MAN AND ITS KNOWLEDGE
OBJECT AND SUBJECT OF PSYCHOLOGY
As a result of studying this chapter, the student must:
• what is the object and subject of psychology;
• What is the similarity and difference between the object and the subject of psychology
be able to
• distinguish between cognitive and emotional mental processes;
• the skills of regulatory mental processes in management.
Object and object
Each area of knowledge has its own object and object. The distinction between these concepts is contained in the works of the German philosopher Kant. He divided the main transcendental question into four other questions.
1. How is pure mathematics possible?
2. How is pure natural science possible?
3. How is metaphysics possible in general?
4. How is metaphysics possible as a science? In other words, thinking about the object of this or that science, we ask ourselves how it is possible, i.e. which constitutes it as an independent discipline. Thinking about the subject of a particular science, we determine its subject, i.e. what exactly will she be doing. I. Kant wrote that "for any concept it is required, first, the logical form of the concept (thinking) in general and, secondly, the possibility to give the given concept an object to which it would relate. Without an object, it has no meaning and is completely devoid of content, although it may contain a logical function of the formation of a concept from random data. "
Speaking about the object of psychology, we answer the question of how it is possible at all as an autonomous field of knowledge. As for the subject matter of psychology, it is formed using a methodological "cut" object of study. To do this, the object is consistently placed in various contexts, where various questions are posed about it, to answer which theoretic-methodological and theoretical-methodological schemes are attracted or created, as a result of which the faces of the subject of investigation are painted. Thus, the object can be studied from various aspects. Characterizing psychology, we show what it is specifically to be investigated. And here we come across another notion - the subject psychology, which allows us to better explore the object, test its various facets, develop the necessary concepts and categories that include psychological knowledge.
Thus, as the object of psychology is the psyche, and the subject of psychology characterizes the various transformations and discoveries of the latter. In the notion of the subject of psychology, we single out the facts, laws and mechanisms of the psyche. The main task of psychology as a science is to disclose the laws of the emergence, development and flow of a person's mental activity, the development of his psychic properties, the identification of the vital meaning of the psyche.
Cognitive mental processes
The psychic reveals itself through mental processes, mental states, the psychic properties of the personality. It is important to see the differences between cognitive, emotional and regulative mental processes. As a result of the action of cognitive processes, we get an idea of the properties of the external environment. As long as there is a person, he can not help but try to understand the world around him and himself. This is a necessary condition for human life, activity and communication. This understanding is ensured by common sense, as well as by resources of everyday language and a certain culture. Today, the so-called epistemological constructivism, whose adherents believe that knowledge in the literal sense of the word, does not exist, is especially popular today, because what we consider to be reality does not really exist, but turns out to be the construction of our consciousness. Special recognition constructivism has received in the human sciences: psychology, history, sociology.
Let's turn to the book of the famous psychologist and literary critic V. P. Rudnev. He writes: "Let's imagine the bank of the river, on the shore wild wild boar graze. The sun is shining, the forest is buzzing with gusts of wind, etc. In our opinion, this is not a picture of reality, until an observer is introduced into it - a person. Reality is a property of human thinking. The concept of reality is invented by a person, and a highly organized person who distinguishes names ( shore, river , boars , < wind and predicates ( graze, flow , shine, make noise ) .
The author believes that in order to formulate the human idea of reality as an external world, the existence in the language of propositional attitudes is necessary. He sees how wild boars graze on the bank of the river. " The concept of reality, therefore, is the result of a process of language development that has occupied many millennia.
Of course, the expression of opinion is not a particular consideration. Many modern scientists believe that objects of the natural sciences do not differ from the objects of social sciences, because they are also social constructs. Quarks and genes - social constructs, as well as social science objects, such as "disease", "mental norm", "antisocial behavior". In this connection, the well-known scholarly historian and philosopher of science A. Pickering reports that the idea of the quark was not "deconsti- nated by nature." The concept of a quark, as well as other scientific concepts, is constructed by people and is determined by the culture within which it was formed.
However, as EA Mamchur shows, for the development of science it is not at all indifferent to what strategy scientists use. Instrumentalist methodology in the long term is not productive, although it can be useful in certain segments of the development of scientific knowledge. In the end, it will turn into stagnation in the development of science, as it happened with modern particle physics. Another example: Lysenkoism, abandoning genes and genetics, delayed the development of biology, fortunately only in one country, taken separately.
A few years ago it was written that the theory of knowledge is experiencing a severe crisis. It was noted that there are no significant discoveries in its horizon. It was argued that the era of pervasive knowledge was completed. Described a crisis in which science has sunk. The final approval of the "boundaries of the mind" was announced. The authors lamented the methodological omnivorousness. For example, BI Pruzhinin in the book "Ratio serviens? Contours of cultural-historical epistemology noted that the general orientation of the discussions of contemporary philosophers of science, including United States ones, has moved into the field of discussion of the "mind in general" outside its demonstrative applications and social functions in general.
From this point of view, the idea of Pruzhinin was to revive the largely lost interest of intellectuals and philosophers in the sphere of science, to scientific reason.
One can not help but be inspired by E. Husserl's well-known words that the health and truth of European spirituality depends on the functioning brain. The author was also concerned about returning the theme of reason to the status of an independent spiritual institution, which took the liberty of judging the world objectively. He wrote that it is dangerous and detrimental to restrict the study of the mind by the sphere of technical and pragmatic applications. It is here, in the applied spheres, that deviation from rationality standards often becomes, in his opinion, a methodological condition for obtaining the required information. Incorporating into the solution of applied cognitive tasks (whether in the field of natural or human technologies), a person loses the motivation that guides him to objective and rational cognition as such.
Today, there is every reason to talk about significant breakthroughs in the philosophy of knowledge. They are found in many phenomena, sometimes completely incompatible with each other: in the "naturalistic turn", the development of a new type of rationality, the study of a priori cognitive structures, the comprehension of the latest achievements in the cognition of the human brain, the multidimensional consideration of the categorization of truth, the designation of a complex of problems concerning the evolution of consciousness , its information nature, the interaction of the unconscious, preconscious and conscious levels of the functioning of the human cognitive system, and that the cognitive origins of spiritual culture and world view.
There is reason to believe that the breadth of cognitive research in our days is to a certain extent connected with the publication of the works of the outstanding United States philosopher GG Shpet, whose arsenal of heuristic ideas is immense. The scientist, in particular, discusses the delimitation of the tasks of logic and psychology. Both disciplines use judgment. The question is asked: are not logic and psychology in cognition identical? It is true that the United States philosopher remarked that psychology, along with right thinking, must, of course, also study wrong thinking. GG Shpet criticizes the usual objections to psychologism in logic: "So, logic has its own independent object, completely independent and heterogeneous with the object of psychology, hence the existence of logic is necessary."
F. G. Shpet legitimately disputes the idea that logic is the same as the theory of knowledge. He notes that for such philosophers as I. G. Fichte, G. V. F. Hegel and some representatives of Kantianism, there is nothing except the theory of knowledge, but for those who set themselves the task of knowing the objective, understanding objects who declare that one can not speak of cognition, if it is not aimed at anything, logic, at least, will remain forever. Thus, the relationship between logic and the theory of knowledge is not an attitude of subordination or coordination, but a relation of the opposite.
The United States philosopher pays much attention to the demarcations between the sciences. From this point of view his thoughts on the object of psychology are interesting. In all the textbooks, as Shpet notes, in the definition of psychology resort to a somewhat artificial method, i.e. determine the mental in comparison with the physical. In fact, psychology has a special method of introspection. GG Shpet has in mind introspection. I. Kant at one time with doubt was related to the possibilities of psychology to study the inner experience of man. But Shpet is convinced that this experience is something authentic. He believes that we should not depersonalize psychology, forcing it to exist on the model of physical sciences. GG Shpet seeks to identify the signs of psychic phenomena in order to establish methodologically the independence of internal experience.
Many modern researchers see their task not only to fix the sociocultural identity and the concrete historical outlines of the received knowledge, but mainly to protect this knowledge from the all-pervasive influences of ideology. Such scientists include, in particular, V. Zinchenko, B. Springer, T. Shchedrin. Cultural and historical psychology from its very appearance was guided by fairly rigorous methods and approaches. These researchers are trying not to lose their scientific character and not to lose the humanitarian grounds of knowledge.
The authors do not reject the Marxist orientation toward the interpretation of man as an actor, creator, transformer of the world and himself. Marxism, in their opinion, was most likely undeniable, was a stable ideological background, which either complemented and strengthened the development of its own humanitarian ideas, or prevented the full disclosure of their scientific potential. Here it is possible to point out the fundamental anti-physiology of cultural-historical psychology, which gives reason to recall once again Shpet's arguments already mentioned. However, revealing the meaning of the first section of the book, the researchers show that we are talking about the reconstruction of the main theses of cultural and historical psychology of Vygotsky and the cultural-historical approach of GG Shpet. The latter at the same time serves as a link between Vygotsky and United States philosophy.
Speaking about the crisis of the methodology of scientific knowledge, the authors of the book in question reject "methodological liberalism", "methodological pluralism" and methodological anarchism & quot ;. They show that with the expansion of the concept of objective and the inclusion in its composition of subjective-activity studies of reality, a search for new types of rationality and reflexivity was required. The authors believe that for many decades the importance of the methodology for psychological research has clearly been overestimated, and this has damaged the theoretical work. "Methodology, whatever it is," they write, "positivist, dialectical, systemic, etc., can not, without bypassing theory, directly interface with empiricism and experiment. Discoveries are possible at the tip of the pen from the theoretician, and not from the methodologist. " Note that although the source of knowledge in psychology is not only an experiment, one can agree with the final conclusions of the researchers: "Methodological reflexion is always tied to a certain content of knowledge, it assumes knowledge as a language education and thus presupposes the existence of certain scientific disciplines and sciences as real spheres activity of real scientists. This is its most important distinguishing feature that determines the nature of methodological generalizations and concepts. "
In principle, distinguishing the concepts approach and the "method", the authors warn against the complete immersion of psychology in the hermeneutical approach. They believe that in this case we can lose psychology as a scientific field. It is impossible not to note the fascination with which the authors restore the rights as such, emphasizing its methodological value. Poets know that thinking about thoughts is more difficult than about things. And here you can not do without a fascinating quote: "One of the heroes of Alexander Pushkin " the thought of the Duma develops & quot ;; O. Mandelshtam admitted that he thinks not in a word , but in consciousness & quot ;; I. Brodsky echoes them, saying that he thinks in thoughts & quot ;. Freud likened consciousness to an organ that perceives mental processes. V. Bion went even further. He postulated that a person has a special apparatus for thinking thoughts. And although psychology does not know much about how a person thinks with his thoughts, how he turns the eyes of the soul (Plato) toward the idea, the thought, but she should not neglect this technique when studying consciousness. "
The cultural and historical school tried to integrate knowledge about a person, various approaches to it, and rational methods of studying it. The authors do not rule out that if Vygotsky lived longer, perhaps he would link his further research with Shpet's ideas. This opportunity was missed by Vygotsky's students, as they shifted their interest from the analysis of activities in the context of the meaning and meaning of the word to an emphasis on analyzing the subject-material activity of the action as the basis of the whole mental life.
Fascinating reflections begin in this book after posing the question of what is behind thought. As for Vygotsky, he essentially justifies the position about the beingness of thought and thought. So, thought and word are no less "polyphonic" than consciousness. This becomes the topic of very exciting arguments of the authors. According to Shpet, the meaning is rooted in being and it is not only etymologically a co-thought. Functions of thought-following embryo of literature can carry signs and symbols.
Modern psychological science has experienced a powerful influence of constructivism. Radical constructivists borrow their general principles from modern mentality, which, like the constructivism of the 1920s, denies any given object to the subject of knowledge (the subject of constructivism). According to the authors of the book, "return" constructivism to psychologism in the methodology of science is largely associated with the state of affairs in modern philosophical and methodological reflection over science and epistemology in general. At the same time, they are convinced that the transformation of cognitive activity into an almost psychobiological, in any case, technical and naturalistic process, in the dissolution of the cognizing person, into the tissues of this process, opens the prospect of a positive investigation of a number of important aspects of the process of cognition.
No less significant for the fate of psychology and its fencing from the dictates of physiology, attempts to dissolve psychology in the latter. GG Shpet showed that the fundamental error of physiological psychology begins with the recognition that the presence of the soul can be ascertained only in a living organism. "This direct denial of psychology - the soul is directly known, and not through the study of the body, the soul is subjectively given, and not through the subject study of the living and the dead."
In the sphere of scientific knowledge, an epistemological and methodological rapprochement takes place in a number of areas of social, humanitarian and natural sciences. The goals of the latter are not different, but they are even correlated. This situation of rapprochement, in general, gives rise to doubt. Is it time to blur the disciplinary standards of science? Have standards really shaken in the framework of natural science disciplines. Cultural-historical psychology has a special integrative appeal.
A special place in the study of cognitive processes is evolutionary epistemology, which considers cognition as a moment of the evolution of living nature and its product. This is how the practice of research into non-scientific knowledge develops; The accumulation of experience in the study of knowledge and cognitive activity in connection with new computer technologies. Evidently, epistemology must be oriented to the synthesis of modern evolutionary and cognitive representations, which have proved their effectiveness in cognitive science, in information and biotechnologies for their successful development.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay