"Brother Tom, do you think psychology is philosophy or science?"
How can I answer this question better?
When I heard this question, my first thought was Ajdero, the author of How to Read a Book. When discussing theoretical books, he had the following views:
"If a theoretical book emphasizes content beyond your daily, routine and normal life experience, it is a scientific book. Otherwise, it is a philosophical book ... the facts or observations put forward by philosophers will not exceed the life experience of ordinary people. A philosopher mentions his normal and ordinary experience to his readers to prove or support what he said. "
As Ajdero used to be the editorial director of Encyclopedia Britannica and a very influential educator, I think his views are of great reference value.
Here, I first use the theories of two famous psychologists Freud and Adler to explain the problems in life and to test whether psychology can become a philosophy.
As we know, Freud's "cause theory" and Adler's "teleology" are two completely different theories. Simply put, Freud believed that a person's psychological problems were caused by all kinds of trauma caused by past events. Therefore, to solve psychological problems, we must recall the past and identify the pain points. The process of treatment will be quite painful. However, Adler's view is just the opposite. He opposes overemphasizing the influence of what happened in the past on himself. He thinks that a person's psychological problem now is because he is in a certain state, in order to achieve the purpose of maintaining this state. Therefore, to solve specific psychological problems, we must let this person take the initiative to change, that is, change his purpose.
For example, there is a boy who wants to get along with the girl he likes, wants to communicate with each other, and even intends to confess. However, when he faced a girl who wanted him, he found himself very nervous. He doesn't know what to say to the girl. When he saw the girl, he sweated at the thought of confession, even his legs were shaking, and he was very scared. This kind of problem, according to Freud's theory, should be to help the boy recall whether his past caused trauma or something, which led to this psychological problem. On the other hand, Adler's reason why this boy has this kind of psychological problem is for his own purpose, that is, he doesn't want to change the current comfortable and safe state, he is afraid of being rejected, and he is afraid of any external factors disturbing this state, so this reaction seems passive, but in fact it is for the purpose of safety and comfort, that is, he doesn't want to confess at all and doesn't want to associate with others.
I'm not going to further analyze whose theory can explain this case, but I want to ask a question: "Is this case beyond our daily, routine and normal life experience?" The answer may beno. Since it is not, can it be said to be philosophy?
Maybe it's not that simple. At present, any responsible psychology book introduces the methods of experimental research to readers, or adopts various research cases, that is, presents some results and draws a conclusion through a large number of mathematical modeling and statistics. Whether it is related research or experimental research, it can be said that some variables are specially controlled to confirm a result you want to know. Some of this series of experimental methodologies have actually gone far beyond our daily, routine and normal life experience. If it's not science, what is it?
In recent years, some people began to regard Freud's psychoanalytic theory as literature. But as we all know, his conclusion is also drawn through clinical experiments. Whether it is right or wrong, I personally think it can also be attributed to scientific research, which is also outside the daily, routine and normal life experience. Since it is "scientific", does that mean that it is wrong to regard it as literature? We can't say that, after all, we use many of his theories to explain some life behaviors, such as forced hand washing, fetish, Oedipus complex and so on. A living story, like a group of patients describing insanity.
I deeply remember the famous French philosopher Paul Sartre's classic saying: "We human beings exist in the environment first, and we cannot be separated from the environment. The environment shapes us and determines our possibilities. " The first time I saw this sentence, I actually saw it in a psychological theory book. So, is psychology science or philosophy? If it is philosophy, it should not be studied by various research methods of extraordinary life experience. If it is science, it is obvious that all research must be carried out in a way that goes beyond our ordinary life experience. Why can you quote the philosopher's point of view as a support? I don't think any single statement is reasonable. There will certainly be a group of people to refute the unilateral view.
So maybe I could tell this classmate at that time: "Psychology is one of the most wonderful subjects, which can be said to be science or philosophy". But unfortunately, this is not my answer.
I remember LEO asked such a question in the busy star community a few days ago: "What do you think of being stingy?" I answered decisively: "Good!" Of course, I know that such an answer is definitely not convincing. Then there is a problem. Why should I say it's good? I only say it's good because I think it must be good, okay?
We know that there is an article style in foreign academic writing, which is argumentative, that is, argumentative. Generally, "Calling Animals" will put forward a proposition, showing two obviously opposite sides, and then ask students to write an article for analysis. IELTS, TOEFL and other English writing exams also have this routine. What many foreign students are sure of is that those "summoning animals" will prefer informal discussions, but at the same time they don't like students to be peacemakers directly.
For example, we have to draw a rational conclusion about this matter, and there is only one thing: there is no difference between good and bad, it depends on the specific situation. This kind of thinking is naturally the most convincing.
But doing research is another matter. Generally, articles are written on the topic of stingy. Most of us either write about its good points, bad points, bad points or both. But unfortunately, most western universities don't like these writing methods (the bloody history of studying abroad tells me that I will write an article about growth in the future). Why? Because they think it is absolutely impossible to do research and analysis without their own ideas. In other words, everyone is biased, even if it is only slight. If you are completely neutral, it is difficult to spark and have something new. Say something vulgar, "You said nothing, what do I need you to do?" "
Therefore, when answering "Do you think being stingy is good or not", perhaps a more interesting train of thought should be: "I personally think being stingy is a preference-do a lot of cases and comparisons to analyze why being stingy can be good-analyze why others think being stingy is bad-put forward some arguments to refute the statement that being stingy is bad-Conclusion: I think being stingy can be good or bad, but
Of course, I am definitely not stingy, but it is true that in the face of such opposing topics, it may be difficult for us to see the essence clearly by saying only one side and ignoring the other, or adopting a completely neutral attitude.
Back to our topic, is psychology a philosophy or a science? My answer to that classmate is: "it can be philosophy or science, but my personal understanding and study tell me that I am partial to philosophy." It is precisely because of this obsession that I have the motivation to seek knowledge, test, learn and judge, so as to better understand it. Any major achievement may be the crystallization of opposites. Just like Fromm's book A Sound Society inspired me, a healthy society needs different voices and rational discussions, from which we can get the best plan that is most in line with everyone's interests. Be tolerant and have a firm belief, and you will certainly gain something.
No matter what viewpoint we hold, it is good as long as it helps us solve problems or help us grow in some form. Whether in the form of philosophy or science.