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. — Apollodorus

Sometimes philosophy and psychology seem to go hand-in-hand. Maybe there isn't a "which came first"?

Sometimes philosophy and psychology seem to go hand-in-hand. Maybe there isn't a "which came first"? — Don Wade

Quite possible. However, I'd say that from a philosophical standpoint, psychology would represent a tool of philosophical inquiry. But this is just my opinion.

When we practice philosophy it can lead down to psychology at its fundamental level.
Yet philosophy can be an end result of psychology which leads to the initial intrigue of philosophy.

But as you develop your skills in philosophy it can become an awareness or control of your own psychology.
So I would say initially its psychology.

Psychologist to Philosopher: I know why you think. [Complexes ]
Philosopher to Psychologist: I know how you think. [Critical Thinking ]

Philosophy is an expression of the human psyche.
Every philosophy is a projection of the authors desires and morality.
Some philosophies may even be a psychological stage of depression,anger,ennui,etc.
Many philosophies are an attempt to codify and control reality. Ergo,an ideology,and this ideology is many times political and represents an elite class and its values.
Very similiar to many religions,including the scientific/secular worldview.

Wtf :lol:

@180 Proof The irony of a guy who writes in a clichéd hackneyed jumble saying wtf!
Suppose you've never heard of Ludwig feurbach or siggy freud on the origin of religion?

Luddy & Siggy are old friends of mine, kid, yet kinda belated – though Zapffe & Bataille really are my jam! Nonetheless, Epicurus & Buddha, for instance, haven't been surpassed when it comes to ruminating on the shackles-crutches of "religion". Anyway, your gibberish about "philosophy" was so not even wrong that my "clichéd hackneyed wtf" was just reflexive pity for/ridicule of such a shameless display of fatuous sophistry.

@180 Proof LOL! Been nice if you had an original thought old man. Sense jealousy monsieur.
My stuff is original,yours rehashed mash ups of book learnt platitudes. Verbose blarney.

Ah, I see, you're another new member of the local chapter of the Dunning-Kruger Club for Head-Smugly-Up-One's-Own-Arse, Pontificating, Sages. Welcome, Zippy! We oldtimers have so much not to learn from your obliviously naive example. :victory: :sweat:

@180 Proof The overemotional bookworm strikes again!

Since it is a thread about psychology and philosophy I would like to ask. Who you consider to be the greatest psychist philosopher??I don't know if you consider Freud as philosopher too but except him who else you think as one of the greatest psychological philosopher?

@dimosthenis9 Buddha by far the best. Protagoras,pantanjali. Nietzsche,dostoevsky and Feurbach. Freud is also exceptional on some points. But his oedeipus is way off.

I can't categorize Nietzsche in psychological philosophers. He is one category on his own but I can't see him as psychist philosopher. And Dostoevsky? Hmm I don't know if I would consider him as philosopher. He was an amazing writer who was indeed emphasizing in human's psych and drama but philosopher? I don't know for sure

@dimosthenis9 I don't really worry about defining to closely. I prefer philosophers who talk about human behaviour rather than just metaphysical stuff.
What makes you see nietzsche is not a psychological philosopher,he seems thd prime literary example.

Perhaps each can be the subject of the other and neither is prior.

On the one hand, philosophy of perception, concept of mind.

On the other, for example, asking why we are drawn to some philosophical topics and not others. For one person it's all about political and moral philosophy and they don't really care what Frege had to say about numbers. Other way round for someone else. It's interesting. It's psychology or biography.

For me Nietzsche is more dealing with human's Spirit and what that Spirit can achieve and not so much with psychological aspects. Don't know maybe I have a different view of what i consider psychological philosopher. It's more close to Freud in what I mean. But these lines arent clear.I can see though in what way you consider him as one

Psychologism is a word that attracts a sneer from some but it's not all bad.

"......Husserl’s first published monograph, Philosophy of Arithmetic, which appeared in 1891. In this work, Husserl combined his mathematical, psychological and philosophical competencies to attempt a psychological foundation of arithmetic.......The book was, however, criticized for its underlying psychologism in a review by Gottlob Frege. " Stanford

Husserl; see also phenomenology https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/#:~:text=Phenomenology%20is%20the%20study%20of,of%20or%20about%20some%20object.

We could look at the foundations of arithmetic and try to base it on pure logic and struggle for a century with it and end up wondering whether it's all based on rules that are definable only as the way we do things, that's how it goes, you get the hang of it by looking at what we do and doing the same and understanding 'the same' circularly as just the way we do things. Which has something in common with psychologism.

@Cuthbert It seems some people are scared of psychologism,which Is really just the way the world is,as it demolishes platonism.

people are scared of psychologism — Zenny

Psychologism is to psychology what scientism is to science. Discuss

Psychologism is the view that all true knowledge comes from feelings of certainty rather than "objective" truths independent of subjectivity. I see nothing of the scientism approach in this. In fact just an obvious fact.
Or maybe you had something else in mind?

I was thinking of the problem raised in the last para I wrote. A purely logical basis of arithmetic is apparently not possible. Perhaps psychology has something to offer. I did not distinguish 'psychology' from 'psychologism' but thankfully others did that.

@Cuthbert I think the phrase is commonly misused.
A lot of things are just explained in a different way or using different language for things that are self evident or axiomatic. But then the accusation of circularity is thrown about just to create unnecessary doubt or because the interlocutor is doubtful.
Most axioms have a circularity to them. That's a proof despite what people say! That is what you were saying,no?

:up:

all true knowledge comes from feelings of certainty — Zenny

"Comes from"? How?

Psychologism is the view that all true knowledge comes from feelings of certainty rather than "objective" truths independent of subjectivity. — Zenny

Psychologism, in the pejorative sense in which it was used to critique Husserl’s work, for instance, refers to a confusion of contingent and relative empirical facts with an a priori grounding. Husserl made claims for the origin of arithmetic in mental processes which were universal and ‘apodictic’, which was read by critics as an attempt to make contingent empirical psychological processes absolute and certain. He later changed his ‘psychological’ grounding of mathematics to a transcendental grounding, so that his model could not be misinterpreted as psychologistic.

@Joshs So do you think husserl was right to change his mind? I feel psychologism is correct.

I don’t think he actually changed his mind. His intent all along was to found an absolute grounding in subjectivity for science , logic and math, not an empirical one. This is in the best tradition of continental philosophy: dig deep down beneath the assumptions of math and science to those truths that are indubitably true for all, everywhere, at all times. This is something that Nietzsche tried to do, but not Freud. That for me is the difference between psychology and philosophy. The former is a conventionalized, conservative derivative of the latter.

@Joshs Very interesting! I think freud was really too wedded to science and too concerned with publishing work deemed scientific.
Would you class nietzsche and dostoevsky as phenomenologists?

@Joshs Full disclosure I've always been convinced that first hand experience or a type of phenomenology is
the grounding for all knowledge in principle. But we create new knowledge as we experience more.