Reply
Sun 1 Jul, 2007 09:05 am
?'A Science of Man' to transcend ?'The Man of Science'
Psychology, which began as protest against religion, has evolved into a reaffirmation of a non material aspect of our human nature. I would say that this non material aspect is not yet readily definable but is referred to as a ?'spiritual' aspect of our nature; this spiritual aspect transcends our material nature but need not be synonymous with that aspect of human nature that religion wishes to focus upon and define.
I think that a person who wishes to comprehend what the science of psychology offers us must hold in abeyance their inclination to dismiss anything that does not fit their present categories of knowledge. If we add to our standard ?'accept' or ?'reject' attitudes a button for ?'hold judgment until better informed' we might learn much important knowledge and might just develop an understanding of what we are and why we do the things we do.
Modern depth psychology consists of varied theories interpreting the "unconscious depths" of wo/man; these theories reverse some of the earlier concepts and focus not only upon "a new conception of human personality, but a new approach to art and religions as well as change in the way we see ourselves in history."
The principal figures in this depth psychology are Sigmund Freud and his three protégés Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung, and Otto Rank. These individuals are considered to be the Big Four depth psychology. They are like branches sprouting from the same tree trunk.
Psychology attempts to understand the modifications in human existence resulting from the changes in deeply held patterns of culture of the accustomed national or tribal ways of life before the industrial revolution. These traditional ways of the past provided "built-in psychic security for the individual
But when the old groups were physically broken up and their members were scattered in the factories of the cities, or when, for any of many reasons, the faith in their teachings was gone, the individual was left unprotected."
The materialistic and mechanistic model of human nature that evolved from the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment coupled with the modern success in technology has produced a citizenry in Western society that is enchanted with the view of human nature that idolizes the Man of Science.
The man in the Man of Science is a cipher. The scientific method is a process wherein the human agent is best when he or she is cleansed of many humanistic characteristics. Often a robot would better serve as the scientist than would a human.
The man in the Science of Man is center stage. The man, either he or she, is the major participant and the major object of comprehension in all activities that form the focus of a Science of Man.
I think that cognitive science coupled with the sciences of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and anthropology now provide us with knowledge of human nature that makes possible a Science of Man that goes well beyond this mechanistic view of human nature. I also am led to conclude that the unconscious is the most important aspect of man and woman that must be studied in a Science of Man.
Quotes from "The Death and Rebirth of Psychology"?-Ira Progoff
Questions for discussion.
Can you tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of "hold judgment until better informed"?
Coberst wrote:I think that a person who wishes to comprehend what the science of psychology offers us must hold in abeyance their inclination to dismiss anything that does not fit their present categories of knowledge. If we add to our standard ?'accept' or ?'reject' attitudes a button for ?'hold judgment until better informed' we might learn much important knowledge and might just develop an understanding of what we are and why we do the things we do.
Much (though certainly not all) of what scholars have found questionable in the authors you mentioned is not that they don't "fit into present categories of knowledge," but the opposite: they can
always be fit into present categories of knowledge, no matter what. When Freud says that women secretly desire to have penises, for example, any woman can either affirm this, in which Freud is correct, or deny it, in which case Freud can play the repression card and still claim to be correct. Theories of the unconscious are often built on claims that can never be wrong, and therein lies their weakness. If the results of repression and the results of non-repression are indistinguishable from each other, then applying either term is an entirely arbitrary exercise. This is not to say that there's no such thing as the unconscious or repression (beats the hell out of me whether they exist or not) but their existence or non-existence doesn't actually change anything because they are always applied after the fact, and there's nothing stopping the determined psychoanalyst from applying them to anything. As such, they are not explanations about "why we do the things we do"; they are labels we give to why we did the things we did. I readily acknowledge the importance of labeling, but labeling is different from explaining.
coberst wrote:
Quote:Can you tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of "hold judgment until better informed"?
Shapeless wrote:
Quote:I readily acknowledge the importance of labeling, but labeling is different from explaining.
The neurtal mode coberst describes, above, is the way I try to approach life in general. I believe it leads to greater understanding. Its not always easy, though--and sometimes first impressions are quite valid.
I think labels
may be important, in some instances, but sometimes I think lables, once applied, tend to preclude further insight. The moment a thing is labeled, we begin looking for evidence that our label is correct. In other words, we become influenced by confirmation bias.
eclectic wrote:coberst wrote:
Quote:Can you tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of "hold judgment until better informed"?
Shapeless wrote:
Quote:I readily acknowledge the importance of labeling, but labeling is different from explaining.
The neurtal mode coberst describes, above, is the way I try to approach life in general. I believe it leads to greater understanding. Its not always easy, though--and sometimes first impressions are quite valid.
I think labels
may be important, in some instances, but sometimes I think lables, once applied, tend to preclude further insight. The moment a thing is labeled, we begin looking for evidence that our label is correct. In other words, we become influenced by confirmation bias.
I agree. When we make the judment that 'X' is true or false we then are inclined to discontinue an open minded search for truth. Our educational system has never taught us the importance of an open mind.
eclectic wrote:The moment a thing is labeled, we begin looking for evidence that our label is correct. In other words, we become influenced by confirmation bias.
You bet, and that is virtually the definition of the psychoanalytic method. A diagnosis is made, and then everything in the patient's history that can be rationalized into the diagnosis--even things that directly contradict it--becomes evidence.