Philosophical Belief Essay

What is the nature of humankind as it relates the field of psychology (ontology)? Since time immemorial, humans have questioned their own existence and their relationship to what is around them. The field of ontology is complex, having integrated science and technology into its sphere with the advent of artificial intelligence, medical science, and advanced exploration technologies. Yet in the beginning, Plato and Aristotle were considered the first true ontologists (Biography. ms, n. d. ). They were the first to call attention to the states of being and categories of being: physical objects, minds, classes, properties and relations. It is human nature to question our sense of being, such as what we are, why are here, who we are and why other people and things are around us. The nature of the mind is to probe into its world, perceived by the senses, and make some amount of sense of it all. Ontology is the fundamental basis for metaphysics, which includes all of science and religion. From the first questions relating to the existence of a supreme being or nature spirits or even the concept of having a spirit, ontology was born. When we first begin to associate ourselves as beings, we are practicing ontology. Naturally, part of developmental psychology falls into this category. Human nature dictates that we identify ourselves as an individual, as a part of a family unit, as a student of a school, a member of a community. Ontology is the most fundamental concept of psychological being, since our earliest concepts are â€Å"being-based. † Once humankind becomes more complex and intertwined, we begin to practice ontology with regard to cultures, countries and continents, as well as religions. In this way, each thing that can be named is considered an ontological thing, since it exists. We also have split ontology into very diverse cosmologies; this is where we can become very divided; Christianity as opposed to Islam, for example. Each religion exists, and is composed of rituals and systems that have ontological definitions. Yet the attachment to one’s own identity or one religion’s identity can become dangerous when taken to an extreme. It is our nature to categorize and retain what suits us and reject what is unpleasant. Yet behind these decisions, especially when speaking of ideas (or myths or legends) as if they actually exist in empirical reality is a departure from logic. From the days of the ancients to the present, ontology is largely now used in the science, in the form of empirical study of existing things and the relationships between them (Gregg H. Rosenberg, 1997). We continually explore the interrelationships of our world, leaving science as the main, if not only, modern form of formal ontology practiced today. What once began as a philosophy has transformed into pure science. As we continue to develop increasingly complex technologies in the forms of artificial intelligence, ontology will no doubt take on a different meaning and be applied to different circumstances than ever before. This is only on the surface, however. Ontology, even though not named until recently in human history, has been with us since we began, as creatures, to look beyond our simple survival as a species and consider our relationship to what is around and even beyond us. How do we know what we know in relation to the field of psychology (epistemology)? The many branches of psychology that exist today define the gaining of knowledge within the studies of developmental, cognitive, educational, social, etc. ; these fall under the philosophical domain of epistemology (synonymous with Theory of Knowledge). We question how we come to know certain things and study ways of learning, retaining and using knowledge. The concept of epistemology is very simple. How do we know what we know? But the application of this method is quite complex (Keith De Rose, 2003). Much of the knowledge we gain in any given day is via other people such as friends, family and co-workers. We also gain knowledge in school, from television and books and on the Internet. But how often do we question the source? Now we can see how complex epistemology becomes. Let’s say that Alice tells Jim that Steve is a thief. Jim has never known Alice to lie. In fact, Alice’s reputation is sterling in terms of credibility. Without any further inquiry, Jim believes Alice and has nothing further to do with Steve. How logical is that? Is it true knowledge? No, it isn’t. Jim simply knows what Alice has told him and it may or may not have anything to do with reality. This is where the games of the mind come into play. First we are told something and it becomes knowledge. From that knowledge we form a paradigm. Later we discover that what we know, or believe, is false. We must change our paradigm and everything attached to it. This is the stuff of war. If we look at knowledge, we can only truly know what we ourselves experience. We only learn through experimentation and our own inquiry. We are limited in how much we can know due to our limited senses. Epistemology is concerned with â€Å"propositional knowledge,† such as what is true. It is not so concerned with how to do things (Peter D. Klein, 1998 – 2006). This is where history, religion, politics, theory and other non-empirical learning comes into question. When it comes to the intangible topics in our lives, how do we know? Tradition holds that what we come to know in an empirical manner (the sun rises every day, the stomach growls when one is hungry, if a horse flattens its ears, it is angry) is real knowledge. These are repeatable events that we no longer notice because we know that they will occur with regularity. Plato’s argument was what we have come to know as Transcendental Realism. This means we come to know something through knowing its form and the changes it undergoes. Aristotle put forth the idea that a form does not transcend the material thing. Knowledge is the harmony between thought and fact. Going deeper into this form of philosophy and addressing how we know what we know in the field of psychology, we would have to say that we observe certain behavioral patterns as they relate to prevailing patterns in society, but the real question is, how real is psychology? We cannot empirically see a thought or the connections between thoughts; we can only observe behaviors and listen to the thoughts of others in determining their psychological status. Psychology is something that is not static, therefore it does not adhere to the definition of truth in the strictest sense. What is the role of morals and moral belief in the practice of psychology (axiology, moral psychology)? In order for psychology to be at all effective, the practitioner must acknowledge what is of value to the client; the observer must take note of what is of value to those being observed. What we value is what motivates us, and while we all value different things in different proportions, we do tend to hold common values as a species. One common value is survival. Survival is an interspecies value and can be utilized to study a wide range of behaviors at a basic level. As adults we should know the difference between right and wrong, and we have likely learned the values of our culture or group (Robert N. Barger, Ph. D. , 2000). According to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, it is understood that people progress through a series of stages of moral development. Beginning with Level 1, most people (according to Kohlberg) pass through a series of six identifiable stages within three levels (Barger). Kohlberg believed that most adults never progressed beyond the second level of conventional morality; the third level, â€Å"post-conventional† morality, was unattainable by most adults and Kohlberg never met anyone who met the criteria of comprehending social mutuality and respect for a universal principle and the demands of an individual conscience. In the practice of psychology, one’s moral beliefs are the glue that holds an individual together through life. While the beliefs may change (and through psychological intervention they often do), the basic values of an individual are relatively unchanging once set in childhood and through social interaction. Practicing psychology is a continual process of setting priorities, which involves axiology. In a society that is ever more diverse and challenging, it is critical in the field of psychology to engage in axiological thinking in order to better assist clients with their own axiological processes. The very process of basic decision-making involves making priorities, and when priorities conflict over a long period of time, stresses occur that changes an individual’s behavior markedly. Since axiology is the study of how people determine the value of different things, it is of great importance that a psychologist can determine the values of a client in order for therapy to be effective. Assignments of value can either represent or distort reality (Clear Direction Inc. 2001). Since valuations are unique to each individual, they create individual thinking habits, which reveal what the true value is, even if it is simply a habit and not a true value. If the thinking habit distorts reality enough to render someone dysfunctional, the method of thinking needs to be evaluated and changed to a healthier pattern. Then new things take higher value than the old ones, and in theory the destructive thinking pattern is disrupted. Practicing psychology with an understanding of axiology and how it affects individuals, families, and cultures is critical, since western society is under continual pressure to change its priorities, causing enormous stresses on its members; for example, if a parent places a higher value on religious beliefs than their child’s education, the child potentially suffers withdrawal from mainstream society and the opportunity to grow and thrive in that very same society. Do you see a place for religious belief, spirituality, political, and socioeconomic philosophy within psychology (teleology, metaphysics, economics)? In a word, yes. From the dawn of time, rightly or wrongly, humans have incorporated the above disciplines into their daily lives and because they are an integral part of human consciousness they must be present, or at least understood, in the study/practice of psychology. It cannot be emphasized enough that our world is rapidly changing, our values and beliefs are changing, and in our Western society those changes can lead to dangerous consequences, such as extremism and violence. The role of psychology is the study of human behavior, and the more complete an understanding of the causations of those behaviors, the better it is for the discipline of psychology, which does have its roots in philosophy. No matter the progression of the physical sciences, it can be clearly argued that thought, belief and a value system has not been proven to be strictly mechanical. That being said, however, does not give the field of psychology carte blanche to incorporate intelligent design or any other religious preference in its practice. Much more study is needed before one can categorically say that psychology is an entirely separate discipline than the above mentioned, for the very factors in the previous pages of this essay are what build the individual personality. No matter the prevailing belief in one’s society, the mind is free to accept or reject it on whatever grounds of inquiry the individual has undertaken. It is the role of the psychologist to understand the importance of a spiritual belief to many people; belief systems are the underpinnings of every society, and the goal of psychology should be to better understand the purpose of such belief systems rather than disregard them due to their lack of empirical evidence. Reams of books can be written on this one question, no doubt for and against. The issue is so complex and convoluted due to the emotions involved and the agendas of each side for attempting to gain the upper hand. Yet this is, in itself, a study. What is it that is propelling Westerners to go to such lengths as to change laws regarding education of both sides? Before categorically stating that teleology, metaphysics, etc. has no place in psychology, we must consider that in assessing how theories or behaviors or thoughts develop, we do not understand the science behind them; hence, no empirical support is available in the strictest sense (Jean Bricmont, 1997). An individual in the social sciences can corroborate with those in the empirical sciences, yet the meaning attached to findings is a function of recognition of repeating patterns that cannot be measured by empirical means. This automatically throws metaphysics and other ambiguous categories into the mix. We must also remember that scientists are also humans with the very same patterns of cognitive development as everyone else; their jealously guarded positions within their areas of specialty are a study in themselves; one could even go as far as to say that they have formed a belief system all their own, to which they are as emotionally attached as any religious zealot. This is where psychology must be balanced in incorporating both empirical science and philosophy of mind. In order to understand what the driving force is behind teleology, we can only look at the results of its presence. We cannot empirically measure its growth and various ways of metamorphosis. While people can have ideas, people are not ideas in the empirical sense (Ian Heath, 2003). Wilhelm Wendt put the role of psychology quite succinctly in his three general principles of psychology: 1) Inner, or psychological, experience is not a special sphere of experience apart from others, but is immediate experience in its totality. 2) This immediate experience is not made up of unchanging contents, but of an interconnection of processes; not of objects, but of occurrences, of universal human experiences and their relations in accordance with certain laws. 3) Each, of these processes contains an objective content and a subjective process, thus including the general conditions both of all knowledge and of all practical human activity† (Wilhelm Wendt, 1897). In maintaining these principles and staying focused on the fundamental purpose of psychology, this discipline can easily incorporate belief systems into its practice by understanding them to be what they are: inner experiences that propel external behavior. Incorporating ideas and beliefs into psychology from the standpoint of better serving humanity in an attempt to understand itself and better educate itself is necessary for a dynamic global society that has the tendency to make what is simple complicated and what is important irrelevant in the face of fact. It is my belief that rather than create ever-new branches of psychology that focus on a small part of the function of individuals or groups, it would behoove the science of psychology to remember its roots and ethical standards in practice. Psychology should refrain from becoming political, yet acknowledge that is existence in politics is important.