstein's conclusion of this critique?... Philosophy is only descriptive, its purpose therapeutic. The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology."

I am not thoroughly familiar with Wittgenstein' I am however somewhat familiar with Psychology. I suspect that if indeed this is Wittgenstein's conclusion, it is logically sound. The only caveat or revision of the statement (I would suggest) is that Psychology is not the 'only' problem but rather is the 'first' problem.

One cannot have a sound Philosophy without a firm understanding of Psychology. Psychology in the (Wittgenstein sense) may be considered as the ontological horizon of human Philosophy?

In psychological parlance, it might reasonably be asserted that ALL human behavior is ultimately motivated by a deeper often unseen instinctual imperative. I have yet to encounter a contraction to this axiom.

Therefore it would seem that the problem of psychology is (upon a fundamental level) ultimately a problem of instinctual imperative. Freud approached this issue but encountered a problem in respect of suicidal or self destructive drives.

It also appears that instinctual imperatives are collapsible, in the sense that one arises out of another. The need or desire for food, arises out of the instinctual imperative to live, the need for sex, perhaps arises out of an instinctual imperative towards procreation, the instinctual imperative towards competition and violence arises out of the imperative to live or to procreate... and so on. Freud postulated a dubious imperative towards death 'todestrieb' or death drive, to explain self destructive behaviors. I suspect that this is the point where the 'philosophy of psychoanalysis' begins to fail.

If indeed instinctual imperative is the basis of psychology and psychology must be resolved prior to a 'resolution' of philosophy; and if, instinctual imperative is collapsible? This raises the question as to the existence of a single instinctual imperative from which all imperatives, and subsequent thought and behavior arises. The putative supremacy of the instinctual imperative for life or survival seems to be negated by self destructive behaviors such as suicide. Hence the Freudian notion of 'todestrieb'.

I have my own notion of what such an imperative might be. However I would be interested to hear from others as to the potential for such an imperative, and if indeed Philosophy is 'predicated' upon this basic formulation of Psychology.

Shawn

The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology." — Marcus de Brun

What does this even mean?

BC

We do have strong instinctual drives to eat, to be warm, to have sex, to live in groups, to exercise our intellectual capacities, and so forth. Our psychology is driven by instinct, and by experience and our environment (human and physical).

The way that "The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology" is the main problem is that it is very difficult to get people to do what we want them to do, especially if the individual people are not prepared to do it, or don't want to do it.

Take global warming, or climate change. We'd better do something about it--something pretty drastic and something pretty soon, or it might be curtains for us all. There are good reasons (human psychology) why this isn't happening. Those who control economic and environmental policy are, for the most part, rather deeply invested in the status quo. Those who read about climate change in the newspaper can't do more than sort their recycling, drive less, and maybe dial down their home energy use -- which, individually, seems feckless.

Petroleum is still the basis of the economy, and making a change to a much, much smaller energy footprint still faces the mountain-sizes obstacle of "The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology". It isn't an impossible barrier, but it is difficult.

Marcus de Brun

↪Posty McPostface

"What was Wittgenstein's conclusion of this critique?... Philosophy is only descriptive, its purpose therapeutic. The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology."

This statement was posted on another thread, I have deliberately withheld the name of the original poster.

(Would the real Slim Shady please stand up...)

M

Shawn

↪Marcus de Brun

It's a vacuous and trite statement. Meaningless and nonsensical. As if one were a solipsist.

Marcus de Brun

↪Posty McPostface

If it truly arises out of Wittgenstein's Philosophy I doubt if it might be fairly considered as vacuous or trite. Please expand?

M

Baden

This statement was posted on another thread, I have deliberately withheld the name of the original poster. — Marcus de Brun

It wouldn't be bad etiquette to quote them and reveal their name. Anyone could read the quote in context anyhow.

gurugeorge

owever I would be interested to hear from others as to the potential for such an imperative, and if indeed Philosophy is 'predicated' upon this basic formulation of Psychology. — Marcus de Brun

I don't think so, and that's a very weird construal of Wittgenstein. Even on the point of philosophy being "therapeutic," that's a common idea about W., and based on reasonable evidence - but Wittgenstein had doubts about that formulation right to the end (which is why On Certainty is starting to look more like an old-fashioned philosophical thesis - a reinventing of the Aristotelian wheel, actually, IMHO).

There is an element of therapy (being "shown the way out of the fly bottle") in philosophy, for sure, but the question is whether that's all there is to it, or whether it's a preliminary clearing away of the rubbish.

Re. your thoughts on psychology: the way I see it is that evolutionary psychology forms the bridge between biology and personal human psychology, so now we can see that there's a continuum, with one thing building on the other.

In that context, I'm not sure that our "imperatives" are necessarily bad or misleading things. We should examine them, sure, but not with the nervous expectation that we're going to have to overturn our natural inclinations at every point. If our thoughts are based on evolved processes, that means they are highly likely have some connection to reality (although they may occasionally also be "spandrels", accidental behavioural flotsam that's merely passed on because it doesn't even get a chance to rub up against nature wrongly, carried along as part of our system).

Monitor

If we let 'psychology' stand for the characteristics of our operating system (our ego), then I think philosophy exists / serves to inform our operating system on the choices to made. Clearly we are all born with a built in operating system that develops into a model that enables us to survive our youth. But with age, we come to re-evaluate our criteria for making decisions and philosophy emerges to tell the wheat from the chaff. I believe we are all philosophers and the 'imperative' is the constant adjustment to change, to maintain the homeostasis of our premise.

Marcus de Brun

I don't think so, and that's a very weird construal of Wittgenstein. Even on the point of philosophy being "therapeutic," that's a common idea about W., and based on reasonable evidence - but Wittgenstein had doubts about that formulation right to the end (which is why On Certainty is starting to look more like an old-fashioned philosophical thesis - a reinventing of the Aristotelian wheel, actually, IMHO). — gurugeorge

Of course Philosophy is 'therapeutic' .....if it was not, then no one would bother with it. It is only non- therapeutic in a Deterministic Universe.

I am unsure as to whether there is indeed a real distinction between Psychology and Philosophy. The mechanistic nature of sense perception and sense analysis via human psychology lies at the heart of Philosophical declarations on the nature of reality.

It would appear that philosophy and particularly moral philosophy are contingent upon an understanding of psychological function. All behavior without exception can be reduced to innate instinctual imperatives that may be conscious or subconscious.

A sound philosophy particularly a sound moral philosophy is entirely predicated upon a proper understanding of the instincts and I think this is what Wittgenstein was ultimately driving at.

gurugeorge

Of course Philosophy is 'therapeutic' .....if it was not, then no one would bother with it. It is only non- therapeutic in a Deterministic Universe. — Marcus de Brun

Sorry, I'm not seeing the connection here.

A sound philosophy particularly a sound moral philosophy is entirely predicated upon a proper understanding of the instincts and I think this is what Wittgenstein was ultimately driving at. — Marcus de Brun

I think they're related, but "predicated" is far too strong, IMHO.

Marcus de Brun

↪gurugeorge

Of course Philosophy is 'therapeutic' .....if it was not, then no one would bother with it. It is only non- therapeutic in a Deterministic Universe. — Marcus de Brun

Sorry, I'm not seeing the connection here. — gurugeorge

If we define therapy as a process of relieving pain, and if we describe 'awareness of ones own ignorance' as being somewhat 'painful' : Philosophy as a means of understanding the self and ones place in the Universe.... is the ultimate if not the only therapy.

Indeed all pain is mitigated or agravated by ones Philosophy, ones view of self and ones view of ones 'self in the world'. Therefore all pain (real and imagined) is under the influence of Philosophy.

A sound philosophy particularly a sound moral philosophy is entirely predicated upon a proper understanding of the instincts and I think this is what Wittgenstein was ultimately driving at. — Marcus de Brun

What we do, our actions are all without exception instinctually driven. Try to think of one that is not? The 'morality' of an action pertains to the 'why' of an action, why a certain action was or is conducted, establishes its moral or immoral basis. We cannot properly approach the question of why a particular action was effected, without first understanding upon what instinctual premise or drive a given action arises from.

M

Galuchat

What we do, our actions are all without exception instinctually driven. Try to think of one that is not? — Marcus de Brun

I understand instinct to be a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency, not acquired through learning, nor contingent upon volition.

In modern psychology, human instinctual behaviour is considered to be limited to the primitive reflexes, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#In_psychology.

So, it is inappropriate to describe other (i.e., most) human behaviour as instinctual.

Shawn

A sound philosophy particularly a sound moral philosophy is entirely predicated upon a proper understanding of the instincts and I think this is what Wittgenstein was ultimately driving at. — Marcus de Brun

I have the impression, that Wittgenstein believed that an apt and appropriate concern for ethics and morality can only arise if we can overcome the instinctual and subconscious aspect of mankind.

gurugeorge

If we define therapy as a process of relieving pain, and if we describe 'awareness of ones own ignorance' as being somewhat 'painful' : Philosophy as a means of understanding the self and ones place in the Universe.... is the ultimate if not the only therapy. — Marcus de Brun

Oh I see what you mean now. That's definitely not the sense in which Wittgenstein thought philosophy was therapeutic. He didn't think philosophy was painful because the pain is a result of ignorance, he thought it was painful because we're confused by philosophical questions.

IOW, the therapeutic aspect for him was the resolution of confusion, not an accession of new knowledge that negates ignorance.

Marcus de Brun

I have the impression, that Wittgenstein believed that an apt and appropriate concern for ethics and morality can only arise if we can overcome the instinctual and subconscious aspect of mankind. — Posty McPostface

How might we overcome it if we do not understand it?

M

Marcus de Brun

Oh I see what you mean now. That's definitely not the sense in which Wittgenstein thought philosophy was therapeutic. He didn't think philosophy was painful because the pain is a result of ignorance, he thought it was painful because we're confused by philosophical questions. — gurugeorge

Is there such a big difference in being confused and in having ignorance of the truth?

M

gurugeorge

Is there such a big difference in being confused and in having ignorance of the truth? — Marcus de Brun

I think so, confusion is a conceptual matter, ignorance is an empirical matter.

Shawn

How might we overcome it if we do not understand it? — Marcus de Brun

Well, Wittgenstein believed that through analyzing the use/nature of language, we can come to a better understanding of the true nature of how questions or conceptual schemes are formed. Anyway, one can delve into that route or accept the implications of the seventh proposition of the TLP, and simply engage in life instead of trying to make sense of it and never be able to.

Marcus de Brun

↪Posty McPostface

Agreed. But language is simply a vehicle for the instincts, a means to achieve a single supreme natural primordial objective. Nothing more nothing less. Understanding the objective obviates the need for making such a fuss about language itself.

M

Shawn

But language is simply a vehicle for the instincts, a means to achieve a single supreme natural primordial objective. — Marcus de Brun

And, what is that objective if you don't mind me asking?

Understanding the objective obviates the need for making such a fuss about language itself. — Marcus de Brun

Well, to better understand the objective, we have to understand ourselves first.

Shawn

"If we seek to understand the whole Universe, we'll understand little, but seek to understand ourselves, and we'll come to understand the whole Universe."

A saying from a close friend of my childhood.

Marcus de Brun

And, what is that objective if you don't mind me asking? — Posty McPostface

That is easy. Like most difficult questions it has been under our noses all the time. The poets have being trying to tell the Philosopher for a thousand years.

"Love"

Or in terms of evolutionary biology, or human psychology. The primary instinctual imperative for the human animal. The drive which unquestionably precedes all other instinctual drives and indeed is the instinct from which all other instincts are derived, is the instinctual imperative towards belonging. The universal raison d'etre; the very fountainhead of all our misery and all our joy.

Belonging

M

Shawn

That is easy. Like most difficult questions it has been under our noses all the time. The poets have being trying to tell the Philosopher for a thousand years. — Marcus de Brun

So, then philosophy is a gift that keeps on giving?

Marcus de Brun

No absolutely not. If Philosophy does not hurt then it is not Philosophy. All of the greatest philosophers without exception have been murdered by Philosophy.

Philosophy is not a gift it is a curse.

Only ignorance is the blissful gift that keeps on giving.

M

Shawn

↪Marcus de Brun

Then I must ask... What are you doing here engaging with us in philosophical endeavors? Is it the fact that you might be wrong and are willing to endure more pain as you call it?

Marcus de Brun

↪Posty McPostface

We have somewhat covered this.

I am here (my behavior) at the behest of my instinctual imperatives, the primary one being to 'belong'.

I seek to reconcile my thought with that of others, as this (in conjunction with the logic of its basis), is the only way "I" have of knowing that I am approaching truth. My personal definition of 'God' is 'truth' and the path to truth is Philosophy. It is covered in briars but is paved with the headstones of great thinkers.

In religious parlance I am here because I wish to belong to a God, whom I am trying to get to know, before my material existence expires.

I must endure the idiocy of my peers, but equally they must endure mine.

M

Kamikaze Butter

After all my time observing, human psychology seems solved.

At our essence, we are all rent seekers - we seek to stack the rules of the game in our favor.

This feels as an intuitive outcome of the process that spawned us, evolution.

We are engaged in natural selection, which has all participants in intraspecies competition utilize their natural advantages. Humans seem novel because we can create advantages through persuasading others to follow social constructs that promote our own self interest.

Shawn

I must endure the idiocy of my peers, but equally they must endure mine. — Marcus de Brun

Why must it be that way? Is there no alternative to this sorry predicament?

Marcus de Brun

↪Posty McPostface

Posty

There is no alternative because there is no 'material' interventionist supreme authority to arbitrate on the matter and incarcerate or silence the fools. There is only the God of truth and its handmaiden 'logic and reason', whom the God must accept are often presenting untruths and illogical suppositions.

Nietzsche reminds that we should have as much respect for un-truth as truth, and in this sense the fool is often correct. In this sense too, even the liars, the mud-slingers, the sycophants to intellectual self-serving fashions, and the fools; may indeed have something that is worth listening to. At the very least their anger (when they are exposed) is an exposition of worshiped fallacies.

I fear that if you change the current rules upon the battle field, you will cause something important to be lost. What is important to bear in mind is the fact that there is a logic and a truth and one must continue to 'fight' for it and against it in order to make it real. Personally I think this truth has more life and more of its source in the old questions rather than the 'new' fashionable answers.

M

Shawn

There is no alternative because there is no 'material' interventionist supreme authority to arbitrate on the matter and incarcerate or silence the fools. — Marcus de Brun

Whoa. You can't be serious. This reduces the importance of agency in our lives and assumes some fatalistic psychological stance, much like the one Freud and other psychologists covered, which leads to an overwhelming sense of futility and pessimism in one's life.

There is only the God of truth and its handmaiden 'logic and reason', whom the God must accept are often presenting untruths and illogical suppositions. — Marcus de Brun

So, as long as we're being reasonable, then progress is being made, yes?

Nietzsche reminds that we should have as much respect for un-truth as truth, and in this sense the fool is often correct. In this sense too, even the liars, the mud-slingers, the sycophants to intellectual self-serving fashions, and the fools; may indeed have something that is worth listening to. At the very least their anger (when they are exposed) is an exposition of worshiped fallacies. — Marcus de Brun

Nietzsche professed a philosophy that entices and encourages the rise of delusions, with his appeal to psychological needs as the only motivating force in a man's life. I'm working on trying to formalize this into a logical whole; but, you get the gist I think.

I fear that if you change the current rules upon the battle field, you will cause something important to be lost. What is important to bear in mind is the fact that there is a logic and a truth and one must continue to 'fight' for it and against it in order to make it real. Personally I think this truth has more life and more of its source in the old questions rather than the 'new' fashionable answers. — Marcus de Brun

Well, we would hope that everyone is their own referee.

The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions