Psychology, like all other disciplines, is inherently held up by philosophy. Psychology is the study of the human mind and/or human behaviors, and thus it can overlap with phenomenology, the study of consciousness, in many ways (at least certain modes of psychology). Behavioral analysis in psychology could assess how personality, background, and features of human consciousness impact outward actions. There are two particular schools of psychology that I want to describe and analyze here: structuralism and behaviorism. Each is extremely contrary to the other! One can easily see how philosophy is inseparably intertwined with various approaches to psychology and with the ramifications of each.
Structuralism
Structuralism is about identifying and classifying aspects of consciousness, primarily relying on logic and introspection (in this sense, a good deal of what I have written about consciousness and phenomenology is already highly structuralist). The aim is to explore and chart out the "structure" of the human mind. Units of experience, called qualia in modern phenomenology, are divided down into their basic components and analyzed by oneself. A criticism of structuralism that I have seen is that it it is limited and does not assess behaviors. This is not a reflection of any error within structuralism, as this observation only highlights the fact that structuralism does not address the totality of the human person.
Structuralism by no means contains false ideas in itself, and it safely relies on the only tools that can grant absolute certainty (logic and introspection)--but, as far as holistic psychology goes, it is incomplete given its lack of focus on outward human behavior. It deals with the metaphysics of the human mind, not with how the contents of the mind are expressed in bodily actions. However, structuralism does not pursue unobservable phenomena; it emphasizes mental activities that a conscious subject can observe within itself using the inward gaze of introspection [1].
Behaviorism
Whereas structuralism dissects the internal content of consciousness, behaviorism dismisses introspection altogether in favor of focusing on external behavior, holding in its most pure forms that all behaviors and mental events are in some way mandatorily caused by external stimuli. Behaviorism quickly becomes very, if not purely, deterministic. If all of my behaviors and thoughts are merely reactions to external stimuli (and this also errs in ignoring the prominence of internal thoughts and desires that underlay behaviors), then it is impossible for me to have free will, as my stream of consciousness and bodily actions are dictated by outside stimuli. This would leave me with no ultimate control over any reaction of mine. I would be reacting, not deliberating and choosing behaviors from a series of alternatives.
Logic proves to me that it follows from the fact that I have knowledge that I do possess free will [2], however, so behaviorism as a system must be rejected by rational people due to the way that it attacks the concept of human free will. Behaviorism is a deeply flawed response to structuralism, and, although structuralism in no way accounts for the full extent of human nature, since I am a creature with a body and not just a consciousness, there is no methodological error embedded in the very nature of structuralism.
It is important to remember that just because something is incomplete in a certain way does not mean that it can be legitimately tossed aside. When an idea is incomplete, it is not to be rejected, but united with the missing components it needs to accurately reflect reality. Even if an idea is erroneous, responding to one error by embracing another is an irrational course of action.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/introspection-inward-gaze.html
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/explaining-free-will.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/refuting-arguments-against-free-will.html
No comments:
Post a Comment