As I’ve been reading about Jung’s differant psychological types, (introvert, extravert, thinking feelin, etc.) I’ve been thinking, to what extent does someone’s psychological make up actually affect their philosophical beliefs? For instance, an extreme extravert would probably argue that all philosophy should be based on A Posteriori observastions, while an intravert would favor A Priori. Any thoughts?
you ought to read ‘My philosophical awakening’ essay. we have similar thoughts.
One thought is this; what happens when the extrovert or the introvert self-diagnose themselves as such? I would expect that the simplistic correlation of Jungian types with basic philosophical persuasions would dissolve. Yet this only shows that our focus was too narrow, not that, in some greater and more comprehensive sense, all of our philosophical positions aren’t influenced by psychological predispositions. Yet such a blanket assertion, if applied indiscriminately as a general axiom, loses is discriminatory power, and so become vacuous. Which just means that it takes on a different meaning from the original.
Just a thought.
Regards,
James
Since all knowledge goes through the filter of one’s own subjectivity before we reach conclusions, our beliefs are influenced by our psychological characteristics. Knowledge is processed with the aid of previous knowledge acquired. This previous knowledge is what causes our psychological characteristics and deep beliefs. It therefore shapes the new beliefs. I’d like to think my beliefs are PURELY objective, intelligent conclusions on information, but I don’t think it’s so.
Well, then I guess the next question to ask would be can we escape our inherent bias of our psychological type through pure force of reason? Sure you can catch yourself and say, “well maybe I’m only thinking this way because I’m an intravert,” or whatever, but even then, does our psychology twist our thought process to a conclusion that seems logical but is actually predetermined by our type?
In my opinion, (that opening is a sure sign of a coming philosophical statement,) even if this is true, it certainly doesn’t mean the process of each mind to understand is meaningless just because we see things through a differant point of view. By sharing and discussing our glimpses of truth perhaps we work toward a greater truth, understood not by one man, but collectively by humanity.
Psychology IS Philosophy.
That is correct in my opinion. This is except for a few totally proven brain malfunctions.
Hmm. Interesting statement. Are you saying that our perceptions of truth can’t go uncolored by our various mind functions?
Hi TQ,
I have thought about this problem myself. For a long time I argued for a rights based moral system, not realising that I favour this view because I have personal problems over being messed about by other people.
If we do tend to argue for the philosophical view that we like, it is not good philosophy. I suspect that many of us do it. At least I caught myself in the act!
Cheers,
F