| BookTalk.org News |
| • BookTalk.org News will soon go out via email in HTML format. The goal will be to keep people posted on our current book discussions and other relevant news items. |
| • Contest #2: "On The Importance of Reading" has started. Visit the Contests forum - the very top thread. |
| Donate & Support BookTalk.org |
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you! •
See who supports us
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Chris OConnor 
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 6498
Gender: 
Location: Florida
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: Ch. 12 - Toward a Unified Understanding...
|
 |
|
Ch. 12 - Toward a Unified Understanding: Nine Types of Psychology
Please use this thread for discussing Chapter 12.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
WildCityWoman
Sophomore
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 282
Gender: 
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Toward a Unified Understanding: Nine Types of Psychology |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWill
Freshman
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 249
Gender:
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
In this summation, Stevenson says that all the theories have something to contribute, and of the ten, only Kant perhaps avoids the problem of unbalance. I could agree, still without knowing much about Kant, that his theory seems the most comprehensive.
Stevenson here defines psychology as the science whose purpose is to study human nature. That is a pretty good definition, one that I wouldn't have thought of for some reason. So he seems to be saying that philosophy and religion are the old ways of looking at human nature. These older ways bring in a lot of extraneous matter to the discussion.
But the science of psychology probably can't solve the problem of whether we have an immaterial aspect, whether this is conceived of as the soul or mind. I'm pretty much on the side of materialism, believing that we don't have a soul and that our minds are what arise from the neural activity in our brains. But I'll never be able to prove I'm right, nor will anyone else.
I also can never prove what I believe to be true, that "the transcendent content of religious assertions is illusory" (p. 231). I try to be understanding of others who do believe in one truth handed down in a scripture. I see danger in that thinking to the same extent that believers see danger in mine, so we're at an impasse.
I compare human nature to a lump of clay that in each of us originally has the same indistinct shape. As we grow into our individual being, shaped by heredity and our environment, that clay assumes a form that may be unique and can be compared to an individual expression of human nature.
The malleability of HN seems to be central point I take away from this book (which I enjoyed, by the way). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
