Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:36:30.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why do Philosophers and Psychologists Prefer to Ignore Each Other's Work?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

David R. Lea
David R. Lea*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Philosophy, University of Papua New Guinea
*
Department of Psychology and Philosophy, University of Papua New Guinea, P.O. Box 320, University, NCD, Papua New Guinea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper aims to clarify certain assumptions, methods and conclusions which have tended to divide philosophy and psychology. In order to demonstrate these diffenees, I have selected certain issues and developments within the philosophy of language which are relevant to behaviourism and cognitive theory. What I will demonstrate is that the assumptions, methods, and conclusions of an enquiry are often related to beliefs about the duality of the human subject. I also point out that philosophers are not unanimous about the existence of this alleged duality. Accordingly, I show that when philosophers abandon the dualistic interpretation, they also reject the idea that philosophy and psychology are fundamentally irreconcilable disciplines. In demonstrating this point, I refer to the work of Noam Chomsky on linguistic structure and cognitive capacity.

Type
Research Article
Information
South Pacific Journal of Psychology , Volume 3 , 1990 , pp. 10 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © University of Papua New Guinea 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, D. M. (1968). The materialist theory of the mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Chihara, C. S., & Fodor, J. A. (1965). Operationalism and Ordinary Language: A Critique of Wittgenstein. In Pitcher, G. (Ed.), Wittgenstein: The philosophical investigations: A collection of critical essays (pp. 384–420). Garden City: Doubleday & Company.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1968). Meditations on the first philosophy in which the existence of God and the real distinction between the soul and the body of man are demonstrated. In Discourse on method, and The meditations (Sutcliffe, F. E., Trans.). Harmsworth: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1637)Google Scholar
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Apppleton-Century-Croft.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1969). Ideas: A general introduction to pure phenomenology (Gibson, W. R. B., Trans) New York: Humanities Press. (Original work published 1913)Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1958). Critique of pure reason (Smith, N. K., Trans.) London: Dent. (Original Work published 1787)Google Scholar
McLarty, M. H. (1989). Psychology and modern science. Psychological Record, 39, 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. S. (1965). Brett's history of psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1972). Insights and illusions of philosophy (Mays, W., Trans.). London: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1965)Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Sartre, J.P. (1968) Being and nothingness: An essay in phenomenological ontology (Barnes, H. E., Trans.). New York: Citade Press. (Original work published 1943)Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. (1963). Philosophy and scientific realism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). The philosophical investigations (2nd. ed.). New York: MacMillan Co.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and the brown books. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1961). Tractatus logico philosophicus (Pears, D. F. & McGuinness, D. F., Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1931)Google Scholar