tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post3261378854183610850..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: Psychology or Spiritual Direction? Part 1Weekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-23225706640060265302007-10-30T10:04:00.000-05:002007-10-30T10:04:00.000-05:00I'm concerned that there is some overgeneralizing ...I'm concerned that there is some overgeneralizing going on in which a frame of thought held by reductionists is being used to characterize an entire discipline. The issues raised in this post have been thoughtfully dealt with in this little book, which I strongly recommend:<BR/>Evans, C. Stephen. (1998). Preserving the person: A look at the human sciences. Vancouver, BC, Candada: Regent College Publishing.Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06161913135583248603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-75299390651862683562007-08-20T07:16:00.000-05:002007-08-20T07:16:00.000-05:00I know what you mean. Still, there's room in the ...I know what you mean. Still, there's room in the field of human growth/human development/human healing for a more human approach. I think the scientific approach itself runs the risk of being dehumanizing. (Skinner, anyone?)Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-48623276805147358372007-08-20T03:52:00.000-05:002007-08-20T03:52:00.000-05:00I sympathise with you on this, as I seriously cons...I sympathise with you on this, as I seriously considered studying psychology, when younger (having read most of Jung's work, and the more basic stuff, just out of interest), and was also put off by its soulessness. But then, psychology is a science (distinct from psychiatry or psychotherapy etc.) and what I was looking for was in literature and philosophy.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-10377747672077179282007-08-17T17:06:00.000-05:002007-08-17T17:06:00.000-05:00You can definitely make parallels to other fields....You can definitely make parallels to other fields. Academia tends to reduce us to statistics. Politicians to votes, as you mentioned. Businessfolks sometimes to dollar signs. <BR/><BR/>I just have a particular interest in the psychology angle myself, both because that was my field at one time in my life and because it seems especially ironic when a "heal the people" kind of venture falls into that trap. <BR/><BR/>It's farce on the Monty Python level ...Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-88916020640095049422007-08-17T08:52:00.000-05:002007-08-17T08:52:00.000-05:00But aren't there ethical codes that restrict what ...But aren't there ethical codes that restrict what psychologists (along with other researchers) can do? Isn't that what treating people as people amounts to in practice? After all, there are also politicians who regard people as little more than sources of taxes and votes, and getting them to <I>say</I> that people are important is hardly enough. Also, I've a similar complaint about physics, that it seems to forget that it's studying our world (e.g. top physicists <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/08/do_we_live_in_a_computer_simul.php" REL="nofollow">seem to think</A> that the Matrix might be true), and about maths (which seems to prefer fictional sets to actual quantities), so maybe there's a wider problem with academia?Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.com