Psychology and philosophy, part five: The issue at hand.

I am not sure that Philosophers Who like to refer to Lacan’s psychoanalysis realize that his theory is based on actual observation and analysis of people with mental disorders. 

Going back slightly, it seems like Lacan Is the psychologist that some Philosophers love to use as a philosophical ground, or at least many philosophers in a certain vein use psychoanalysis as some sort of grounding feature of their philosophy. I’m not entirely sure why this is so; also I’m not entirely sure why other psychologists are not equally explored for Philosophy and as Philosophy as Lacan is.

I’m not really sure. Because there are numerous theories of psychology that are quite philosophical, and I would argue, quite valid for an approach to mental health, existence, being in the world, and just Philosophy, ontology, epistemology, etc…

In a bit maybe I am going to get into what I feel is a more bodily grounded version of Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory. I think Philosophers who would like to use his psychoanalysis, (for example Zizek) but then philosophers who like to stake their orbit around him as well, and Freud, going back to “the beginning” of psychology itself– I think the Philosophers in general like to sit back in their “library chair” and think about how various discourses of things can make sense to the intellect. And I think these “armchair philosophers” never really encountered the actuality of the insane human being. Insanity itself, mental illness itself, and then compounded with the analysis of the psych with reference to these mental illnesses, with reference to how they actually occur, how they actually appear, how people actually present themselves and how they actually act — I think the philosophers who merely philosophically ponder philosophical themes that seem to be embedded in, for example, psychoanalysis, typically miss the actuality of the situation for the sake of the idealism invested in synthetical philosophy and reason.

Indeed, it is easy to get lost in synthetical thought. I wonder now if Philosophy as a discipline could be defined as the partitioning, as the purposeful and intentional partitioning of thought from the world in order to see what comes about.

I wonder if People who then view Philosophy., consider philosophical material get caught up in the imposing of this synthetical reason upon reality, and thereby historically or traditionally miss the actuality of the situation in front of them for the sake of the a priori categories that are invested in such a philosophical orientation up on things.

Indeed, if this is actually the case, if we can or indeed if we have identified philosophy to what it’s actually doing, then I think we might be able to understand where the current trend of realism has come out. But as well, what the problem with phenomenological orientation in philosophy comes from: Because both of these approaches are really caught in the mechanism of reason and thereby viewing the actuality of things through this distinctly separate category of functioning, to them there by make arguments why this separated category should be the priority, should be the basis from which real things have veracity and substance.

But really it is two things going on at once, it seems. On one hand, we have arguments for argument. What I’m Saying is that people use their intellect, use a particular synthesis of logic and reason, and come up with an argument which is really the argument why their method of coming up on reality should be true. In other words, why it should be true that idealist reason should be the determining factor for what is real.  Then on the other hand, we have the view that sees such arguments as indeed addressing the actuality of the real universe. Yet both of these approaches are based in the assumption of Kantian priority. Both of these aspects of philosophy that I just pointed out I really stemming from the same myopic assertion, which amounts to a privilege, a privilege which is always withheld in the argumentation itself, such that all one Hass to do is point out where it is faulty, and then the very act of that rebuttal verifies that the reason from the prioritized argument is valid, and then people spin out in an argumentative effect which pulls further and further away from the actuality of the situation in front of them; they get caught in an idealism that supposed to be able to define itself out of that idealism by using different terms.

This philosophical method is completely the opposite of every other discipline that proposes to work with real things.

For example psychology. Psychoanalysis is not simply people sitting in their minds using logic about why things should be the case because they make sense or they don’t make sense and then imposing that model upon what they see in front of them.

We begin to see where Foucault stakes his claim. Because psychoanalysis, amongst other academic disciplines, such as medicine, such as pretty much any activity that we do in the world, is drawing its categories from interaction with real things first. The interaction with real things happens first and is constantly referred to in the development of theory.

Philosophy as a discipline seems to start from reason and then apply this reason onto what is encountered. As I said, then proceeded to argue why this prior approach, why this privileged approach should be valid.

I think I’ve just explained everything there is about Philosophy. in this post. I’ve explained how it functions. And I’ve explained the problem is inherent to every proposal that it can make, as well as just described what counts as valid philosophical statement.

👽

Huh.  

Would you agree or disagree?