The resolution of this contradiction is rather simple. For: Since the evolutionary concept does not include a concept of "mind" or "soul", it can't very well deny it, particularly in view of the "spiritual" or non-material nature the mind or soul is considered to have. Accepting simply that man has two aspects of body and soul (or mind) in his nature eliminates the rest of the problem. For: All that is then necessary to establish the direct or unique creation of man is the installation of the mind or soul; in which case, it was only man's body that evolved from animals, - but not man as such.
Accepting both these positions by so resolving the contradictions yields a possibility which neither one alone could indicate. For: If evolution is a natural process, we should be able to trace evolution (development might be a better term) of the mind from the point of the creation of man to the present. The possibility of so checking "evolution of the mind" back to a point then serves as an objective check on the synthesis of the two concepts. Such an objective check is necessary because the synthesis can only be a valid interpretation of the objective world if both theories are valid interpretations of the world themselves, but each being merely more limited than the synthesized concept, with the further assumption having been made that the synthesis removes their limitations.
The possibility of tracing "evolution" or development of the mind back to a point becomes increasingly important, particularly for psychology students. Consider the alternatives:
(1) If man evolved completely (both body and mind) there is no essential difference between man and animal; and the development or evolution of the mind is either:
(1a), identical to the evolution of the body, in which case the concept of "mind" becomes meaningless; or,
(1b), the evolution of body and mind occur simultaneously, which would demand the presence of a mind in animals, in which case the only difference between man and animals is one of degree, not of nature.
On the other hand,
(2) if only man's body evolved, and the creation of man was the installation of the mind or soul into an animal body, there is an essential difference between man and animals - not merely one of degree, but one of nature - which would demand that animals have no mind or soul.
With regard to our synthesis, the alternatives (1a, 1b, 2) allow us to determine whether man was "created" or "evolved" by determining whether a definite point exists or not, without actually finding the point, by tracing the development of the mind back to it. Indeed the possibility of thus tracing the development of the mind would be by the first alternative (1a) rather absurd, by the second (1b) of questionable possibility, and little meaning, but by the third (2) definitely possible, and relatively simple by comparison to the problem posed by (1b). The choice of alternatives also determines the validity of our synthesis since our synthesis demands that such a point exists, and that there is an essential difference between man and animals, i.e., our synthesized theory can be valid if and only if the third alternative alone is found to be consistent with what we know or can find out about human nature.
It is not of immediate importance or interest to continue this discussion. The most important thing for us to note in our review of our common basis, and the subsequent discussions, is that no particular religion (we even included "personal religions"), social structure, etc. was specified, so that we have developed the most general common basis imaginable. Not only is it completely general but also it can be applied very specifically if we desire by simply defining any particular religion, or social structure, or environmental structure as a particular frame of reference.
Let us now turn to what is usually taken as a first step and define our field of study, consider its scope, and its relationships to other fields of study. Psychology is usually defined as the study of behavior. We could accept that definition, but it is not adequate as it stands, and we shall have to develop it. From our discussion up to this point it should be clear that behavior is the result of an interplay of values, and the definition becomes:
The study of values (or value systems), and their relationships, inter-relationships, and effects, with particular respect to individuals man.
Before discussing the definition as a whole, we shall take a look at its parts. The term "study" is itself a value. Its value depends upon, and represents, the values of the processes used, and upon the understanding, the knowledge, the usefulness, etc., that is obtained. A study can be taken to be synonomous with a scientific investigation depending upon whether or not the evaluations, or the interpretations are valid, systematic, and conducted according to "scientific method" - with standards, controls, constant checks on the validity of the "theories" by further observations, experimentation, and prediction.
The standards in science are arbitrarily established, and they are maintained as long as they are useful; their usefulness being dependent upon their availability, and their purpose being the establishment of definite values to which other values can be compared. They may be crude at first, but they can be, and are, refined as advances are made. We will have to begin with a standard that is rather crude from a scientific point of view, though for psychology, it is probably the best standard that could be devised. But if nothing else, it will be the most useful to us. We shall accept ourselves as the standards, and other people as controls. Then as we improve our understanding, we improve our values, our knowledge, our understanding, and ourselves, thereby refining our standard as we progress, and also our ability to evaluate. We might just as well recognize these relationships, and try to understand them since they are unavoidably included in every study - including the scientific ones - anyway.
The term "values" has already been discussed, but the parenthetical "value systems" adds meaning: e.g., a value system might be an interpretation, a theory of reality or life, a philosophy, a religion, a society, etc. We can group any set of values and discuss the group as if it were a single value. Each value can even be assigned a numerical, or an algebraic value and then the total value can be computed. The first attempts will be crude, but it can be done. We can also take any value and consider it to be a composite of other values, even if the value is considered a single value, it can be broken into fractions. From this simple discussion we can derive some interesting consequences: e.g.,:
Mathematics can conceivably be used in all phases or our study. That is, if we wish, we can quantify any qualitative results we might find. This is interesting from another point of view. Since we are applying logic as our tool to investigate this field qualitatively, and since we can use mathematics to quantify the results, we can define mathematics as "quantitative logic". Such a definition is consistent with our usual ideas of mathematics, defining its essential nature in its broadest or most specific application.
Quantitative logic can be considered to be an "essential" definition of mathematics even though there are some fields of mathematics that are not quantitative; e.g., topology. It can be argued that such areas are better defined as "symbolic logic" - quantity being just one kind of symbol. The development of symbolic logic as a branch of logic is also interesting in this respect, since it shows the close association of the usual ideas of logic and mathematics. Actually classical, formal logic is also a symbolic logic, words themselves being symbols. In fact logic and mathematics have some identity; both of them being an abstracted system (abstracted from the real world, as it is known, but not necessarily co-inciding with it, as it is known) which maintain consistency within themselves.
If logic and mathematics are to be differentiated it seems best to consider mathematics as a quantification of logic. It makes little difference whether a subject like topology is considered to be mathematics or symbolic logic. The study of such areas would remain as interesting and possibly more rewarding through the simple realization that they are related to both mathematics and logic, and actually contain the essence of both these fields.
The terms "relationships" and inter-relations" need no explanation except possibly to point out that a relationship is also a value, which has its value in connecting two or more values. The idea that values can have "effects" should be apparent from our development. The idea of "survival values" should make this clear. It should also be clear that knowledge of the values is not necessary for them to have effects. Certainly the process of evolution - the interplay of genetic and environmental values - occurred before the idea of evolution. They had to be in operation before they were recognized. It would be absurd to consider any other sequence. If the "values" were not there to begin with, they would not have been in operation, they could not have become known, for evolution would not have taken place.
The term "individual" seems to need no explanation, yet it is crossed out and replaced with the term "man". We shall discuss the reasons for this shortly. Whichever terminology we use we certainly don't want to restrict ourselves to the singular. Since we are taking pains to maintain the greatest generality possible, we shall use the term "individual" (or group of individuals) which includes man as one of all the conceivable kinds of individuals we might consider. We can restrict it when, and if, it becomes necessary. Now the important observation to make is that the individual can be considered as a value or group of values. In fact, if we wish, we can define an individual in terms of values and even apply mathematics, again at least theoretically.
With these considerations we should have a greater appreciation for the terminology used and now can view the relationships between them. We shall do this first without considering the definition to be that of psychology, so that we can appreciate the complete generality of the definition. This is suggested for reasons associated with the substitution of the term "man" for "individuals" which we have not yet discussed. But certainly, whatever the reason, we can discuss any part of the definition we choose. A restatement of that portion of the definition we will now discuss will eliminate confusion and therefore follows:
"The study of values (or value systems) and their relationships, inter-relationships, and effects, with respect to individuals."
The most interesting and important relationship, irrespective of those referred to in the "definition", is the reciprocal dependency existing between the kinds of values and the kinds of individuals considered. That is to say, that the nature of the individual we wish to consider will automatically determine or restrict the nature of the values we can consider. For example: We would not ordinarily consider a "legal" value to effect the behavior of animals. Yet legal values do effect their behavior. But, "legal" values cannot effect the behavior of animals except indirectly through man, who is part of the animals environment. The legal values cannot effect animals, but only man, whose environmental "survival" values to animals is thereby changed.
Since the relationship is reciprocal, the nature of the values will give us information regarding the nature of the individual. If we consider legal values, we must consider man. This is a highly desirable property and has very important consequences for us. It should be noted that this relationship is intrinsic to the definition so that it cannot be avoided. It should also be noted that this relationship is intrinsic to "common sense" as well. No attempt should be made to avoid it. It is the most valuable aspect of the definition. There is no restriction whatsoever forced upon us, unless we wish to make them. For: If we consider the "individuals" to include all possible kinds of individuals, we can be sure that we have included all kinds of values. Besides that, it allows us to use our common-sense as an integral part of ourselves, our standard, and our studies.
But now, we must restrict our term "individuals". For: Since it is completely general, we can choose an individual of a species of a chemical nature - i.e., a molecule, an atom, etc. This is not absurd as it sounds. We have a completely general set of values from which to choose that includes chemical values. If we restricted ourselves to just chemical values, we could only consider such individuals as molecules, atoms, etc. Interesting! The definition as it stands is a general definition of all sciences - of all studies - which can be delineated or restricted to any particular science or study by simply making the right choice of "individuals". Some extension of this thought will prove interesting, but first, we will tackle the business at hand in defining psychology more explicitly.
Regardless of what kind of individual we choose other than man, we will restrict the kinds of values we can consider in such a way as to destroy some important values; e.g., those resulting in such behavior as suicide, martyrdom, mathematical computation, musical composition, etc. We must then include man in the definition. It might also be pointed out that it was man who conceived the generality of our term values, and this ability to conceive or think has carried us this far. We made no recourse to animals to develop a completely general set of values. Man alone is sufficient to define our study without destroying its generality. Considering man alone as the individual also allows us to separate psychology from biology.
But what about "animal psychology"? Well, let's see. The first observation we can make is that man has animal characteristics. This does not equate him with animals. That is, he has animal characteristics plus some distinctive characteristics we have already mentioned. This is true even though these characteristics are considered to be merely the result of a "higher degree" of development or evolution, so that these considerations cannot settle the question of the validity of the synthesis we made earlier.
It is very interesting to note the position of man in terms of evolutionary theory, because this position indicates that man represents an improvement of the survival values that can be associated with the evolutionary development at any stage. If this is so, then the studies of animals is important, or can be, to the understanding of man's psychology, or simply psychology. The only objection that could possibly be raised to this is that birds can be considered, on the basis of certain criteria, to have reached a higher stage of evolution than man. But, such a view is trivial. For: Man has far exceeded the advantages that birds may have developed with respect to survival; e.g., by developing for himself the ability to fly. Since the only values we can legitimately apply to anything in a Darwinian evolutionary sense are survival values, we still have no problem.
Very simply then, "animal psychology" is a misnomer. The only reason to study animals is to elucidate the psychology of man. Any "psychological" research done with animals for any other purpose is ridiculous. At best, such research is more the field of biology, or physiology, or related science, and nothing more. Then, "animal psychology" is better expressed as being: "the study of the biological, or physiological, basis of psychological phenomena as studied in animals."If this is what is meant by the terminology "animal psychology", we can have no objections to its use.
But since biology and physiology have a legitimate place in our study as a basis upon which, or through which, our psychology operates (even if our study is considered to be merely an extension of those fields), why not chemistry, physics, or the physical sciences? Certainly man is composed of the same kind of material as that which composes the material of such sciences so that they have a great deal of validity - as much as biology or physiology - in helping us understand the mechanisms of psychological phenomena.
Now with regard to all the other fields of endeavor, other than the physical and biological sciences, since they deal directly with some aspect of man, they also have interest for us in helping us understand psychology. That is, all the arts and humanities have validity as material for psychological study. Furthermore, since they deal directly with man in the areas in which man alone is found, they have somewhat more validity than the physical or biological sciences.
The science of psychology would develop rather rapidly if those in all fields of the sciences, arts, and humanities would develop an interest for it, and apply the knowledge obtained in their special fields to an understanding of psychology. In fact, the only way psychology could emerge as a true science is by considering and including all phases of man's activities, i.e., by studying the total man. Besides the usefulness to psychology, what benefit could, say the chemist, derive by applying himself to psychology, which would require at least a working knowledge of it? That is, why should a chemist, a physicist, or that matter, anyone, bother with studying psychology?
It might be noted that our earlier discussion of standards, and the establishment of ourselves as standards, is pertinent here, especially since this is a general psychological phenomenon which occurs on an unconscious level if not a conscious one. But let's try to answer this question through some philosophic considerations. We can also tie together some loose ends we left earlier, and develop further some interesting thoughts we had observed.
First, let's take another look at our general definition. We noted that by simply substituting a particular kind of individual we were able to define, or could at least conceivably define, all sciences and even the humanities. This seems to be a property which philosophers have claimed for their field down through the ages. Interestingly enough, we can define philosophy with our definition by simply substituting "truth" for "individual". Such a definition is consistent with the usual idea of philosophy. To see this more clearly all we have to do is reflect on our development of a generalized concept of values. It included a consideration of all possible knowledge, real or imaginary, showing simply that anything that can come into our mind, is thereby valued. Philosophy is a study of knowledge in the realm of pure thought; a study of knowledge with respect to itself, or Truth; a study of values with respect to each other, or with respect to the validity of the evaluations.
Our definition of psychology actually includes philosophy as a part of its scope. Psychology must be more extensive than philosophy because psychology is not only concerned with "valid knowledge" to which philosophy restricts itself, but also it is concerned with "imaginary knowledge" and their effects.
Engaging ourselves in the realm of "pure thought", we should gain some interesting insight because the thought content has psychological significance. In the realm of thought alone, the only tool man has is logic, reasoning ability, or "common sense". Since philosophy pervades all the sciences and humanities, so does logic. Earlier we developed an intersting definition of mathematics as a refinement of logic, or as "quantitative logic". Then mathematics too can pervade all the sciences and humanities.
"Pure thought" is impossible though; one must have a person to produce the "pure" thought. Hence, the need for psychology in philosophy. Psychology defined in terms of logic or mathematics then, can pervade all the sciences and humanities.
Now the picture is complete. Psychology has a unique central position which is identical to the position of man in attempting to understand any knowledge. The study of philosophy will effect man and man will effect the study of philosophy. Philosophy will effect psychology and psychology will effect philosophy. This kind of reciprocal relationsip can be shown with all other studies to psychology. That is knowledge in any one of them can be applied to improve our understanding of psychology; and, with an improved understanding of psychology, we can feed back the improvement in understanding that field.
This process can repeat itself indefinitely. A great deal is to be gained by feeding knowledge obtained in any study through psychology, because: from psychology's central position, the improvements can be reflected to all other studies. Not only can improvements be transferred, but also tested as to their validity and extension. That is to say, that such a process will help to determine , and remove, the unnecessary limits of any knowledge, thereby helping to determine the "limits" of man's mind. Particularly interesting in this respect is that psychology can be used as a tool to test the validity of various philosophical theories, at least to determine which is best from a utilitarian or hedonistic point of view. The relationship of this discussion to the establishment of ourselves as standards should be apparent.
The general results obtained so far can be represented diagramatically:
The philosophical view of all knowledge. See Figure 1.
The philosophical view in relation to man and his psychology See Figure 2.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question, via E-mail
1. Hit the 'back' button to return where you were
2. Go to the next Chapter
3. Go to the Home Page
