Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is Philosophy or Psychology more useful?

Page 3 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Philosophy or Psychology?
Philosophy 52%  52%  [ 13 ]
Psychology 48%  48%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 25

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

09 Jul 2012, 5:58 pm

I don't think either of them are useful. The best education comes from the school of hard knocks.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

09 Jul 2012, 6:13 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
I don't think either of them are useful. The best education comes from the school of hard knocks.


I've been there and it totally sucked, dude


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

09 Jul 2012, 6:15 pm

Kjas wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
They are both relatively masturbatory in nature. Psychologists and Philosophers are some of the most pretentious ramblers in the world of academia


:lmao:

Gee, thanks! :razz:

It is kinda true though. There is some good stuff in there but you have to dig through a lot of crap to get to it.


:oops: oops!! Don't kill me!!

I think they both have their uses for sure. They are both fields where rambling is often mistaken for deep thought though. I like concise philosophers, for example


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

09 Jul 2012, 6:22 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Kjas wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
They are both relatively masturbatory in nature. Psychologists and Philosophers are some of the most pretentious ramblers in the world of academia


:lmao:

Gee, thanks! :razz:

It is kinda true though. There is some good stuff in there but you have to dig through a lot of crap to get to it.


:oops: oops!! Don't kill me!!

I think they both have their uses for sure. They are both fields where rambling is often mistaken for deep thought though. I like concise philosophers, for example


Both can be inherently subjective in nature and tend to reward those who can go on forever. I do like quite a few philosophers and psychologists tough.



Palakol
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 244

09 Jul 2012, 7:06 pm

Not mutually-exclusive.

By the way, some people have written books about how Psychology is merely a way to push us all into conformity (which is not necessarily a bad thing), much like the Witch Hunts of the olden times. But instead of torturing and killing them, they do "treatment" and "therapy". I don't have a particular stand in this, I just like to keep my mind open.

Psychiatry The Science of Lies

The Myth of Mental Illness



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

09 Jul 2012, 8:25 pm

TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
every time someone gets a PhD in anything, they are becoming a Doctor of Philosophy, so i do not think that philosophy and psychology are necessarily mutually exclusive. they inform each other and even underpin each other.

more parallel questions might be:
Is the BA (psych) or BSc (psych) program more useful?

or
is applied philosophy or theoretical philosophy more useful?


Philosophiae means roughly "love of wisdom" so they aren't technically getting a PHD in philosophy the subject. Originally most of what constitutes "science" today was known as "natural philosophy" for instance.

Even better questions may want to specify what they mean by "useful" as useful can mean a lot of things.

yes but they are not discrete disciplines that can be examined side-by-side. the inform each other, and in fact a great deal of psychology formed out of philosophy from scholars like Descartes. neither discipline exists in a vacuum that is separate from the other, and in some ways i believe they could not exist without each other.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

09 Jul 2012, 8:26 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
every time someone gets a PhD in anything, they are becoming a Doctor of Philosophy, so i do not think that philosophy and psychology are necessarily mutually exclusive. they inform each other and even underpin each other.

That is for historical reasons. Just about everyone becomes bachelor of arts, but I am not doing any "arts" at all. (Of course, the meaning of the word "art" has also changed in the meantime, but even in the old art/science dichotomy, many fields would still be sciences.)

that doesn't negate the fact that knowledge of psychology involves philosophy.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

10 Jul 2012, 2:25 am

Personally I probably would find it difficult to understand politics unless you have a good understanding of geography, history, philosophy (or idealogy in general), religion, psychology and economics. They often contribute to the discussion or are the various driving factors behind much of what happens in politics.


_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

10 Jul 2012, 8:49 am

hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
every time someone gets a PhD in anything, they are becoming a Doctor of Philosophy, so i do not think that philosophy and psychology are necessarily mutually exclusive. they inform each other and even underpin each other.

more parallel questions might be:
Is the BA (psych) or BSc (psych) program more useful?

or
is applied philosophy or theoretical philosophy more useful?


Philosophiae means roughly "love of wisdom" so they aren't technically getting a PHD in philosophy the subject. Originally most of what constitutes "science" today was known as "natural philosophy" for instance.

Even better questions may want to specify what they mean by "useful" as useful can mean a lot of things.

yes but they are not discrete disciplines that can be examined side-by-side. the inform each other, and in fact a great deal of psychology formed out of philosophy from scholars like Descartes. neither discipline exists in a vacuum that is separate from the other, and in some ways i believe they could not exist without each other.


there was philosophy way before psychology was even considered in a practical sense, that is historically speaking.
in the modern context you are right, they do compliment eachother and we would be hard pressed to seperate them, as it should be.

its also true that one cannot implicitly use philisophy or psychology to find direct answers and even if you do all it takes is some speculation to render it null and void.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

10 Jul 2012, 9:25 am

hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
every time someone gets a PhD in anything, they are becoming a Doctor of Philosophy, so i do not think that philosophy and psychology are necessarily mutually exclusive. they inform each other and even underpin each other.

more parallel questions might be:
Is the BA (psych) or BSc (psych) program more useful?

or
is applied philosophy or theoretical philosophy more useful?


Philosophiae means roughly "love of wisdom" so they aren't technically getting a PHD in philosophy the subject. Originally most of what constitutes "science" today was known as "natural philosophy" for instance.

Even better questions may want to specify what they mean by "useful" as useful can mean a lot of things.

yes but they are not discrete disciplines that can be examined side-by-side. the inform each other, and in fact a great deal of psychology formed out of philosophy from scholars like Descartes. neither discipline exists in a vacuum that is separate from the other, and in some ways i believe they could not exist without each other.


I suppose the OP needs to clarify the purpose of the study.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Jul 2012, 10:11 am

On any philosophical question whatsoever, you could lay the bodies of all the philosophers who ever were, are and will be in a straight line head to foot and not reach a conclusion.

ruveyn



Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

10 Jul 2012, 10:24 am

And your point is ?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Jul 2012, 10:34 am

Oldout wrote:
And your point is ?


Philosophy is mostly a vain pursuit. It produces hot air and word salad.

ruveyn



Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

10 Jul 2012, 10:47 am

I would like to make clear that air and salad are both necessary for sustenance.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Jul 2012, 1:08 pm

Albirea wrote:
Psychology, purely because I'm more scientific than spiritual.


There is nothing that is spiritual about philosophy. (And some might argue that there is precious little about psychology that is scientific).

It is on the bedrock of cognition and communication that all human knowledge is created, retained and passed on. In that sense, psychology and philosophy are two sides of the same coin: how is human thought possible and how is human thought reduced to language?

But I vote for philosophy. To be a critical thinker, applied psychology is of little significance. But applied philosophy is essential. In the absence of logic, and an understanding of the difference between truth and fact, the difference between falsehood and impossibility, the difference between inference and extrapolation, and all of the other subtleties of reasoning are essential. Even if we can't articulate these, we still must be able to put them into practice.


_________________
--James


enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

11 Jul 2012, 4:45 am

visagrunt wrote:
(And some might argue that there is precious little about psychology that is scientific).

That is very unfair. Even though undeniable truths are harder to reach than in natural sciences (in a large part because of ethical and practical reasons), research in psychology used the same underlying methods as they. Of course, many of the global theories are much less satisfying, even fully unscientific in the case of psychanalysis, but that changes nothing to the value of psychological studies and research.