The Instigator
Hajat
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
andrewz61
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Psychology

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 142 times Debate No: 91435
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Hajat

Pro

Why Psychoanalytic Prospective is also called 1st force in Psychology?
andrewz61

Con

1.

Psychology is known for the rather wide range of its subjects. Whether it is work or love, Christianity or suicide, school or war " with all these topics it knows its responsibility for the explanation of the role that the subject plays in the process. And it is undoubtedly the case that the subject of all these activities, to which psychological theories dedicate themselves, is the human: without humans, no work, no religion, no war, no nothing at all.

Counter-argument: It is no good at all for an explanation to take attention away " with this incontestable, but also scarcely illuminating fact " from what humans do in order to direct it to the fact that it is humans who do "it." From the negative determination "without humans no work, no religion, etc.," by no means does psychology"s positive conclusion follow in a particularly compelling way: ...then the key to work, love, religion and war must lie within the person " literally " in his inner being, his psyche! Whoever still regards this conclusion as self-evident is not then logically interested in the contents of the subjective achievements, and thus in the question of how humans actually become subjects of the different actions in which they are surely somehow involved. Rather, the science of psychology has given itself the research assignment of looking in the human for something which produces his behavior, to explain his subjective performances from something behind the respective actions. With this small but decisive shift in perspective, the foundation is laid for the peculiarity of psychological explanations " namely:

2.

Psychology assumes in its investigations that the key to the behavior of humans is to be sought in the inner world of the individual. As it sometimes explicitly stresses, the performance of human will and consciousness count for it as the mere "surface" which must always be scratched in order to discover the hidden processes "lying behind" it. And it also knows the evidence for its treatment of these subjective performances as existing only on the level of "observable consciousness," which without further ado is not to be trusted at all:

First, as everybody knows, the human psyche does not lie before us "like an open book" which we only have to read;

second, people indeed do all sorts of seemingly contradictory and unreasonable things and

third, they often have wrong, blurred or no consciousness of their actions and feelings. That is the extent of the evidence of psychology.

Counter-argument: From a need to explain what people do and what they think about God and the world, the compelling conclusion psychology wants to have drawn by no means follows: "then" " from the need to explain all kinds of expressions of consciousness " will and consciousness are really to be regarded as a sphere of delusional fantasy, and are by no stretch of the imagination to be taken as what drives someone and why. With this perception one declares (glorifies) human action to be only this quite fundamental enigma whose solution lies absolutely "behind" it, in other words: it must be searched for and found beyond the consciousness that somebody has. Yet the fact that people take part in all kinds of nonsense does not prove that only their inner world can be responsible for it. Psychology does not at all take into consideration that somebody might have formed an incorrect judgment, because for psychology the content of a thought is not worth examining " it takes it as neither serious nor true, but counts it only as a reflection of mental processes. Equipped with this very methodical certainty " "but there must be something behind it!" " nothing stands in the way of the psychological excursion into the ego.

3.

If the person is capable of every activity possible, then psychology would like to clarify what enables him to do it; then it is a matter of fathoming the laws of human behavior and its cause therein. Discovering "behavioral disposition" from typical, recurring behavior purportedly serves to better understand the inner -- as well as the outer " world of the individual.

Counter-argument:

" A certain precondition without which certain activities can not be done is still not by a long shot the same as the reason why someone does it. The fact that the person has something, e.g. a mental ability, does not explain by any means why he goes to school for a several years and is graded there ...

" With this mistake " from the ability to .... the reason for an action " it is already somewhat dogmatic to exclude from the start that what one causes could depend on such a thing as the purpose that he may set or which he must obey. What an individual does, wants, thinks, feels " psychology immediately takes as more or less arbitrary expressions of those powers inserted in him which it had already previously assumed to be the driving forces of human behavior.

" The human is thereby doubled in theory, into what he wants to do and that which drives him to do "it." It makes no difference whether at the moment his instinctual life, a block box, an innate talent or an acquired motive is held responsible for it " how he behaves and acts is every time said to depend on one of these internal forces and juices. Behavior is a dependent variable of internal and external factors which causes what we do and what we don't. This is the determinism of psychology: if one acts one way or another, then that will probably have an inner necessity " one is (constructed) somehow or other and can therefore doubtless behave no differently.

" As an explanation, the designation of certain dispositions, abilities, cognitive patterns, etc. as traits of certain observable phenomena is incorrect. So, for example, the finding "war is a form of aggression" grasps just the most unspecific aspect of war. One is guaranteed to get no closer to identifying its reason, its subject; on the contrary: this action of the state has now become confused with all other possible "damages to the individual"!

The propositions of psychology thus exist in a circular procedure. One must only gather again after the event that abstract common characteristic which was previously read into all possible types of force (power, competition, etc., everything is for psychologists interchangeable and apparently also the same!): namely at one point as its trait, at another as its driving force. Thus the driving force for "aggressive behavior" is crystal-clear: the "aggressiveness" in humans. Or it is to be interpreted vice versa as a mere "reflex" to external circumstances which in turn raises the fascinating question about a disposition to react to these circumstances "appropriately." In its Notionlessness, this sort of explanation directly produces a deep understanding of all the large and small events of life, from the struggle for success on the job to the marital quarrel: the personality of a person is always responsible.

4.

Since everything that a person amounts to depends on the state of his inner life, psychology offers a diagnosis of the personality. It investigates characteristics, capacities, and aptitudes whose individual development decides the chances and prospects which one has in professional and/or private life. Intelligence and personality tests transfer this assumption into practice and are said to provide knowledge about the chances which the individual has on account of his capabilities.

Counter-argument: Since when are the chances that are offered to someone "to make something of himself" in this society really adapted to who that person is and what his abilities are? It is after all the reverse: people have to adapt themselves to whatever abilities are generally required. They must show them or learn them in order to be able to measure up to certain positions. Meaning: it is always set up that there is a hierarchy of occupations and wages. Likewise, it is certain from the start " before somebody or other would need to look a
Debate Round No. 1
Hajat

Pro

Hajat forfeited this round.
andrewz61

Con

andrewz61 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Hajat

Pro

Hajat forfeited this round.
andrewz61

Con

andrewz61 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Hajat

Pro

Hajat forfeited this round.
andrewz61

Con

andrewz61 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Hajat

Pro

Hajat forfeited this round.
andrewz61

Con

andrewz61 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
there is just, resonable and unresonable on a subject if you can determine those 2 your will go far beyond the force
No votes have been placed for this debate.