The Personalistic vs. the Naturalistic Viewpoint

As a result to concluding the chapter “How to Think Straight about Psychology” by Keith E. Stanovich, the infinite doors into Psychology have opened. I was immediately engaged into the history and conflicts between the continuity of previous and modern day psychology. It was astounding to find the amount of distaste, backed by modern psychologists, on the workings of Sigmund Freud, who I had recently thought to be the foundation to all psychology. However, after reading on about the diversity of psychology, it became apparent that the extensive amounts of subjects within the realm of this study, make it difficult for scientist and the overall population to agree on one unified idea. Psychology has criteria that is ever changing, but limited to the time period of discovery.

Within the curiosity of the human mind lies a variety of occurrences that have plagued philosophers, scientists, and skeptics alike. What is the part, we as a society, play in the study of the material world? Although, many have theorized, experts are only just now scratching the surface of the mental and behavioral processes of the human mind. However, within the minute distance that examiners have travelled through the world of psychology, scientists have discovered and developed a plethora of concepts, approaches, ideas, and principles that have now become relevant to our growth. Within this context, the analysis will center on the progressive history of psychology, including some of psychology’s primary contributors and their concepts. Furthermore, the major psychological approaches, and how they pertain to, and influence, society as we view it today.

Throughout the span of history, psychology has always existed. Humans have always pondered why we think, act, and see the world as we do. Most information we have on the very foundations of psychology come from philosophers and physicists such as Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Gustav Fechner. Today I’ll be comparing two very different psychologists: John B. Watson and Carl Rogers. Although these two display different feelings and approaches to their field, they share the same roots. Keeping this in mind, I believe it’s important to understand that evaluating the likeness of contrasting branches

The history of psychology is in infancy at the present time. Many philosophers can be credited to the development of this science. Starting in the early 18th and 19th centuries philosophers such as Rene’ Descartes and John Locke opened the world of what we know as psychology today. The British empiricists also contributed to psychology. Some of these men include David Hume and David Hartley.

Some historians subscribe to the “Great Man Theory”, which states that history can be explained by the accomplishments and influence of notable individuals, instead of concentrating on events. Specifically, it focuses on the “event-making man” as a great individual, whose individual

By the 1900s the science had fully evolved. This process required several stages. Each stage offered a segment in the conception of the science. Stage one addressed the infancy of the subject matter. For example, select colleges provided courses labeled as moral philosophy and mental science with the absence of psychology altogether. There is no conclusive data to support how many colleges and universities were functioning on this level (Rice, 2000). In stage two official psychology

Carr then introduces a concept called “intellectual technologies”. Carr uses the mechanical clock to explain. “In deciding when to eat, work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses, and started obeying the clock”(737).

Inventions which rapidly changed various aspects of human culture were developed in the industrial era, and it was this course that humanity took which would initiate the paradigm shift from a search for answers within religion to science.

While natural science has made significant contributions to psychology through the study of biological processes that form the basis of psychology, it has not been without its disadvantages. Natural science, for instance, treats psychology as a natural and physical system whose aim is to quantify psychological phenomenon. Natural science seeks to achieve objectivity and thus steps away from seeking to understand psychological phenomena. Instead, natural science seeks to break down things into measurable variables. In so doing, natural science denies the psychological phenomenon of a context and meaning.

This idea also had its religious components, as God was seen as the engineer who set the clock going. [ talk about how everything was up to god and he could change his mind and be unpredictable] Descartes expanded on this idea, by expressing that both animals and humans were like machines too. Descartes is well known for his saying “I think therefore I am”. This was his way of distinguishing humans from the rest of nature.

Galileo was born February 15, 1564 in Pisa, Italy. His father was Vincenzo Galilei. He was a musician, so galileo was around the instruments most of his youth he watched the vibrations

From then onwards psychology emerged as a science. Since the late twentieth century, it is practically impossible that the understanding of human actions is considered without the proposed scientific approach to the understanding of human behavior (Stein & Belluzzi, 2014). Even if someone seeks to criticize it, the reference to the scientific approach is universal. The notions of human behavior and science became virtually inseparable.

Mathematicians came from diverse backgrounds and have lived among us for many years. René Descartes was born in La Haye, Touraine, France on March 31, 1596. At the age of one, his mother succumbed to death. His father remarried leaving Descartes in La Haye with his maternal grandmother to raise him. In 1606, he enrolled in Jesuit college. He then went to Poitiers in 1614, where he pursued a law degree.

over time, due to psychologists coming to light in the modern world. This essay will also

In this paper I will be discussing the concept of the paradox, examples from Zeno and McTaggart, and how modern science has potential solved the paradox put forth by McTaggart. Both of these paradoxes have a enormous repercussion on how objective fact about the world can be understood. I claim that McTaggart’s theory of time can be solved by modern physics as Einstein’s theory of relativity makes time a relative factor in how time is understood.