History of Psychology - Essay Example

History of Psychology History of Psychology This paper follows a brief overview of the history of the study of the nervous system and its relation to several psychological theories. It explains the concept of both empiricism and rationalism psychological theories and takes a look at some of the more notable pioneers in the field. It also provides a look at the mind-body problem and the materialist view on the relationships between the two. Answer to Question 1: Empiricism Empiricism employs the thought that all concepts of knowledge that can be learned by an individual are done so through experience [1]. This rationality states that we, as human beings, know nothing until we have had an experience that allows us to gain knowledge [1]. Therefore, the strict position of empiricism states that we have no instincts and rational thinking does not, alone, allow us to reach any conclusion unless we have suitable experience to profit from. This experience can be either in one particular instance or through many different instances that have all been combined together to give that person suitable knowledge. Even small common facts such as the color of an object or the sequence of numbers are attained with experience and only with the first hand experience of these facts can these facts be justified by the individual. Notable history of empiricism includes a Renaissance philosopher Francis Bacon who emphasized that gaining knowledge of the natural world was easier and more efficient through observation than through deductive reasoning [1]. While he did not oppose the thought of prior or instinctive knowledge, he firmly believed that any knowledge that was not experienced was far less useful or important than that which was gained through experience. Experienced knowledge was so important, in fact, that without it the human species would not be able to evolve or advance. This belief helped pave the way for William Ockham, a Franciscan philosopher, to note that all knowledge of the natural world is experienced through the senses [4]. He implied that any rationalization of abstract knowledge was merely hypothetical thinking. A thought that later lead to the belief that causation is merely an observation of regularity instead of an actual conclusive connection [4]. This line of thought was taken even further by Thomas Hobbes who believed that, while all genuine knowledge was held through prior knowledge, it required deduction from definitions of experience in order to derive any conclusion [1, 4]. Perhaps the most influential philosopher on empiricism was John Locke who believed that all knowledge resulted in the reflection of ones own sensations [4]. Locke theorized the possibility for the mind to combine several different simple ideas that were arrived through experience, to conclude to very complex ones. This type of empiricism prevailed over a century later, far into the 19th-century until it was mixed with the ideas of David Hume to insist the idea that, while experienced knowledge existed, humans do have substantial prior knowledge [4]. This helped explain many areas of human understanding that seemed to lack explanation under the theory of empiricism [4]. It was during this time that John Stuart Mill reinforced the idea Francis Bacon had originally created which concluded the idea that, while prior knowledge did exist, all knowledge worth having was obtained through experience [4].He theorized that all real knowledge, including mathematics, was created through empirical confirmation and any knowledge gained through rationalization or deduction was inconclusive and worthless since it had no basis of experience to justify it [4]. Answer to Question 2: Rationalism Rationalism can be best described as the philosophical view that suggests knowledge is primarily obtained through reason and deduction in order to reach to a rational conclusion to an experience [3]. The experience alone is not sufficient until the mind can analyze and process the information gained from the experience. Rationalists also believe that we have knowledge of some truths through innate knowledge as part of our rational nature [3]. This innate knowledge is not learned through experience, but is instead, merely present within ourselves at creation. While it may take an experience to learn the knowledge, the knowledge gained is not believed to be part of something learned during the experience but instead something that was discovered because of it. This rationality is used to explain many of the instinctual aspects of human nature. It is also used to explain why, while different groups of people from opposite ends of the globe have their differences, they also share similarities in the formation of their language, technology, culture, and structure. Since each of these areas share a similar format it can be rationalized that there is something within human nature that causes us to be similar. Rene Descartes’ contributions to rationalism are undeniable. Originally a mathematician his goal was to create a set of absolute truths that would be indisputable within the philosophy community [2]. This would create a system of which everyone could agree on as much as they would a mathematical equation. It was during this pursuit that he reached his famous cogito ergo sum conclusion which states I think, therefore I am[6]. He had come to the conclusion that to doubt ones own doubting would be absurd and was committed to the conclusion with absolute certainty and suggested the impulsive desire to believe a statement as truth before the mind was clear as a main error in judgment [4]. It was this lack of clarity that prevented the human mind from appropriately understanding an abstract idea [4]. His method was later adopted by Benedict Spinoza, who agreed on rational thinking and the idea of prior knowledge but disagreed on its origination. Spinozas philosophy holds that there is only one substance from which everyone and everything is made from. It was from this substance that we received all knowledge, both innate and learned, and was often translated into the spiritual realm as God [4]. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz came shortly after and also agreed greatly with Descartes. He believed there was a difference between contingent and necessary truths [4]. Necessary truths contain ideas or truths which there are no opposite while contingent truths do contain possible opposites. While he did acknowledge the difference, Leibniz also believed that if one knew enough of the world there would no longer be any contingent truths and every truth would contain no possible opposite. The idea of innate and prior knowledge was further propelled by Immanuel Kant who suggested that all logic and mathematics would remain valid during all of existence for the simple reason that it originated from within our own minds [4]. This philosophy dictates that we see patterns in the world around us because our minds arrange the patterns without our knowledge or willing to do so. This idea raises skepticism, however, since it would mean that the world we see around us is automatically rearranged by our minds to suite our thoughts and is, therefore, merely a reflection of ourselves [4]. Answer to Question 3: The mind/body problem and the materialists answer to the relationship between mind and body The mind-body problem is a representation of the relation and conflict between the body and the mind [2]. Although often a vague distinction the concept pertains to the tangible and intangible aspects of humans. Almost all things can be considered a part of the physical nature of our surroundings including ourselves. Our bodies contain a shape, can be weighed, moved and can interact. Our minds however share no such commonality. The reason for this is rooted in the impalpability of our mind. Therefore it and the abstract thoughts contained within cannot be measured in any way and cannot be related or referred to in any physical context. This is especially complicated for those who believe in the philosophy of materialism; a philosophy that states everything that exists is physical; in many instances rejecting the concept of consciousness [3]. Many materialists will assert that the abstract process of thought is impossible without the physical phenomena present to create it and is therefore measurable by physical means [2]. Others will suggest that the physical realm of the body and the spiritual realm of the mind are compatible with each other. All of them will agree, however, that our current view of the mind is currently inadequate and we will discover the true relation between the mind and the body as we learn more about each of them [2]. Answer to Question 4: Early studies on the nervous system The nervous system easily became one of the more difficult organs in the body to study and categorize. While most physicians understood that nerves provided the ability to instruct your body for movement and the ability to feel sensations, many of them were uncertain how this was achieved and very few doctors could actually tell a nerve from a tendon. While the heart was originally believed to be the center of the nervous system, Aelius Galenus concluded in the second century that it was indeed the brain that connected to every nerve and was, therefore, the most important organ in the body [5].Galenus observed the spinal cord extending from the brain to all the major muscle groups in the body through, what he termed, hard and soft nerve types. He believed nerves were hollow and contained a fluid that circulated through the body and provided it with life [5]. The idea of nerves providing the body with a spirit or energy source continued for hundreds of years even though the understanding of the physical nature improved greatly [5]. It wasnt until the mid-1600s when William Harvey finally disputed this idea suggesting that the nerves were not like arteries or veins carrying material inside but instead was used to carry messages from the brain to all parts of the body [5]. After an overview of the early history concerning neurology it becomes clear these ideas give the overall impression of materialistic philosophy. While no one was quite certain how the nervous system worked, it was generally accepted that it did so through some kind of physical means [4]. Even with todays advances in neurology and medical sciences this fact still holds true. Despite the inability to measure abstract thought using physical means, it would be impossible to have any thought at all without the physical relay of electricity through countless neurons. Through this rationale it can be concluded that the mind is a physical object and therefore positively enforces the theory of materialism. Conclusion Overall we can conclude that rationalism and empiricism have, indeed, been in conflict with each other over the course of the history of psychological thinking. While some notable historical minds have resolved that only one or the other can be true, most people will agree there must be some combination of innate knowledge, rational thinking, and experience in order for us to gain knowledge. While this does try to further our understanding of how the human mind works and operates it does little to address the mind-body question and assess the relationship between the mysteries of the mind with the physical tissue it is contained therein. It is therefore no surprise materialists have resolved this matter more concretely than the other two since science relies on measurable certainties, such as the physical form of the brain, over theories and concepts that have just as much evidence to disprove as to prove. Bibliography 1. Hergenhahn,B.R, B.R. (2009).An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Belmont, U.S: Wadsworth. 2. Kelly, E.F., & Kelly, E.W. (2007). Irreducible Mind: towards a psychology for 21st century. U.S.A: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 3. Moore, J.S. (2007). The Foundation of Psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 4. Leahey, T. (2004). A History of Psychology: Main currents in psychological thought. (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. 5. A history of the nervous system. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from: http://www.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/nervespages/nerves.html 6. Rationalism: the history of rationalism. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from Encyclopedia Britannica official website: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/492034/rationalism/68592/History-of-Rationalism Read More