William James was the first 'professor of psychology' at Harvard, 1875. The first PhD in psychology went to G. Stanley Hall in 1878. So... from Socrates to Psychology wasn't exactly a short cut. Philosophy wasn't interested in experimental methods. Science in general is said to be an offshoot of philosophy but again, it took a long time.

Freud developed his system of psychoanalysis in the 1890s. He deserves credit, but psychoanalysis would have benefitted from more science and less philosophy.

Freud developed his system of psychoanalysis in the 1890s. He deserves credit, but psychoanalysis would have benefitted from more science and less philosophy. — Bitter Crank

I've never thought of psychoanalysis as scientific. I think it's more of a meditative practice. It's about awareness, not facts. Clearly Freud considered it science.

I've never thought of psychoanalysis as scientific. I think it's more of a meditative practice. It's about awareness, not facts. Clearly Freud considered it science. — T Clark

I was taught Skinner's Behaviorism was responsive to Freud's unscientific approach.

He did consider it science, and it isn't his fault that experimental psychology had not developed far enough to provide methods for testing whether psychoanalysis worked, and if it did work, what aspect of it was key to success. I would call it more "ruminative" than meditative', but that's not the significant thing.

Psychoanalysis isn't dead, but good luck finding insurance that will pay for it. Talk therapy with a competent therapist (there are fewer of them than one might think) is unquestionably beneficial for many people. Besides finding a good therapist, one needs more than 6 sessions, usually. A year of weekly sessions would be more like it.

Whatever therapy one seeks, it seems like there are a couple of truths, at least:

Self knowledge is good and useful. (know thyself, and the unexamined life isn't worth living)
Therapy means change. (Easier said than done)
Sanity is difficult to maintain in a crazy society. (Erich Fromm)

Self knowledge is good and useful. — Bitter Crank

My older brother started taking an anti-depressant. He found himself thinking more and more about how he had behaved all his life and how much he hurt people. It made him miserable. His solution? Stop taking the anti-depressant. That seemed like a pretty good solution to me.

Sure, but so did every other field.

But they do have more in commons than what one might first think of. In so far as they both study the mind, it is hard to distinguish. Once it gets to therapy or medication, then the differences are more obvious.

Psychology, the science of the mind and behavior, supposedly evolved from Philosophy. — HardWorker

I have also taken two courses in Psychology in college, but, more importantly, I have read a lot of books in this field, including of course its big "stars" This is because I was always interested in the subject of mind. However, at that time, I was very little involved in philosophy and in general personal "critical" or "philosophical" thinking. So I "bought" Psychology's foundation that everything happens in the brain. (At least at that time, about 50 years ago. I have stopped reading psychology books since a long time ago so I’m not updated on the subject.) At that time, I didn't even cared about the big irony that its name --as well as its friend, Psychiatry-- expresses: The word "psychology" comes from Greek psyche (= soul) and the ending -logy, coming also from Greek "logos" (= speech), and denoting a subject of study or interest. Yet, Psychology has nothing to do with "psyche", which mainly refers to the soul, mind or spirit. And "mind" here is not a physical thing that exists in the brain.

Wikipedia says that "The ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, China, India, and Persia all engaged in the philosophical study of psychology." Yet, in modern times, although Psychology has a few things in common with Philosophy, its foundations, procedures/methods, way of thinking, views of life, the human being and existence in general, are totally different.

I, personally, have left Psychology far behind me ...

Of course I know nothing about your brother. But... Perseverating negative thoughts (all the people in my life that I have hurt) is a feature o depression in some (many?) people. Self-blame and guilt are also features for some (many?). Maybe the situation is that the antidepressant your brother was taking just wasn't effective for him.

People stop taking psychoactive medication because the drugs work, and they don't need them any more. Then they relapse. People also stop taking these meds if they don't feel any better. That is not an unreasonable response, but a different medication (along with talk therapy) might have been successful.

Maybe your brother did hurt a lot of people, or perhaps he exaggerated his guilt (to himself). He wouldn't be the first or only depressed person to consider himself a miserable failure, In some ways, the feeling of failure is the flip side of unworkable perfectionism. Some people manage to achieve some sort of perfection, but most of us don't. We just keep beating ourselves over the head because we are not smarter, happier, sexier, richer, more fit, better hung, or anything else under the sun. Short changing ourselves is a feature of depressive thinking.

So how is your brother doing?

So how is your brother doing? — Bitter Crank

He is doing well.

I, personally, have left Psychology far behind me ... — Alkis Piskas

Or so you think.

Yes. I have written a blog devoted to philosophical psychology.

https://philospsy.blogspot.com/

There are some good articles in there.

Its been stated that successful philosophy becomes the sciences. Philosophy is sort of like a proto-science who's ultimate goal is to destroy itself.

Its been stated that successful philosophy becomes the sciences. Philosophy is sort of like a proto-science who's ultimate goal is to destroy itself. — Philosophim

It was likely stated by a scientist. Only commoditized and conventionalized philosophy becomes the sciences. Science is sort of like an unself-aware philosophy who's ultimate goal is to overcome its worldview through a philosophical gestalt shift. Good philosophy continues to stay a step or two ahead of the sciences.

Psychology, the science of the mind and behavior, supposedly evolved from Philosophy. That was what I was taught when I was taking my psychology classes. I can see how that would be the case, they have much in common and overlap quite a bit. — HardWorker

Yes. But I think Psychology, Sociology, and the other "soft" sciences are still primarily theoretical & philosophical, with a scientific veneer of statistical probabilities. In the early 20th century, premature psychology was dismissed by scientists as "mere philosophy". So, Skinner proposed to make it a "hard" science by studying only objective behavior, instead of speculating on subjective ideas & feelings. That approach faded away after a while, since outward behavior is not a reliable indicator of inward thoughts & motives. What we now know is that humans evolved from apes, yet still have much in common with them. :smile:

Behaviorism :
Strictly speaking, behaviorism is a doctrine – a way of doing psychological or behavioral science itself.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

Yes. But I think Psychology, Sociology, and the other "soft" sciences are still primarily theoretical & philosophical, with a scientific veneer of statistical probabilities. In the early 20th century, premature psychology was dismissed by scientists as "mere philosophy". So, Skinner proposed to make it a "hard" science by studying only objective behavior, instead of speculating on subjective ideas & feelings. That approach faded away after a while, since outward behavior is not a reliable indicator of inward thoughts & motives. What we now know is that humans evolved from apes, yet still have much in common with them. :smile:

Speaking as somebody whose got a four year college degree in Psychology I would have to say that Psychology is both a hard science and a soft science. Psychology can get very mathematical, an ANOVA is just one example, but it also gets much into areas that are hard to measure with just numbers, so as far as being a hard science or a soft science, I would say it's both.

Speaking as somebody whose got a four year college degree in Psychology I would have to say that Psychology is both a hard science and a soft science. — HardWorker

Yes. But empirical (physical) scientists tend to look down upon their theoretical (metaphysical) colleagues for doing "soft" science : producing no hard verifiable evidence for their theories. Since, Psychology does use statistics to define the probability of their conclusions, It remains a step above feckless Philosophy in esteem, as a way of knowing & understanding intangibles. :smile:

What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science? :
In general, the soft sciences deal with intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings. . . .
The distinction between the two types of science is a matter of how rigorously a hypothesis can be stated, tested, and then accepted or rejected. . . .
So, one might say the terms hard science and soft science have become outdated.
https://www.thoughtco.com/hard-vs-soft-science-3975989

Psychology derived from philosophy.. isn't psychoanalysis philosophical in nature? It asks questions of who we really are? Why do we function the way that we do? How thought reflects through our daily lives? Introspection (in my opinion) is one of the hardest pursuits a human can undertake to find truth and answers to who we really are. You cannot be psycho analytic with out being philosophical.

Freud — Bitter Crank

Do you see any truth in the claim that Freud's theory of mind (Id, Ego, and Superego) was a ripoff of Socrates' Chariot Analogy?

It's true. There are many figures involved, including the psychoanalysts, which may be considered "pre-scientific".

But, one has to speak of William James here, he made important contributions that stand the test of time very well.

Do you see any truth in the claim that Freud's theory of mind (Id, Ego, and Superego) was a ripoff of Socrates' Chariot Analogy? — Agent Smith

I don't know. He probably was familiar with it, being a well-educated urbane sophisticated crackpot. Were you planning on suing Freud's estate for copyright infringement of Socrates' ideas?

Freud's psychodynamic system is too rococo to be tied to any single source. I don't think he cooked up the oedipal conflict and penis envy after reading Sophocles' plays. Besides, he was wrong about penis envy. Men have penis envy, not women. (see the scholarly work of M. Python, Biggus Dickus)

I don't know. He probably was familiar with it, being a well-educated urbane sophisticated crackpot. Were you planning on suing Freud's estate for copyright infringement of Socrates' ideas? — Bitter Crank

:rofl: I wish I knew how, but the resemblance...it's hard to ignore.

Freud's psychodynamic system is too rococo to be tied to any single source. I don't think he cooked up the oedipal conflict and penis envy after reading Sophocles' plays. Besides, he was wrong about penis envy. Men have penis envy, not women. (see the scholarly work of M. Python, Biggus Dickus) — Bitter Crank

:lol: Freud's psychological theory revolves around sex, run-of-the-mill and deviant, and there's merit to it if you look at from a Darwinian (evolutionary) perspective: survival is about reproductive success! :chin:

There is much that is useful in Freud's theories, not least 'pervasive polymorphous perversity'--we being sexual beings from the getgo. Infantile sexuality is, of course, not the same as adult sexuality. Are the oral / anal / genital stages useful? Not to me, except that terms like "anal retentive" are altogether too descriptive of certain people to throw them out as part of bad theory. Just like one may not believe in the devil, but "the devil is in the details" is too good a phrase to lose.

One of Freud's favorites, Wilhelm Reich, spoke out in favor of adolescent sexuality -- the importance of adolescents being able to explore sexuality. It was a scandal back then, and a lot of adults still dread adolescents doing exactly that. Not that anything ever goes wrong with hot teenagers exploring their sexuality!

Its been stated that successful philosophy becomes the sciences. — Philosophim

By whom?

I enrolled in psychology as an undergraduate, but was eventually dissappointed by the subject. The orientation of the department at the University I attended was described dismissively as 'pulling habits out of rats'. I liked the units on humanistic psychology, Albert Ellis, Carl Rogers, and some of those thinkers.

I read many of Sigmund Freud's humanist essays at that time - Totem and Taboo, Civilization and its Discontents, and others of that ilk. Philosophically, many of Freud's ideas are very interesting, he was certainly a much deeper thinker than many of the subsequent generations. But his conception of science was (shall we say) 'scientistic' in the extreme. That is well-illustrated by the anecdote of his last meeting with Jung. 'In Vienna in 1910 Sigmund Freud asked Carl Jung to promise that he would ‘never abandon the sexual theory.’ When Jung asked why, Freud replied that they had to make it a ‘dogma’, an ‘unshakeable bulwark’ against the ‘black tide of mud of occultism’. God knows what unconscious fears drove that conviction.

I think on the whole psychology is only as ever as good as the individuals who practice it. It has scope to be life-changing but it can also be waffle, as it is clearly impossible to treat as an objective science. Humans are after all subjects of experience before they're objects of analysis. Unless it is anchored in a greater worldview it looses much redemptive power - after all Freud said the aim of his work was merely to convert hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness. That's why I think amongst the most insightful psychologists are Victor Frankl and Erich Fromm - they had a philosophical breadth and depth that infused their writings.

:ok:

Speaking as somebody whose got a four year college degree in Psychology I would have to say that Psychology is both a hard science and a soft science. Psychology can get very mathematical, an ANOVA is just one example, but it also gets much into areas that are hard to measure with just numbers, so as far as being a hard science or a soft science, I would say it's both. — HardWorker

Sciences have specialties and sub-specialties as delineated by their aims, methods of observation and analysis, and their semi-private insider jargon. All of these are cut across by a theoretical 'pure' and applied pragmatic divide.

The speculative theory of mind goes back at least as far as Plato's tripartite theories of the soul. The scientific pragmatic side goes back at least to the Heraclitean dismissal of poets in favor of logos as laws of nature. But all science owes Galileo for his radical rejection of theological scholasticism in favor of Pythagorean mathematical explorations of physics and astronomy.

I think on the whole psychology is only as ever as good as the individuals who practice it. — Wayfarer

So it's an art more than a science?

You can definitely make the argument. Especially a science in the sense of quantitative analysis of objectively verifiable facts. Of course I think many insightful psychologists have always been aware of that, but there's an overwhelming tendency especially in the English-speaking world to deprecate the qualitative aspects of psychology as not been scientifically tractable.

all science owes Galileo for his radical rejection of theological scholasticism in favor of Pythagorean mathematical explorations of physics and astronomy. — magritte

I'm currently studying Husserl's Crisis of the European Sciences which has many vital insights into the role of Galileo as one of the architects of modernity proper. It's too deep and involved a subject to give an account of in a forum post save to point to the seminal division Galileo makes between the 'primary', supposedly mind-independent, properties of bodies, which can be expressed precisely in mathematical form, and the so-called secondary qualities, apparently inhering in the subjective domain of mind. Thereby setting up the fundamental mind-matter dualism which ultimately gives rise to the 'Cartesian anxiety':

Cartesian anxiety refers to the notion that, since René Descartes posited his influential form of body-mind dualism, Western civilization has suffered from a longing for ontological certainty, or feeling that scientific methods, and especially the study of the world as a thing separate from ourselves, should be able to lead us to a firm and unchanging knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. The term is named after Descartes because of his well-known emphasis on "mind" as different from "body", "self" as different from "other".

Richard J. Bernstein coined the term in his 1983 book Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. It has subsequently become the basis for much discussion.

He did consider it science — Bitter Crank

I've read a lot of Freud and I don't recall his saying psychoanalysis is a science.* He changed his mind constantly, he was constantly re-exploring and revising his theories. Can you point me to where Freud makes this claim? Legitimately curious. :smile:


*My memory's not the best...

That's why I think amongst the most insightful psychologists are Victor Frankl and Erich Fromm - they had a philosophical breadth and depth that infused their writings. — Wayfarer

And so much plain old humanity.

The orientation of the department at the University I attended was described dismissively as 'pulling habits out of rats'. — Wayfarer

Looks like you hit the behaviorist wall. Behaviorism - Walden Two - the grotesque result of an art aspiring to be a science.



Not to discount the methods and successes of behavior analysis - especially vis-a-vis autistic children. (This I witnessed first-hand when I studied behavior analysis. Ultimately turned back to the humanists to pursue a license in psychotherapy.) The science there is just very, very limited. CBT has roots in behaviorism and has been a success for the field. So it may be just a question of extremism. Walden Two is an extremist vision.