Philosophy and Psychology as First Correlational Object

Considering the possible relation I put forward in a recent post, philosophy and psychology might define the first object to its correlational universe.

This would be in contrast to the Continental Philosophical theologians and the Religious Science congregants who perpetually wish to assert their own dominance over the object human; which is to say, an uneasy truce of individuals who all see themselves as having special privy to a part of a whole, like the fabled blind Buddhist monks experiencing pieces of an elephant.

Both are linked to higher given orders of transcendent spirit (potential hidden in everything which the thinking of agents of transcendence discovers or figures out) through which information is interpreted. Their faith thus demands them argue to the end, evangelizing all who already can ‘see the truth’ of thier orders. Both, though, participate in the same orientation upon objects and the view that should allow us a rational ‘truth-real’ coordination for thinking.

Yet the soul of things does not advocate such inspiration, and relies upon a humility of ‘being given’ without the culminating motion for rising up to the transcendent heights.

The soul of things, so to speak, might see Philosophy and psychology not only as complement to each other but actually complete each other like a two piece puzzle. The only problem is that many practitioners of either discipline see there’s as just one of a multitude of disciplines that go into what a human being is. And just speaking improvisationally, tentatively : Yes; from a phenomenological standpoint indeed a multitude of aspects can contribute to what is meaningful. But from a different standpoint indeed snow is snow. Water is water. Frozen is frozen. 32° is 32°. Hydrogen is hydrogen and the hydrogen bond is a hydrogen bond. The issue here is less meaning and more about how objects relate. Because one would have to ask silly questions like “what does snow mean?” Sure, we can come up with answers about what snow means but it really never tells us about what snow is except from the phenomenological standpoint, which is exactly the limit at which object ontology becomes an available yet distinct philosophical manner from phenomenological Philosophy as well as what we understand as science itself. Indeed probably the more difficult approach will be upon the catholic scientific faith, because, just like back in the day when Catholicism was the religion of the day, who can really say anything against it without getting their head chopped off?

“Of course Catholicism is God’s ordained religion, proceeding naturally from what we can possibly know of the universe history and the human being.”

How different is this to say “of course science is the true way of things, discovering what is actually true of the universe history and the human being”.

How do you overcome that absolutely set manner of understanding reality?

Well, as I’ve talked about in earlier posts: you don’t.

Just like in race relations and Courageous conversations, we aren’t here to convince anyone about what is the truth. If you can pick up what we’re laying down then you might be interested; if you can’t then, hey good luck to you.

Catholicism did not lose power because people were convinced Through argument that it wasn’t God’s ordained True religion. It lost power because it became obvious to people that it wasn’t the case.

Perhaps…

It would be ridiculous to try and argue that science isn’t scientific and it’s not dealing with real things. One simply cannot argue against these facts.

But just as logic is not something that finds us the truth, but is rather a tool to use upon things, so facts can be used and assembled in different ways for different uses. Presently science, as a category, is a particular assemblage of facts which gain for us a reality for a particular purpose, or use.

The Ancient Egyptian Empire lasted something like 3000 years. We know it now as bases in myth.

Modern Science has been around maybe 300. Can we prove that science is not as well a myth without merely referring to the modern ways of proof?

We ca d fullan similarly ask, can we prove the lesser status of people of color without referring to whiteness for the basis of that proof?

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

14 thoughts on “Philosophy and Psychology as First Correlational Object”

  1. Not only philosophy and psychology are related, each one from its perspective of things, but everything is related. philosophy, religion, science, psychology, sociology, art etc.. they all converge to know what the universe is and ultimately the truth, or a truth.
    if we don’t see all these disciplines related, we will not be able to have a holistic view of all that exists

      1. A blind Buddhist monk is not a discipline but a human. But his blindness doesn’t stop his perception of the whole elephant. His representation of the elephant is different from a normal person’s representation

    1. And, if I can speak from a philosopher before I speak as a counselor: i’m not sure if there is any philosophy that exists outside of thinking.

      Even if I were to have some basic sense, like some physical sense, or a scent, or a flash of color, or boom of sound, there would be no philosophy if I wasn’t thinking about it.

      So I’m not sure what else there could be besides Philosophy., which basically says you can assemble any sort of terms together as long as you can argue why they make sense, and psychology which can account for anything else.

      What else is there, really? Religion falls into philosophy or psychology. My argument of science is ongoing and developing, but I am really saying that it is a religion of philosophy. Sociology must necessarily reduce to something that I’m thinking about, whether it be some sort of expanding thinking of assembling in terms in argumentative structures, or psychology which again has to do with any other sort of mental processes that might be going on.

      If I speak of a whole, I’m not sure that there are any parts that constitute a hole that themselves are not constituent of parts, so when do I ever find the whole?

      1. Well. And I address it in the very colloquial way, the common way, the way it is used normally. Such as in “my philosophy of blogging”. Or. “…using spices”.

        I think we had the small discussion about what is philosophy.

        I think I use the term philosophy to indicate the disclosure of being. The manner through which being is open. Hence philosophy can talk about how a “philosophy of”, while accomplishing something, often mis-directs the being in-itself.

        I havnt found a word which fits better for what is happening.
        Becuase it is not political. Nor spiritual. Nor religious. It is exactly the word for what is happening with being: it is opening. But psychology does play a part, um, maybe by showing how the opening closes. ?? ⛵️

        But it is a discipline also. That I think is where people get tripped up. Becuase they then have no actual word or category to talk about what is happening in the largest sense (or smallest) for what is happening. 😄. Or what is happening gets set aside for a bunch of things which segregate brings into categories which are only being themselves, but then people see them as parts of thier ‘missing’ (gap) being, as though the person is not being in-itself.

      2. Again, it is complicated; otherwise we wouldn’t have witnessed all this tripping and slipping that you describe well.
        Sure every discipline has its place in the bigger picture because one discipline cannot have a holistic view without checking what the other disciplines have to say. So it is not only psychology but every discipline

      3. Yet none of the other disciplines would exist without thought. Can we seek into thought for what it is without reference to what is ‘creates’ ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s