Different philosophies have different psychologies. And vice-versa.
Maybe the question won't sort out what you want it to.

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.

hear hear )

... is philosophy based more on how our minds work than it does on traditional philosophical concepts? — Don Wade

"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 ...)

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

What we choose is more likely a reflection of the time we live in.

It is a rare person outside of academe who has a coherent framework based on philosophy or psychology. But like magpies we do tend to cherry pick ideas (sometimes out of context) and use them to illustrate or 'settle' examples, much in the way that 200 years ago someone might have used the Greek myths as metaphors to illustrate or enliven a conversation. In our current time people tend to choose examples derived from scientific sources over the philosophic. My own gripe is people who use quantum mechanics or neuroscience to 'settle' arguments when at best the ideas are speculative and inadequately understood.

My own gripe is people who use quantum mechanics or neuroscience to 'settle' arguments when at best the ideas are speculative and inadequately understood. — Tom Storm

:up:

Depends what field of philosophy you are talking about. If it's philosophy of mind, then yes, some aspects of the field are similar to ideas found in empirical phycology. There's also a new trend of trying to incorporate aspects phenomenology to psychology. The thing is, psychology deals with an extremely difficult topic, human beings, so there's a lot of room for development in the field. So there's going to be some connection between the two fields.

On the other hand, things like metaphysics, logic, aesthetics and so on, don't seem to have a direct relationship with psychology. These distinctions between different areas of knowledge often are arbitrary and most of them started as being part of philosophy. But sill philosophy encompasses more areas than empirical psychology.

I think both psychology and sociology started out as philosophies and developed into their own respective sciences. Yet psychology is becoming increasingly controversial since several psychiatrists have stated 'they know nothing about the brain'. They prescribe medication because the system demands to.

I think it all comes down to this question: What is the psyche?

The relationship between psychology and philosophy is complex, because some of the founding figures, such as William James were exploring both. It was during the twentieth anniversary that the two branches off separately. I think that behaviorism, and the development of experimental psychology played an important part in this.

I have always been drawn to read books on both psychology and philosophy. Generally, psychology is more concerned with ways of understanding how the mind works and improving techniques for helping us cope with our own mental states. Philosophy is more about questions about existence and how we can construct a picture of how reality works

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.

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

Thanks Jack! You and I seem to be running a parallel course.

Psychology - especially experimental psychology - is looking now, at the relatiohip between psychology and philosophy. It's interesting (to me) how human minds plays a part (psychology) in what we believe to be reality and truth (philosophy). Kind of like the way Plato thought?

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.

What we choose is more likely a reflection of the time we live in. — Tom Storm

I agree. But, that may be a given and can't be changed.

So there's going to be some connection between the two fields. — Manuel

I agree. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_psychology .

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.

Yes. You could say philosophy attempts to problematize "the given". In clearer terms phycologists tend to work with certain assumptions, philosophy questions that.

There's also the problematic issue of science in that, since psychology deals with such complicated beings, there's much less theoretical depth for psychologists to investigate. One of the reasons I suspect physics is so successful is that it studies extremely simple structures in nature. What's a particle compared to a butterfly then compared to a person?

It's not that phycology can't be scientific, it clearly can. But if phycology were like physics, in terms of depth of explanation, none of us would have problems we'd just know what to do. But that's far from the case.

Good thinking. Thanks!.

Logic has it's own skeleton in it's own closet. One need not pick examples, analogy, or metaphor, from the other sciences, or any where else for that matter, to make this point. One need only use a logical principle to ask logic a logical question that it cannot answer. But yes, logic is the ultimate "gentlemen's agreement" from which we proceed to all other sciences. Whether or not that is a ball-and-chain remains unresolved, but there are many questions in the other sciences that logic has yet to answer.

Either way, I think both logic and psychology, like all arts, are luxuries brought to us by leisure which in turn is brought to us by abundance which may or may not have been brought to us by logic, or psychology, or anything else. We think we stand on the shoulders of giants, but like the ruminant chewing it's cud, we ultimately stand (or sit, or lay or are based) on the Earth.

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

Thanks for the insight.

:up:
(belated :up: too)

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

So is introspection philosophical or psychological?

Introspection is psychological (re: folk). Reflection (i.e. reflective thinking), contra introspection, is philosophical.

Hmmm. Exactly how does reflection differ from introspection?

Reflection examines/problematizes ideas and concepts, dis/beliefs and doubts, ignorance and biases; that is, it's an attempt to think clearly-attentively about (one's own) thinking. Introspection, however, is a cognitive bias (see the link in my previous post).

Ok, I didn't notice that was a link. I'm extremely conversant with cognitive biases (it was the central theme of some extensive work I did from 1991 to 1993), so I'm interested - if skeptical - to read and interpret these experimental findings.

I'm not actually seeing any supporting evidence in the link you posted.

However, I can say, in general terms, that this hinges on one thing: does knowledge of a cognitive bias mitigate the effects of the cognitive bias? My entire philosophy hinges on the fact that it does. I am aware of the illusion of small numbers, so I am immediately sensitive and reactive to situations in which I recognize myself reacting this way. In fact, whenever someone reacts to a logical fallacy, they are essentially exhibiting the same kind of (projected) reflective awareness. Presumably, if you are sensitive to the use of logical fallacies by others, you are also yourself.

If you scroll down the wiki article there is a section titled "Correction" that discusses whether or not the bias can be suppressed or eliminated through training or some such. It is a cognitive bias and that is my only point, so I don't know what other "evidence" you were looking for that you didn't find. 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; 'living philosophically', so to speak, provides an attentive alternative 'way of being' to one's inattentive routine life, sort of like yoga or martial arts. I guess we're on the same page or very close.

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

:up:

Absolutely. Maybe the back and front of the same page.

edit: essentially my thread talking about how wanting to believe becomes believing could be viewed as describing the effect of a very deeply-embedded cognitive habit

But yes, logic is the ultimate "gentlemen's agreement" from which we proceed to all other sciences. — James Riley

:up:

philosphy often works as follows: we have a position that is determined by our experiences and intutions. WE then seek to justify it through argument. Therefore in this sense, philosphy sits ontop of psychology. It is also worth mentioning that philosphy often ends up persuading people by using better words/description for a concept than another philosphy does.

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

Depends on what is meant by "philosophy". One interpretation of Greek philosophy is that it started as a system aiming to make man as wise ("sophos") as the gods or God as far as humanly possible. This involved knowledge of the mind and its processes i.e. psychology.

So, I'd say that originally, philosophy came first. But, as others have pointed out, different philosophical traditions use psychology in different degrees and ways.