Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
No, it is not. Psychoanalysis is unscientific, since it cannot be proved or refuted in principle (see Popper's criterion). However, this does not mean that it is pseudoscientific or unscientific. The specificity of human consciousness is that it is impossible to study it objectively, because the subject of study is inside his consciousness and cannot go beyond it. Therefore, many disciplines related to the study of consciousness or subjective feeling are somehow limited in their capabilities.�
We don't know and never will know what plants feel. Do they even feel it? Are they self-aware? The fact that plants don't have a brain or nervous system doesn't mean they don't have the ability to sense themselves. A tree doesn't scream when it's cut down, so it doesn't hurt. A scientific fact? Not once at all.
We don't know and will never know what a baby feels in the womb at different stages of brain formation. Again, studies of this very brain can't tell us anything about subjective sensation. All we can do is take our own feelings and assume that the other person feels the same way. Scientifically? Well then…
We will never know what will happen to our consciousness after death. Is the brain being destroyed? So what? Or maybe subjectively we are all immortal and die only for observers? (see Quantum immortality).
All these examples illustrate how science rests on subjectivity, and can no longer accurately prove or refute anything.
Psychoanalysis also cannot claim to know what in fact, it happens in the mind of another person, especially if the person himself is not aware of it. Here we can only assume. However, this is the only thing we have. Even though it is unscientific, psychoanalysis and related areas (gestalt therapy, art therapy, etc.) are respected all over the world and are considered the most effective methods of psychotherapy (greetings to medical students who tried to convince me that “a psychotherapist is only a doctor”).
Psychoanalytic calculations cannot be used for any legal justification or proof, but when working with a specific person in a specific life situation, they can be very effective. The main thing is not to go too far and insist on your own considerations, ignoring the feelings of the client.
Good afternoon. This is an elite (not accessible to everyone, difficult to understand and expensive) method of treating mental disorders and consulting with healthy people, which is based on a deep cultural study of personal meanings. A qualified psychoanalyst has knowledge in medicine, cultural studies, psychology, philosophy, and linguistics. The German psychologist Lorenzer defined psychoanalysis as ” a critical hermeneutical science.” Therefore , we can say that this is a hermeneutical science, that is, built on hermeneutics, that is, the interpretation of deep personal meanings.
Yes, of course.
But there are a couple of subtleties.
Psychology is a very young science. And the subject of her research is very complex. Therefore, during its existence, psychology did not even have time to finally form. Perhaps in 50 or 100 years, different areas of psychology will be able to give birth to a single approach to the psyche, to develop a single model of consciousness, but so far this has not happened.
Far from everything that is called psychology, in fact it is.
Since there is no single model of consciousness in fact, any idiot can pass off some of his thoughts as a psychological revelation. And you can't challenge it, because if a certain statement contradicts, for example, behaviorism, then this means nothing, because behaviorism is obviously not the whole of psychology, and in principle the contested statement must be true in relation to some sphere of the psyche that behaviorism does not cover. (but this does not mean that any phrase is true in any case, it only means that if it is not true, then it is difficult to refute it).
Well, do not forget about the creativity of copywriters who fill websites with content for little money.
Psychology is generally boring. A lot of research, a lot of numbers, complex ways to get some meaning out of these numbers, and so on. But who cares but a handful of fans?
Since the topic has been popular for the last 20 years, a lot of people give the public slightly psychological material that has nothing to do with science (and makes a little money from it).
At the same time, some such people earn their money quite honestly, and even help citizens in some moments. Sometimes they help very significantly.
But still, this is not a science, but a kind of modern shamanism.
For example: I was once on the so-called “Hellinger arrangement” – so it was 100% shamanism; but at the same time there was an effect, and it was very serious and constructive. Why this effect happened is still unclear, but over time, psychology will probably find an answer to this question:)