Why I can't rely on Philosophy

[Michael Sternbach]

Karl,

 

If you are defining Philosophy as an idea, concept, question, hypothesis than I would agree with you.

 

I would ask you and others, what would you call a Philosophy that is ever changing, insubstantial enough to allow for conclusion but open enough to say, based on the data I have today, this it is what it is. But given even more data tomorrow on the same subject that I was sure of yesterday which became today, I give myself the luxury of changing my mind about that which I was so sure of yesterday, today?

 

JD

 

I would call this a true philosophy. My granddad - who was a philosophy and mathematics professor who wrote a couple of books about this - called it an open philosophy. He also talked about the philosophy of reversibility sometimes.

 

Daoism approaches this perspective, in my understanding: "The way that can be spoken of, is not eternal."

[Karl]

Concepts have to be rooted in reality. Whatever the philosophy it cannot simply float. However, this is where the objections begin. Many want to disprove the primacy of existence. They prefer to have a philosophy in which consciousness has primacy and therefore identity is redundant. Then they bump into a lamp post.

[Marblehead]

One day, philosophy and all the other sciences will unite:

Yeah, sure.  But I'm still not going to buy your bridge.

[Karl]

One day, philosophy and all the other sciences will unite: When it will be understood that the same principles govern each level of existence, from macrocosm to microcosm, from spirit to mind, and so on. The Hermeticists and Daoists realized this long ago.

They have already United. Philosophy is the mulch and the other sciences are the plants which grow there. There are no limits to expansion of consciousness, but we really must stop consuming all those cognitive trans fats and corn syrups.

[Josama]

***

Edited July 11, 2016 by Josama

[Jim D.]

Freud did not use logic/intellect. His patient laid there on a couch and "freely associated" meaning whatever came into their mind they talked about it. Freud used alot of dream analysis, and symbolic intrepretation based around the struggle between the id, ego, and super ego. His theory was that people are sexually driven and always in conflict with and controled by their id.

 

He also gave his patient's Cocaine to help them. That was not a logical thing to do to their nervous system. He was a "coke" user as well.

[Marblehead]

I don't need a super ego.  My ego is plenty strong all on its own.

[Spotless]

Philosophy and "a philosophy" are not the same thing.

 

In fact Philosophy looks for the Wisdom and folly in "philosophies".

 

In the general philosophy of Psychology - the folly is that the human is a science project and so unlike its Art Major predecessor - as a BS endeavor it is far more bent toward BF Skinner and while in the short run perhaps more effective - it has occluded the bigger spiritual Wisdom side of that which it purports to study.

 

If you rely of Psycology as a philosophy you are simply a con artist.

[Josama]

Freud did not use logic/intellect. His patient laid there on a couch and "freely associated" meaning whatever came into their mind they talked about it. Freud used alot of dream analysis, and symbolic intrepretation based around the struggle between the id, ego, and super ego. His theory was that people are sexually driven and always in conflict with and controled by their id.

 

He also gave his patient's Cocaine to help them. That was not a logical thing to do to their nervous system. He was a "coke" user as well.

***

Edited July 11, 2016 by Josama

[Jetsun]

I would say modern psychotherapy is still very much an art form, you can't impose any sort of strict guideline to the way you interact with a client, rather the more open and less rigid you are with the way you treat the person the more success you are likely to get. Psychology on the other hand is turning into more of a science with cognitive neuroscience and brain imaging and things like that. But even then the 'hard problem of consciousness' has not come anywhere near to being solved, scientists still have absolutely no idea how or even if the brain and body produce consciousness, it is a complete assumption that it does so.

 

Therefore I wouldn't rely on psychology too much as the most primary fundamental ground of it which underpins it all is up for grabs, ie if you are not your mind/body and you are not defined your psychology then what you are may go far deeper than anything psychology can ever touch. In some ways psychology is just a way of rearranging the chairs on the deck of Titanic, it may make it nicer for a while but it is still going under. The deeper issues still remain,.

 

Not that philosophy really helps here either, unless it can point you towards doing your own individual investigation in your own being around these issues. But in reality most philosophy usually prevents rather than enables you to do that by keeping you in the realm of mind rather than in the realm of experience. A lot of it is more like mental masturbation, the mind saying how clever and wonderful the mind is in its own circular world, until life bumps up against it inevitably shattering its conclusions.  

Edited July 9, 2016 by Jetsun

[Josama]

I would say modern psychotherapy is still very much an art form, you can't impose any sort of strict guideline to the way you interact with a client, rather the more open and less rigid you are with the way you treat the person the more success you are likely to get. Psychology on the other hand is turning into more of a science with cognitive neuroscience and brain imaging and things like that. But even then the 'hard problem of consciousness' has not come anywhere near to being solved, scientists still have absolutely no idea how or even if the brain and body produce consciousness, it is a complete assumption that it does so.

 

Therefore I wouldn't rely on psychology too much as the most primary fundamental ground of it which underpins it all is up for grabs, ie if you are not your mind/body and you are not defined your psychology then what you are may go far deeper than anything psychology can ever touch. In some ways psychology is just a way of rearranging the chairs on the deck of Titanic, it may make it nicer for a while but it is still going under. The deeper issues still remain,.

 

Not that philosophy really helps here either, unless it can point you towards doing your own individual investigation in your own being around these issues. But in reality most philosophy usually prevents rather than enables you to do that by keeping you in the realm of mind rather than in the realm of experience. A lot of it is more like mental masturbation, the mind saying how clever and wonderful the mind is in its own circular world, until life bumps up against it inevitably shattering its conclusions.

 

***

Edited July 11, 2016 by Josama

[Karl]

I would say modern psychotherapy is still very much an art form, you can't impose any sort of strict guideline to the way you interact with a client, rather the more open and less rigid you are with the way you treat the person the more success you are likely to get. Psychology on the other hand is turning into more of a science with cognitive neuroscience and brain imaging and things like that. But even then the 'hard problem of consciousness' has not come anywhere near to being solved, scientists still have absolutely no idea how or even if the brain and body produce consciousness, it is a complete assumption that it does so.

 

Therefore I wouldn't rely on psychology too much as the most primary fundamental ground of it which underpins it all is up for grabs, ie if you are not your mind/body and you are not defined your psychology then what you are may go far deeper than anything psychology can ever touch. In some ways psychology is just a way of rearranging the chairs on the deck of Titanic, it may make it nicer for a while but it is still going under. The deeper issues still remain,.

 

Not that philosophy really helps here either, unless it can point you towards doing your own individual investigation in your own being around these issues. But in reality most philosophy usually prevents rather than enables you to do that by keeping you in the realm of mind rather than in the realm of experience. A lot of it is more like mental masturbation, the mind saying how clever and wonderful the mind is in its own circular world, until life bumps up against it inevitably shattering its conclusions.

 

It shouldn't be. Objectivism is firmly grounded in reality so has no floating concepts. Rand had begun to investigate a mathematical connection between cognition and reality. There is lots of interesting work to do on inductive reasoning as well as definitions of physics concepts.

[Jetsun]

Psychology is important as an integral part as it is with Yoga or Buddhism, however on it's own, at least in the way it is being used today is clearly not enough.

 

Do you actually make a distinction between philosophy and spirituality? I found that ysually when people use the term philosophy they are meaning theorizising. That's why I never use that term and instead prefer to use the term spirituality. For me spirituality means anything that goes beyond the physical and can't be explained with logic.

 

Usually philosophy is confined within the realm of the intellect and most philosophers that I am aware of are so much up in their mind that they are often just using philosophy to avoid their emotions, avoid their body and avoid life. Many could probably do with some person centred psychotherapy. Spirituality can means all sorts of things also but to me it means a more holistic approach which goes beyond the intellectual realm more into the direct experiential investigative nature of things.

 

But the philosophical aspects of paths like Buddhism and Taoism can be helpful in some ways, if not just as ways to keep the mind exercised and sharp, but can also create a kind of bait ans switch situation where you entice the intellect in with all these juicy concepts and ideas, and end up transcending the intellect altogether 

[wilfred]

life is a felt experience after all, refining how we're feeling is the name of the game here. ideas/views are an obstruction more than anything and while context is helpful in the beginning, letting go of that stuff is fundemental to progress.

[Jim D.]

Psychoanalysis is a set of Psychological and Psychotherapeutic set of theory and associated techniques. It is all about the client's unconsciously stored memories which can be manifested actually, or in dreams. Psychoanalyic approach studies Personality Organization and the dynamics of Personality Development that guides Psychoanalysis. This theory according to Freud, explains human behavior.

 

Logic and Intellect is not a part of this theory because the patient shares data that is not measurable, verifiable, or consistant because is unconsciously experienced. Example, If I ask you the color of your mother's eyes, you probably will not remember and therefore not answer immediatedly. There will be a hesitation on your part. This hesitation is your pre-conscious...tip of the tongue stuff, if you will. But if I ask you what the color of your eyes are you will answer because you are consciously aware of this at all times. However, if you tell me about a dream you been having over a long period of time and do not know what it means, I would be able to help you resolve this problem because I have been taking notes and remembering your telling me about your struggles and conflicts. I will help you interpret your dream by helping you connect the dots. In psychoanalysis, there is a "a hah" moment. Freudians think that moment resolves the conflict.

 

The other reason Psychoanalysis is not logical/ intellect is because it is the patient's subjective reporting.

 

Now if you want to talk logic/intellect look at Cognitive/Behavioral Therapy e.g. Albert Ellis's Rational/Emotive Theory.

 

Now if you want measurable look Experimental Psychology, Test and Measurement, Statistics etc.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Jim D.

[Josama]

***

Edited July 11, 2016 by Josama

[Jim D.]

No! It means that I am observing and listening. What part of my lengthy explanations are confusing you. I am a retired Lecturer at the University level. If I gave you a mid term exam and you answered the way you've responded to my posts regarding same, I would have given you an "F."

 

Either you are playing the Devil's Adovcate, or you do not have an aptitude for the Subject Matter. Please stay on topic which is "Why I cannot rely on Philosophy." This one of the rules for the Doa Bums, stay on topic.

 

I do not want to discuss Psychology any longer with you because you are either tying to aggravate me, or you really are not getting it. One way or the other, Please take it somewhere else e.g. your own Personal Discussion Post and get off my Post.

 

I just look at your profile and understand how it is that your are responding the way you do. When I was 26 I thought I knew everyting. :-)  It is arrogant and disrescpecful for you to posts your challenges on my thread without verifiable and reliable data.

 

I do not believe in opinions, nor do I trust them which means I do not trust your Motives.

[Josama]

No! It means that I am observing and listening. What part of my lengthy explanations are confusing you. I am a retired Lecturer at the University level. If I gave you a mid term exam and you answered the way you've responded to my posts regarding same, I would have given you an "F."

 

Either you are playing the Devil's Adovcate, or you do not have an aptitude for the Subject Matter. Please stay on topic which is "Why I cannot rely on Philosophy." This one of the rules for the Doa Bums, stay on topic.

 

I do not want to discuss Psychology any longer with you because you are either tying to aggravate me, or you really are not getting it. One way or the other, Please take it somewhere else e.g. your own Personal Discussion Post and get off my Post.

 

I just look at your profile and understand how it is that your are responding the way you do. When I was 26 I thought I knew everyting. :-) It is arrogant and disrescpecful for you to posts your challenges on my thread without verifiable and reliable data.

 

I do not believe in opinions, nor do I trust them which means I do not trust your Motives.

 

***

Edited July 11, 2016 by Josama

[Jetsun]

Psychoanalysis is a set of Psychological and Psychotherapeutic set of theory and associated techniques. It is all about the client's unconsciously stored memories which can be manifested actually, or in dreams. Psychoanalyic approach studies Personality Organization and the dynamics of Personality Development that guides Psychoanalysis. This theory according to Freud, explains human behavior.

 

Logic and Intellect is not a part of this theory because the patient shares data that is not measurable, verifiable, or consistant because is unconsciously experienced. Example, If I ask you the color of your mother's eyes, you probably will not remember and therefore not answer immediatedly. There will be a hesitation on your part. This hesitation is your pre-conscious...tip of the tongue stuff, if you will. But if I ask you what the color of your eyes are you will answer because you are consciously aware of this at all times. However, if you tell me about a dream you been having over a long period of time and do not know what it means, I would be able to help you resolve this problem because I have been taking notes and remembering your telling me about your struggles and conflicts. I will help you interpret your dream by helping you connect the dots. In psychoanalysis, there is a "a hah" moment. Freudians think that moment resolves the conflict.

 

The other reason Psychoanalysis is not logical/ intellect is because it is the patient's subjective reporting.

 

Now if you want to talk logic/intellect look at Cognitive/Behavioral Therapy e.g. Albert Ellis's Rational/Emotive Theory.

 

Now if you want measurable look Experimental Psychology, Test and Measurement, Statistics etc.

 

Here is a homework assignment: Draw a picture of a house, a tree, and a person. And if you are brave enough you can fax it too me, and I will tell you all about your Self.   630-410-2920  Davis Counseling Services Be sure to put your Dao Bum Name on it so I can find you in the member's list. Also tell me if you want me to put in Off Topic, General Discussion, or on your personal address.

 

Its still about the intellect because it is the intellect of the psychoanalyst which interprets everything and tries to fit it in with all the theory they have learned, then through this intellectual analysis and deduction some sort of feedback is given which is supposed to help. But rarely it helps at all, when I looked myself I couldn't actually find anyone who had been helped through psychoanalysis and the psychoanalysts themselves generally seemed as insane as their clients, if not more. 

 

Modern types of psychotherapy have moved on from old Freudian psychoanalysis though, it is far more about the intimate relationship with the therapist and getting in touch with emotional content in the body, rather than trying to fit it all in and explain it with intellectual psychological theory. Psychoanalysis is old out dated methodology now, you have to give them credit for starting it all and building the foundation, but its the last thing I would recommend anyone who actually had psychological issues they need help with. 

[silent thunder]

One day, philosophy and all the other sciences will unite: When it will be understood that the same principles govern each level of existence, from macrocosm to microcosm, from spirit to mind, and so on. The Hermeticists and Daoists realized this long ago.

 

Great thread.  I think this has been happening on a meaningful level already, particularly in physics which is producing models and truths that mirror understandings expressed in Taoism and Tibetan Buddhism for centuries.  It makes sense that no matter which direction you begin your enquiry, since it all stems from the same source, the eventual realizations will mirror that truth.

 

I've always deeply resonated with the Hermetic saying:  As Above so Below, As Within, Without.

[Jim D.]

 Josama, Jetsun, and Silent Thunder are supporting their opinions with what verifiable and reliable data???????????!!!!!!!!!

 

Josama's argument sounds insubstantial, and feeling based which is not objective at all. He is struggling to win his point but does not know how to defend it using his intellect. He does not know how to debate. He uses the descripter "amazing results" but fails to impress me with...as evidenced by...what.

 

And to be sure, I never in my post said I was a Psyhoanalyst. That was assumption and you know what that means. This became the weekness of what you thought would be a nice way to flap your wings and say hey, look at me I'm intelligent because I can use big words.

 

Look back to my posts where I explain to my "students" clearly and concisely the definition of Psychoanalysis and Personality Theory of Psychotherapy.

 

It is my intuition that Josama did not do so well in his Psychology Class, or has a chip on his shoulder for therapists.

 

Josama, again, you get an "F" in this class.  BWT, if you are using intellect with using your brain I would agree, but that would mean using your brain in all matters...like debating. :-)

 

Jetson, when you use the descripters "rarely" "outdated" have you read the literature on the efficacy of Psychoanalysis? I mean read the Journals written by the professionals about this theory, and what population responds well to this approach? Idoubt it, otherwise you would not have put your neck on the chopping block. Yes, today and in these modern times a person can study to be a Psychoanalyst here in the United States or abroad e.g. England, Argentina, France, etc.

 

Remember, feelings are not facts and shouldn't be used to debate an issue. You will loose every time. I tell my patients Feelings are not Facts.  You Jetson, failed the essay question.

 

Silent Thunder, if you were in my Philosophy class, I would say that you are at the beginning of understanding how it is that Philosophy was the basis for Psychological Theory. Of Couse, you have had the Intro courses to Philosophy first year, and would now be in your second year taking Philosophy of Religion.

 

But since we are talking about Psychological theory and therapeutic interventions and theory, and since physics is not part of this course and discipline, I would be keeping an eye on you suspecting that any day now you would be dropping my course. So, I would have to give you "drop class" if you did it in time. :-)

 

Your assingment is to go back over your "feeling" arguments and use supporting evidence. This will be a make up test, or extra credit.

[liminal_luke]

I think philosophy is what you make it.  For some it´s an intellectual exercise (nothing wrong with that), while others craft a personal set of principles that anchors their whole life.  We all have our own understanding of who we are and how our world works.  We all want to find meaning in life.  And these important things are the proper domain of philosophy.  

 

That said, taking a philosophy course in school might not be much help in figuring this stuff out.  Guess it all depends.

 

(I´m auditing this course -- no grade please.  Just sittin´ in and bummin´off.)

[Jim D.]

liminal_luke, I don't think that I will call on you because your auditing my class and getting credit for it. I remember a Philosophy class I was in where a Field Marshal of he Black Panther Party decided he was going to just walk into our class, sit down, and comment. Pretty arrogant guy wouldn't you say. I paid tuition to attend class, he joined a radical and racist group and thought his Political presence was enough to attend. When the Panthers took over a dorm, and barricaded it with mattresses they got the attention of local police and state police which were right up the road from our campus. This happened in the 68'.

 

O.K. if the Dean said it was O.K. for you to sit in my class, it is all right with me. But just sit there and keep quite. If you become disruptive I will have to call the DaoBums Security Police.

[liminal_luke]

 

 

I've always deeply resonated with the Hermetic saying:  As Above so Below, As Within, Without.

 

I wanted to quote this, because for me it´s an example of somebody making a philosophical principle their own in a way that serves them and their lives.  

[liminal_luke]

 

O.K. if the Dean said it was O.K. for you to sit in my class, it is all right with me. But just sit there and keep quite. If you become disruptive I will have to call the DaoBums Security Police.

 

I think the classroom metaphor is fun and playful, and you probably mean it playfully.  But just so we´re all on the same textbook page: everyone has equal standing here on DaoBums and an equal right to speak their minds.

Edited July 11, 2016 by liminal_luke