The Early Modern Attack on Teleology and the Politics of Contemporary Psychology: Intellectual Roots of Current Dilemmas
Human Arenas - Trang 1-15 - 2021
Tóm tắt
The paper takes up the relationship between teleological explanation and psychology. Teleological explanation—given in terms of purpose, intention, and value—is generally viewed unfavorably in psychology and science broadly. Biophysical mechanistic explanations are generally regarded as more scientific. The paper argues that the contemporary hostility to teleology needs to be understood in the context of the early modern political-philosophical struggles against organized religion. European philosophers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw that teleology was an essential part of how organized religion justified its political power. René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza are analyzed as philosophers who both attacked teleology, and contributed to the critique of organized religion. The early modern attack on teleology and the development of mechanistic science thus both had political as well as philosophical motivations. The tension between teleological and mechanistic explanation is shown to persist into the present, with the work of Carl Rogers and B.F. Skinner used as more recent examples. Rogers argued that humanistic psychology required a teleological understanding of both human and cosmic processes, whereas Skinner staunchly denied the reality of teleology and unfailingly championed behavioral, mechanistic science. Both Rogers’ and Skinner’s claims, moreover, can be traced to the early modern attack on teleology. It is then shown that contemporary research continues to grapple with the question of teleology. More specifically, the paper claims that contemporary writing fails to distinguish adequately between extrinsic and intrinsic teleology. The paper concludes advocating for a serious reckoning with the problem of teleology, and claims it is essential for genuinely scientific psychology.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aristotle, & Shiffman, M. (2011). De anima. Focus Publishing/R. Pullins.
Aristotle, Bartlett, R. C., & Collins, S. D. (2012). Aristotle’s nicomachean ethics. University of Chicago Press.
Bergson, H. (2007). Time and free will: An essay on the immediate data of consciousness. Routledge.
Bloom, A. (1990). Giants and dwarfs: Essays 1960–1990. Simon & Schuster.
Cabanas, E., & Illouz, E. (2021). Manufacturing happy citizens: How the science and industry of happiness control our lives. Polity.
Carruthers, P. (2020). Representing the mind as such in infancy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 11(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00491-9
Da Costa, A. (2014). Functional ambiguity: Negotiating censorship in the 1530s. The Library, 15(4), 410–423. https://doi.org/10.1093/library/15.4.410
Darnton, I. R. (1985). The literary underground of the old regime. Harvard University Press.
Davis, M. (1988). Ancient tragedy and the origins of modern science. Southern Illinois University Press.
Deacon, T. W. (2012). Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. W.W. Norton & Company.
Dennett, D. (2010). Darwin’s dangerous idea evolution and the meaning of life. Paw Prints.
Descartes, R., & Kennington, R. (2009). Descartes: Discourse on method. North Charleston: ClassicBooksAmerica.
Descartes, R., Geach, P.T., & Anscombe, E.A. (1971) Philosophical writings: A selection translated and edited by Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter Thomsa Geach. Macmillan.
Detlefsen, K. (2014). Teleology and nature in Descartes' Sixth Meditation. In Descartes' meditations: A critical guide (pp. 153–175). essay, Cambridge University Press.
Doria, N. G., & Simão, L. M. (2018). Differing times and differing measures: Dimensions of historical time in Vygotsky’s work. Theory & Psychology, 28(6), 757–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318787345
Fisher, M. (2010). Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative? Zero Books.
Gaj, N. (2021). Against the reduction of teleology to sophisticated causal explanation. Theory & Psychology, 31(3), 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543211003665
Gnaulati, E. (2018). Saving talk therapy: How health insurers, big pharma, and slanted science are ruining good mental health care. Beacon Press.
Hassing, R. F. (1997). Introduction. In Final causality in Nature and human affairs (pp. 1–51). essay, Catholic University of America Press.
Havel Václav, & Wilson, P. R. (1992). Open letters: Selected writings, 1965-1990. Vintage Books.
Jonas, H. (1982). The phenomenon of life: Toward a philosophical biology. The University of Chicago Press.
Jones, D. (2001). Censorship: A world encyclopedia. Fitzroy Dearborn.
Juvrud, J., & Gredebäck, G. (2020a). An embodied account of teleological processes. Developmental Science, 23(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12971
Juvrud, J., & Gredebäck, G. (2020b). The teleological stance: Past, present, and future. Developmental Science, 23(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12970
Király, I., & Oláh, K. (2020). Action selection in imitation: Why do we still need the teleological stance? commentary on ‘the teleological stance: Past, present, and future’ by Juvrud and Gredeback. Developmental Science, 23(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12972
Kennington, R., Kraus, P., & Hunt, F. (2004). On modern origins: Essays in early modern philosophy. Lexington Books.
Khroutski, K. S. (2010). On biocosmology, Aristotleism and the prospect of becoming of the universal science and philosophy. Biocosmology – Neo-Aristotelism, 1(1), 4–17.
Korman, J., & Khemlani, S. (2020). Teleological generics. Cognition, 200, 104157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104157
Koutroufinis, S. A. (2020). Organism, self, umwelt: A new approach to organismic individuality . Thaumazein, 8, 260–274.
Machiavelli, N., & Adams, R. M. (1977). The prince: A new translation, backgrounds, interpretations. Norton.
Melzer, A. M. (2014). Philosophy between the lines: The lost history of esoteric writing. University of Chicago Press.
Merchant, C. (1989). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. Harper & Row.
Milosz, C. (1990). The captive mind. Penguin.
Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and cosmos. Press.
O’Donnell, J. M. (1985). The origins of behaviorism: American psychology, 1870–1920. New York University Press.
Olsen, J. (2020). From teleology to psychology. Human Arenas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-020-00137-3
Patterson, A. M. (1984). Censorship and interpretation: The conditions of writing and reading in early modern England. University of Wisconsin Press.
Rahe, P. A. (2009). Against throne and altar: Machiavelli and political theory under the English Republic. Cambridge Univ Press.
Ramsay, J. E., Tong, E. M., Chowdhury, A., & Ho, M. H. R. (2018). Teleological explanation and positive emotion serially mediate the effect of religion on well‐being. Journal of Personality, 87(3), 676–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12425
Rees, O., & Whitney, L. (2020). The sleep paralysis nightmare, wrathful deities, and the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Psychological Perspectives, 63(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332925.2020.1738189
Roberts, A. J., Handley, S. J., & Polito, V. (2021). The design stance, intentional stance, and teleological beliefs about biological and nonbiological natural entities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1720–1748. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000383
Roecklein, R. J. (2014). Machiavelli and Epicureanism: An investigation into the origins of early modern political thought. Lexington Books.
Roecklein, R. J. (2017). Politicized physics in seventeenth-century philosophy. Lexington Books.
Rogers, C. R. (1977). Carl Rogers on personal power. Delacorte Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1978). The formative tendency. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18(1), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/002216787801800103
Rogers, C. R. (1995). A way of being. Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R., Henderson, V. L., Kirschenbaum, H., & Buber, M. (1989). Carl Rogers: Dialogues: Conversations with Martin Buber. Houghton Mifflin.
Rosen, S. (1963). Benedict Spinoza. In L. Strauss & J. Cropsey (Eds.), History of political philosophy (2nd ed., pp. 413–432). Rand McNally College Pub.
Rosen, S. (1980). The limits of analysis. Basic Books.
Schall, J. V. (1962). Cartesianism and political theory. The Review of Politics, 24(2), 260–282. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500009670
Skinner, B. F. (1960). Walden Two. Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1964). Behaviorism at Fifty. In T. W. Wann (Ed.), Behaviorism and phenomenology: Contrasting bases for modern psychology (pp. 79–96). University of Chicago Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Bantam Books.
Sherman, J., & Deacon, T. W. (2007). Teleology for the perplexed: How Matter began to matter. Zygon, 42(4), 873–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2007.00878.x
Smith, L. D. (1992). On prediction and control: B. F. Skinner and the technological ideal of science. American Psychologist, 47(2), 216–223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.47.2.216
Spinoza, B. D., Shirley, S., & Feldman, S. (1982). The ethics and selected letters. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.
Strauss, L. (2008). What is political philosophy?: And other studies. University of Chicago Press.
Stern, F., Kampourakis, K., Huneault, C., Silveira, P., & Müller, A. (2018). Undergraduate biology students’ teleological and Essentialist misconceptions. Education Sciences, 8(3), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030135
Sumberg, T. A. (1994). Descartes on Machiavelli. Perspectives on Political Science, 23(1), 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.1994.9942974
Thompson, E. (2010). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press.
Watters, A. (2018, October 18). B. F. Skinner: The most important theorist of the 21st century. Hack Education. http://hackeducation.com/2018/10/18/skinner
Watson, J. B (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it Readings in the History of Psychology. 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/11304-050
Whitaker, R. (2002). Mad in America: Bad science, bad medicine, and the enduring mistreatment of the mentally ill. Perseus Publishing.
Woody, W. C. (2018). Escapism, control, and the discernment of desires. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 38(2), 116–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000088