The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology?
An erudite Philosopher on this forum has made the following assertion:
"What was Wittgenstein's conclusion of this critique?... Philosophy is only descriptive, its purpose therapeutic. The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology."
I am not thoroughly familiar with Wittgenstein' I am however somewhat familiar with Psychology. I suspect that if indeed this is Wittgenstein's conclusion, it is logically sound. The only caveat or revision of the statement (I would suggest) is that Psychology is not the 'only' problem but rather is the 'first' problem.
One cannot have a sound Philosophy without a firm understanding of Psychology. Psychology in the (Wittgenstein sense) may be considered as the ontological horizon of human Philosophy?
In psychological parlance, it might reasonably be asserted that ALL human behavior is ultimately motivated by a deeper often unseen instinctual imperative. I have yet to encounter a contraction to this axiom.
Therefore it would seem that the problem of psychology is (upon a fundamental level) ultimately a problem of instinctual imperative. Freud approached this issue but encountered a problem in respect of suicidal or self destructive drives.
It also appears that instinctual imperatives are collapsible, in the sense that one arises out of another. The need or desire for food, arises out of the instinctual imperative to live, the need for sex, perhaps arises out of an instinctual imperative towards procreation, the instinctual imperative towards competition and violence arises out of the imperative to live or to procreate... and so on. Freud postulated a dubious imperative towards death 'todestrieb' or death drive, to explain self destructive behaviors. I suspect that this is the point where the 'philosophy of psychoanalysis' begins to fail.
If indeed instinctual imperative is the basis of psychology and psychology must be resolved prior to a 'resolution' of philosophy; and if, instinctual imperative is collapsible? This raises the question as to the existence of a single instinctual imperative from which all imperatives, and subsequent thought and behavior arises. The putative supremacy of the instinctual imperative for life or survival seems to be negated by self destructive behaviors such as suicide. Hence the Freudian notion of 'todestrieb'.
I have my own notion of what such an imperative might be. However I would be interested to hear from others as to the potential for such an imperative, and if indeed Philosophy is 'predicated' upon this basic formulation of Psychology.
"What was Wittgenstein's conclusion of this critique?... Philosophy is only descriptive, its purpose therapeutic. The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology."
I am not thoroughly familiar with Wittgenstein' I am however somewhat familiar with Psychology. I suspect that if indeed this is Wittgenstein's conclusion, it is logically sound. The only caveat or revision of the statement (I would suggest) is that Psychology is not the 'only' problem but rather is the 'first' problem.
One cannot have a sound Philosophy without a firm understanding of Psychology. Psychology in the (Wittgenstein sense) may be considered as the ontological horizon of human Philosophy?
In psychological parlance, it might reasonably be asserted that ALL human behavior is ultimately motivated by a deeper often unseen instinctual imperative. I have yet to encounter a contraction to this axiom.
Therefore it would seem that the problem of psychology is (upon a fundamental level) ultimately a problem of instinctual imperative. Freud approached this issue but encountered a problem in respect of suicidal or self destructive drives.
It also appears that instinctual imperatives are collapsible, in the sense that one arises out of another. The need or desire for food, arises out of the instinctual imperative to live, the need for sex, perhaps arises out of an instinctual imperative towards procreation, the instinctual imperative towards competition and violence arises out of the imperative to live or to procreate... and so on. Freud postulated a dubious imperative towards death 'todestrieb' or death drive, to explain self destructive behaviors. I suspect that this is the point where the 'philosophy of psychoanalysis' begins to fail.
If indeed instinctual imperative is the basis of psychology and psychology must be resolved prior to a 'resolution' of philosophy; and if, instinctual imperative is collapsible? This raises the question as to the existence of a single instinctual imperative from which all imperatives, and subsequent thought and behavior arises. The putative supremacy of the instinctual imperative for life or survival seems to be negated by self destructive behaviors such as suicide. Hence the Freudian notion of 'todestrieb'.
I have my own notion of what such an imperative might be. However I would be interested to hear from others as to the potential for such an imperative, and if indeed Philosophy is 'predicated' upon this basic formulation of Psychology.
Comments (46)
What does this even mean?
The way that "The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology" is the main problem is that it is very difficult to get people to do what we want them to do, especially if the individual people are not prepared to do it, or don't want to do it.
Take global warming, or climate change. We'd better do something about it--something pretty drastic and something pretty soon, or it might be curtains for us all. There are good reasons (human psychology) why this isn't happening. Those who control economic and environmental policy are, for the most part, rather deeply invested in the status quo. Those who read about climate change in the newspaper can't do more than sort their recycling, drive less, and maybe dial down their home energy use -- which, individually, seems feckless.
Petroleum is still the basis of the economy, and making a change to a much, much smaller energy footprint still faces the mountain-sizes obstacle of "The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology". It isn't an impossible barrier, but it is difficult.
"What was Wittgenstein's conclusion of this critique?... Philosophy is only descriptive, its purpose therapeutic. The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology."
This statement was posted on another thread, I have deliberately withheld the name of the original poster.
(Would the real Slim Shady please stand up...)
M
It's a vacuous and trite statement. Meaningless and nonsensical. As if one were a solipsist.
If it truly arises out of Wittgenstein's Philosophy I doubt if it might be fairly considered as vacuous or trite. Please expand?
M
It wouldn't be bad etiquette to quote them and reveal their name. Anyone could read the quote in context anyhow.
I don't think so, and that's a very weird construal of Wittgenstein. Even on the point of philosophy being "therapeutic," that's a common idea about W., and based on reasonable evidence - but Wittgenstein had doubts about that formulation right to the end (which is why On Certainty is starting to look more like an old-fashioned philosophical thesis - a reinventing of the Aristotelian wheel, actually, IMHO).
There is an element of therapy (being "shown the way out of the fly bottle") in philosophy, for sure, but the question is whether that's all there is to it, or whether it's a preliminary clearing away of the rubbish.
Re. your thoughts on psychology: the way I see it is that evolutionary psychology forms the bridge between biology and personal human psychology, so now we can see that there's a continuum, with one thing building on the other.
In that context, I'm not sure that our "imperatives" are necessarily bad or misleading things. We should examine them, sure, but not with the nervous expectation that we're going to have to overturn our natural inclinations at every point. If our thoughts are based on evolved processes, that means they are highly likely have some connection to reality (although they may occasionally also be "spandrels", accidental behavioural flotsam that's merely passed on because it doesn't even get a chance to rub up against nature wrongly, carried along as part of our system).
Of course Philosophy is 'therapeutic' .....if it was not, then no one would bother with it. It is only non- therapeutic in a Deterministic Universe.
I am unsure as to whether there is indeed a real distinction between Psychology and Philosophy. The mechanistic nature of sense perception and sense analysis via human psychology lies at the heart of Philosophical declarations on the nature of reality.
It would appear that philosophy and particularly moral philosophy are contingent upon an understanding of psychological function. All behavior without exception can be reduced to innate instinctual imperatives that may be conscious or subconscious.
A sound philosophy particularly a sound moral philosophy is entirely predicated upon a proper understanding of the instincts and I think this is what Wittgenstein was ultimately driving at.
Sorry, I'm not seeing the connection here.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
I think they're related, but "predicated" is far too strong, IMHO.
If we define therapy as a process of relieving pain, and if we describe 'awareness of ones own ignorance' as being somewhat 'painful' : Philosophy as a means of understanding the self and ones place in the Universe.... is the ultimate if not the only therapy.
Indeed all pain is mitigated or agravated by ones Philosophy, ones view of self and ones view of ones 'self in the world'. Therefore all pain (real and imagined) is under the influence of Philosophy.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
What we do, our actions are all without exception instinctually driven. Try to think of one that is not? The 'morality' of an action pertains to the 'why' of an action, why a certain action was or is conducted, establishes its moral or immoral basis. We cannot properly approach the question of why a particular action was effected, without first understanding upon what instinctual premise or drive a given action arises from.
M
I understand instinct to be a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency, not acquired through learning, nor contingent upon volition.
In modern psychology, human instinctual behaviour is considered to be limited to the primitive reflexes, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#In_psychology.
So, it is inappropriate to describe other (i.e., most) human behaviour as instinctual.
I have the impression, that Wittgenstein believed that an apt and appropriate concern for ethics and morality can only arise if we can overcome the instinctual and subconscious aspect of mankind.
Oh I see what you mean now. That's definitely not the sense in which Wittgenstein thought philosophy was therapeutic. He didn't think philosophy was painful because the pain is a result of ignorance, he thought it was painful because we're confused by philosophical questions.
IOW, the therapeutic aspect for him was the resolution of confusion, not an accession of new knowledge that negates ignorance.
How might we overcome it if we do not understand it?
M
Is there such a big difference in being confused and in having ignorance of the truth?
M
I think so, confusion is a conceptual matter, ignorance is an empirical matter.
Well, Wittgenstein believed that through analyzing the use/nature of language, we can come to a better understanding of the true nature of how questions or conceptual schemes are formed. Anyway, one can delve into that route or accept the implications of the seventh proposition of the TLP, and simply engage in life instead of trying to make sense of it and never be able to.
Agreed. But language is simply a vehicle for the instincts, a means to achieve a single supreme natural primordial objective. Nothing more nothing less. Understanding the objective obviates the need for making such a fuss about language itself.
M
And, what is that objective if you don't mind me asking?
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Well, to better understand the objective, we have to understand ourselves first.
A saying from a close friend of my childhood.
That is easy. Like most difficult questions it has been under our noses all the time. The poets have being trying to tell the Philosopher for a thousand years.
"Love"
Or in terms of evolutionary biology, or human psychology. The primary instinctual imperative for the human animal. The drive which unquestionably precedes all other instinctual drives and indeed is the instinct from which all other instincts are derived, is the instinctual imperative towards belonging. The universal raison d'etre; the very fountainhead of all our misery and all our joy.
Belonging
M
So, then philosophy is a gift that keeps on giving?
Philosophy is not a gift it is a curse.
Only ignorance is the blissful gift that keeps on giving.
M
Then I must ask... What are you doing here engaging with us in philosophical endeavors? Is it the fact that you might be wrong and are willing to endure more pain as you call it?
We have somewhat covered this.
I am here (my behavior) at the behest of my instinctual imperatives, the primary one being to 'belong'.
I seek to reconcile my thought with that of others, as this (in conjunction with the logic of its basis), is the only way "I" have of knowing that I am approaching truth. My personal definition of 'God' is 'truth' and the path to truth is Philosophy. It is covered in briars but is paved with the headstones of great thinkers.
In religious parlance I am here because I wish to belong to a God, whom I am trying to get to know, before my material existence expires.
I must endure the idiocy of my peers, but equally they must endure mine.
M
At our essence, we are all rent seekers - we seek to stack the rules of the game in our favor.
This feels as an intuitive outcome of the process that spawned us, evolution.
We are engaged in natural selection, which has all participants in intraspecies competition utilize their natural advantages. Humans seem novel because we can create advantages through persuasading others to follow social constructs that promote our own self interest.
Why must it be that way? Is there no alternative to this sorry predicament?
Posty
There is no alternative because there is no 'material' interventionist supreme authority to arbitrate on the matter and incarcerate or silence the fools. There is only the God of truth and its handmaiden 'logic and reason', whom the God must accept are often presenting untruths and illogical suppositions.
Nietzsche reminds that we should have as much respect for un-truth as truth, and in this sense the fool is often correct. In this sense too, even the liars, the mud-slingers, the sycophants to intellectual self-serving fashions, and the fools; may indeed have something that is worth listening to. At the very least their anger (when they are exposed) is an exposition of worshiped fallacies.
I fear that if you change the current rules upon the battle field, you will cause something important to be lost. What is important to bear in mind is the fact that there is a logic and a truth and one must continue to 'fight' for it and against it in order to make it real. Personally I think this truth has more life and more of its source in the old questions rather than the 'new' fashionable answers.
M
Whoa. You can't be serious. This reduces the importance of agency in our lives and assumes some fatalistic psychological stance, much like the one Freud and other psychologists covered, which leads to an overwhelming sense of futility and pessimism in one's life.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
So, as long as we're being reasonable, then progress is being made, yes?
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Nietzsche professed a philosophy that entices and encourages the rise of delusions, with his appeal to psychological needs as the only motivating force in a man's life. I'm working on trying to formalize this into a logical whole; but, you get the gist I think.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Well, we would hope that everyone is their own referee.
Should we avoid the elucidation or comprehension of a potentially all encompassing 'fatalistic' reality out of a fear of this potentially 'overwhelming futility and pessimism'? This futility is already at the heart of most sensible philosophers who look at the world with a mind that is relatively independent of social/herd programming. The pessimism and futility are entirely mitigated by ones potential liberation from the herd, an experience of the vast infinite beauty contained equally within the mind, and the material/natural Universe. This infinite source of happiness merely requires freedom from the herd, if it is to be enjoyed.
Personally I have no belief in 'agency'. The Universe is clearly determined and much of contemporary philosophy is concerned with the maintenance of a contrary and empty delusion, for reasons that you allude to. However, in spite of the determined nature of the Universe, I feel there is scope for freedom, within the confines of thought. Emotional freedom, meta-thought (thought upon thought), these and more may be the true realms of potential individual 'freedom' and the only opportunity for 'Agency', and this realization can be as liberating as it might appear to be pessimistic.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I agree entirely here and I think that what Nietzsche was calling for in respect of a 'Philosophy of the Future', is a philosophy that is based upon an absolute understanding of what mans psychological needs actually are.
These 'I' maintain are all derivatives from the instinctual imperative towards belonging. Belonging does not arise out of Nietzsche's 'will to power' rather the will to power is a derivative of the need to belong. How much different the world might be if the Nazi's have been moved by the inclusive dictates of belonging rather than the derivative 'will to power or supremacy'
This 'fact' has yet to be successfully established, because Philosophers are busied (for the most part) with self-preservational delusions vis the disproving of induction, or the disproving of determinism etc. The desperate and pathetic attempts to cling to the "I".
M
Drives are inherent in us, they are part of the Id, headless as such. They are different than desire, but become mixed up with desire typically reinforcing them, giving them direction.
Freud
I accept what you have written. What is the point you are making?
Apologies sometimes I'm a bit slow on meanings.
M
I don't know. If you want to appeal to emotions arising from emotions themselves, then you're going to get stuck in a loop.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
On the whole of it, people are generally good. It's the strange philosophers that paint with a very broad brush that are to be suspect.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Yes, Socrates died from the hands of the 'herd'. What about it?
Quoting Marcus de Brun
How are you so sure of all this?
I don't quite understand why you said "Freud approached this issue but encountered a problem in respect of suicidal or self destructive drives." He seems to have set up a vital relationship between them.
I have made no appeal to emotions? merely stated that they may be an aspect of that which is truly free.
Quoting Posty McPostface
We must disagree here, BUT it is only on a point of opinion as to the 'most'. I believe that lots of people are good some 20% and most people are bad 80%. The badness is mitigated by the fact that it arises out of an ignorance of self. I suspect that most Germans were good people in the 1940's and it is only history that differs. I imagine that the future will look back upon our treatment of global ecology and will probably assert with equal conviction that most of us were/are bad.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Again this is a matter of opinion. I believe that truth has always been antagonistic to the herd and it will always be murdered. When it is murdered one can be confident that it was truth, until then it may just be more of the same.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Because Kant has iterated the methodology, Descartes has iterated what the subject actually is, Schopenhauer has pointed to the usual fallacy (that MUST be avoided), and Freud has outlined the basic mechanics.
M
should the post really be Camus' question that the only real philosophic question is why don't we all just kill ourselves ?
Because Freudian 'todestrieb' is ridiculous and is the point at which Psychoanalysis begins to fail. There is no death-drive. Human beings do not subconsciously wish to die.
Freud created death drive to reconcile instinctual imperatives that he failed to prioritize correctly. He borrowed this concept from a contemporaneous research paper published in 1912. It (death drive) is one of the few examples where the father of modern or practical thought-analysis, was wrong.
It is easily dispensed with by deductive reasoning alone without even resorting to the empirical.What is important instead, is the priority of instinctual imperative, and if this is understood correctly the need for todestrieb is then negated.
M
I understand that; but, I don't agree with the Hume'ian sentiment being professed here, if that is the case of reason being the handmaiden to the emotions.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Yes, I agree. Intentions are always a mystery if one assumes that psychology is the sole motivating factor for morality/ethics.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Yet, progress is possible and has been made. We're at the most peaceful time in human history... Think about that.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
This is too much for me to address adequately. So, I'll just pass.
You are taking Camus' point a little too literal - Sure you know - it is about the why, the purpose. Why push the rock up the hill one more time , if there is no purpose. And as I am sure you know he included all kinds of philosophic suicides as well.
So is yours, mine - and others search for some real truth, as much a form of philosophic suicide as a belief in a supernatural purpose. Should we accept the absurdity that we feel some need for purpose, and don't have the tools to find it? Put a smile on our face - find the things that provide us personal meaning and enjoyment - maximize them - and push the rock back up the hill.
I am trying to find a way to make the concept of absurdity and the concept of a supernatural reason somehow co-exist. I am not sure they are mutually exclusive. But it is a very incomplete thought.
Rank A
That is a lovely phrase "condemned to freedom".
Quoting Rank Amateur.
No I don't see how this can be the case. To deduce that if determinism is true and we are unfree, does not fully imply that thought is not free in other ways. The relation between thought and the execution of the material function that is our life, is not as fixed and rigid as determined doomsayers like to insist.
I may cut the lawn and think upon Socrates at the same time.
Whilst all the atoms in the Universe were compelled to cut my lawn, from the very dawn of time, my thought or meta-thought (thought of something whilst effectively doing/thinking something else) cannot be as easily aligned with the materially determined nature of my cutting the lawn.
To have regret is to impose a moral judgement upon ones determined behavior yet having regret does not necessarily mean that the material (determined) behavior will or can be avoided in the 'future'. We may not have the freedom to avoid behaving stupidly, but we may have the freedom to become wise.
Indeed wise people behave very stupidly at times.
M
Sartre - assumed you knew - no stolen glory here
Quoting Marcus de Brun
My point is not determinism - quite the opposite actually - it is existential - i think we have complete freedom - and that is enormously scary - so we are in general happy to find some "false faith" to relinquish our freedom to. From something as simple as " I have to do this job because it is all I can do" to the much more esoteric.
But this existentialism runs into the problem of OK, so I exist, and I get to freely establish the entire essence of my existance - but why ?? What is the purpose ??
And that is the "false faith in your post I was referring to - Is your stated purpose " to find truth" really a "false faith" if the absurdist is correct and we lack the tools to find any meaningful truth.
Don't read any value judgement into "false faith" by the way in the way I use it. To me it is just anything other than an acceptance of the absurd. Which I don't buy.
This is interesting. There are two views from separate perspectives.
1) On an individual level human beings are motivated more by emotion than by reason.
2) Upon a logical level 'ideas' the truth of things and non-things cannot be pursued via emotions or in the service of the emotions/instincts. What allows a philosophy to endure is the fact that it might survive when its emotive content has faded.
The contemporary paradigm is formed out of collective emotion that is validated by some degree of reason. The Nazis had their phrenologists and anthropologists to give 'reasons' why certain humans were inferior to certain others. These reasoned-reasons were used to satisfy a particular emotive paradigm.
Determinism is equally assailed by reasoned-reasons and these are appealing and become the paradigm because they satisfy emotional attachment to things like "I" and 'free-will'. This is as I have said previously the 'Century of the self'.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Again we are at odds as a matter of opinion. If one considers the realities of global ecology and wealth distribution, one might equally argue that never before in the history of our race have humans been more destructive of one another and the ecology that sustains us than we are today. If one simply considers the potential kindness, justice and ecological harmony that might be effected via existing material wealth, and technology: we have never had the power to do more good, and yet we choose to do more harm. just look at how the demon that is 'The Market' grows towards its inevitable self consumption.
It is impossible not to despair, unless one removes ones gaze from ones fellow, and looks; to enduring thought, to the stars, to the sea, or to the smiling faces of children, and creatures not human. Fortunately life is terminal of its own accord, and therefore need not be dispensed with in a hurry.
M
Not really. People aren't only reflexive in nature. We can reason our way out of problems and dilemmas.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Your drawing a false equivocation between the faculty that reason is and on the other hand, rationalization, I think.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
We will survive. That's just our instinctual imperative.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
Dark.
It may be ultimately a false faith. However within the context of my existence as a functional expression of thought, I am driven by a deep desire to reconcile that thought via my processing of it. I think that through me 'thought' seeks to reconcile itself with itself.
Me: the 'I' thing, might well be the sole example within the entire universe where this thing called 'thought' has 'the' or 'an' opportunity to consider itself before it dies (if indeed it is destined to die).
Without question 'thought' is the most amazing 'thing' within the Universe. I am part of it and the Universe may well be part of it, and strangely I appear to have some control over it, as it manifests itself through me. This is truly the miracle of me.
The falsity or truth of my wanting to find truth is of no real concern to me. What is of concern is the truth or falsity of my thought. If I can manage to reconcile my thought, to bring it into harmony with itself then I feel I have completed my 'purpose' I will have given my life meaning beyond the material within the eternity of existential thought.
M