E
exile
Guest
Did Greek rationalism lead to democracy or was it democracy that brought about the conditions ripe for rationalism?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Democracy does not imply rationalism nor rationalism, democracy. However, if one accepts the limited notion of democracy of (say) Athens as democracy and the limited notion of rationalism (using reason to figure things out--except for the democracy convicting Socrates) as rationalism. I do not know, but...
In terms of the enlightenment (separating philosophy and science from theology) versus liberty (the possession of rights), the evidence is pretty clear that enlightenment came first. It was required for the notion of "rights" that were not the whim of G-d or man (there is a lot of classic liberal theory on this).
So by analogy, rationalism (thinking abstractly) was needed (perhaps) to construct the notion of rule of the privileged men (and not just one man).
In terms of the enlightenment (separating philosophy and science from theology) versus liberty (the possession of rights), the evidence is pretty clear that enlightenment came first. It was required for the notion of "rights" that were not the whim of G-d or man (there is a lot of classic liberal theory on this).
So by analogy, rationalism (thinking abstractly) was needed (perhaps) to construct the notion of rule of the privileged men (and not just one man).
E
exile
Guest
Your deduction is the same as mine. The thing that made me think about it was a random website that equated equality of belief to democracy essentially creating the conditions that let people think for themselves which sounds like freedom of belief to me, which in turn allowed people to think along rational lines.
On the other hand its my understanding that Pericles rationalism was influenced by Anaxagoras conception in "Mind" and "Mindlessness" which I suppose would be this "thinking abstractly" that you mentioned. And Pericles is the one responsible for a long lasting radical democracy. So here it would appear that rational thinking is what gave rise to democracy.
But I also have good reason to believe that Anaxagoras conception of "Mind" and "Mindlessness" stemmed from the theological framework of God vs. Devil. This would mean that theology, though not a rational domain itself, gave rise to rational thinking, which ultimately gave rise to democracy.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
I admire your thinking here. I would merely add two things:
"Theology", "rationality" and "democracy" as the Classic Greeks used the terms are not the same as our more complex and refined terms of the same names.
Theology (study of a god) really is rather limiting, we could call studying G-d within the context of everything psukhology (should have been psychology but Freud got there first)... the classic metaphysical sense of theology.
Rationality was rather idealistic (in the metaphysical not emotional sense). It implies that a prior thought and Platonic forms determine material reality. Empiricism fought this beast, but too soon devolved into mindless materialism. That is why something like Leclerc's or Pierce's or Whitehead's approach of a rationality fed by empiricism which is neither idealistic nor materialistic seems (IMHO) a superior point-of-view.
Finally, democracy is of value, but unless coupled to a "rule of law" or "rights of the individual" or "republicanism", it can become a suicide pact (Afghanistan may be, Israel could be, and the new Egypt may be). It is insidious, and JMHO, the basis for the Tea party phenomenon in the US.
A majority of voters in (gerry-mandered majority white and Republican) state districts elect a majority in the statehouses who gerry-mander the districts further so that their constituents (a majority in each district, but a minority overall) elect a House that is determined to oppose the will of the people.
"Theology", "rationality" and "democracy" as the Classic Greeks used the terms are not the same as our more complex and refined terms of the same names.
Theology (study of a god) really is rather limiting, we could call studying G-d within the context of everything psukhology (should have been psychology but Freud got there first)... the classic metaphysical sense of theology.
Rationality was rather idealistic (in the metaphysical not emotional sense). It implies that a prior thought and Platonic forms determine material reality. Empiricism fought this beast, but too soon devolved into mindless materialism. That is why something like Leclerc's or Pierce's or Whitehead's approach of a rationality fed by empiricism which is neither idealistic nor materialistic seems (IMHO) a superior point-of-view.
Finally, democracy is of value, but unless coupled to a "rule of law" or "rights of the individual" or "republicanism", it can become a suicide pact (Afghanistan may be, Israel could be, and the new Egypt may be). It is insidious, and JMHO, the basis for the Tea party phenomenon in the US.
A majority of voters in (gerry-mandered majority white and Republican) state districts elect a majority in the statehouses who gerry-mander the districts further so that their constituents (a majority in each district, but a minority overall) elect a House that is determined to oppose the will of the people.
E
exile
Guest
Are you saying that theology was basically ancient psychology?
Is essentially what your saying here that science has lost its soul?
I agree that democracy may not work for everybody. Even in the US there are quirks that need to be worked out, especially, in regard to politicians that cater to lobbyists.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
No, "psyche" meant soul. So psychology should (by ancient Greek terms) the study of the soul and spirituality.
Yes. What Liebnitz (and many since) have fought is the continual emphasis on physicalist scientism. That means a lot of things: "there is only matter/energy", any thing can be reduced to its components, there are no fields (or, if you prefer, emergence). I believe (like Newton, Liebnitz, Piercr, Bergswon,Whitehead, Leclerc, Chalmers, Stapp, and others) is that strict empiricial physicalism went out with the Vienna Circle and the Logical Positivists.
Democracy per se is not the issue nor the end all and be all. I believe that is classical liberalism (and value).
Yes. What Liebnitz (and many since) have fought is the continual emphasis on physicalist scientism. That means a lot of things: "there is only matter/energy", any thing can be reduced to its components, there are no fields (or, if you prefer, emergence). I believe (like Newton, Liebnitz, Piercr, Bergswon,Whitehead, Leclerc, Chalmers, Stapp, and others) is that strict empiricial physicalism went out with the Vienna Circle and the Logical Positivists.
Democracy per se is not the issue nor the end all and be all. I believe that is classical liberalism (and value).
E
exile
Guest
But isn't that what psychology, in essence, is: the study of the soul? I was always under the impression that "heart," "mind," and "soul" were essentially the same thing and what we used to refer to the "spirit [world]" or "incorporeal" is today what we call the "psyche." If this isn't the case then what does psychology mean today?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
It was, in the beginning. But the mindless mind of Freud and behavioralism (if I remember right) pretty much changed that. It may change back given the impact of the integral school...
The early Fathers of psychology Wundt, Ebbinghaus, Pavlov (before Freud) really focused on mental functions and behavior. Then Freud "fixed" all of that as applying to mental states (ego, id, super-ego and all that jazz) that "really exist as material things".
I think only James and Jung focused on "souls" as we incorporeally mean it. Then the behavioralists really screwed it up (IMHO).
Since WWII there have been two trends (again, speaking from memory), humanistic (Maslow to Wilber) and the reductionist (cognitive) schools. In terms of meta-issues I think Ryle, Searle, Penrose, and Chamlers have gone a long way in providing evidence against the cognitivists.... but the Churchlands and Dennett have taken cognitivism under its wing. And these three are die-hard physicalists who deny the very existence of mind, let alone soul.
The early Fathers of psychology Wundt, Ebbinghaus, Pavlov (before Freud) really focused on mental functions and behavior. Then Freud "fixed" all of that as applying to mental states (ego, id, super-ego and all that jazz) that "really exist as material things".
I think only James and Jung focused on "souls" as we incorporeally mean it. Then the behavioralists really screwed it up (IMHO).
Since WWII there have been two trends (again, speaking from memory), humanistic (Maslow to Wilber) and the reductionist (cognitive) schools. In terms of meta-issues I think Ryle, Searle, Penrose, and Chamlers have gone a long way in providing evidence against the cognitivists.... but the Churchlands and Dennett have taken cognitivism under its wing. And these three are die-hard physicalists who deny the very existence of mind, let alone soul.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Studying psychology very shallowly, I found that the different schools perceived things from different perspectives, focusing on different aspects of the mind. Depending on your problem, you might need to look at it from the right perspective. Me and my girl usually talk from the cognitive behavioral perspective concerning a lot of our everyday issues.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Yep, my point is that most of them focus on "mind" not "soul".
Who do you rationally think is responsible for your choice of action? Before God, a higher power, or another, who do you rationally think represents you?
"Made you think!"?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Democracy will come when the people rationalize that this is a good way to live.
E
exile
Guest
You may be right, but I don't get the feeling that religion or soul is today separated from modern psychology. I have heard of both regular psychiatrists as well as atheist psychiatrists. Though I do believe psychology is rooted in theology I would prefer it if these domains were kept separate. I'll explain: I'm an atheist. In my world it doesn't matter whether god exists or not. I'm more interested in the idea, is origins, how it developed, who it influenced, and what money is to be made from it. My understanding is that a delusion is something that is based on false foundations. That the existence of god, much less the definition of god, can not be proved emperically to me means that anyone who believes in God and is motivated by this belief in what he does good or bad is delusional. And if the psychiatrists aren't going to back me on this then I don't think they should be psychiatrists. A line has to be drawn somewhere and if the people defining what is a delusion and what is not can't accept that a delusion is a delusion then the whole system is a failure. They might as well be alright with someone believing that pigs fly. Priests should be reserved for people who are adamant that there is a God. Psychiatrists should be reserved for people who want to be free of their delusions.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
I did not mean to imply that psychology has "strayed". What I was referring was to its ties to physicalism/materialism. My bad.
No, a discipline dedicated to the mind (actually would have been I think "noology" in the Greek) is required. And the existence of G-d or Sp-rit should not be part of the profession (unless the patient wants spiritual help).
Those psychological theories I personally like (humanistic and integral) do offer that kind of help.
No, a discipline dedicated to the mind (actually would have been I think "noology" in the Greek) is required. And the existence of G-d or Sp-rit should not be part of the profession (unless the patient wants spiritual help).
Those psychological theories I personally like (humanistic and integral) do offer that kind of help.