Psychology from Descartes’ Perspective Essay

A definition of psychology takes only a few brief words: It is the systematic study of behavior and the factors that influence behavior (Calkins, 1916). Yet that simple statement covers a wide range of subject matter so vast that, just like the universe itself, its boundaries defy imagination. problems and seek ways to cope with them (Murchison, 1929). The factors that influence behavior are also many and varied. The most important is the human brain, but the brain itself is immensely complex; it is made up of 10 billion nerve cells, of scores of different kinds performing different functions, that are intricately connected and interconnected and constantly exchanging messages coded into little jolts of electricity and chemical activity (Murchison, 1929). The definition of psychology includes systematic study because psychology uses the rigorous and highly disciplined methods of science. It does not rely on some mysterious and supernatural explanation for human behavior, as our early ancestors presumably did. It is not content to describe behavior as some philosopher of the past, however brilliant, may have imagined it to be. Psychology is skeptical and demands proof. It is based on controlled experiments and on observations made with the greatest possible precision and objectivity (Calkins, 1916). Throughout the Middle Ages, intellectual and philosophical figures scrutinized behavior primarily from a spiritual rather than a scientific perspective. Then again, a number of philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries provided sizeable inputs to the expansion of psychology. Great thinkers of all times have attacked and criticized the god-idea with philosophical arguments. Despite this, the god-idea is still alive. Propped up by questionable arguments and means, it still clings to life. Rene Descartes is one of the inquisitive minds in history. Since Descartes has found a piece of certain knowledge, that he exists as a thinking thing, he starts to look around for more of self- evident truths. He discovers that he has quite a few of them, prominent among these being the truths of mathematics and logic, and he is optimistic about his chances for developing a system of certain knowledge. Then he realizes a kink in his plan. These clear and distinct perceptions are only indubitable so long as he is attending to them (Hocking, 1912) Rene Descartes portrayed the body and mind as unconnected elements that heavily shape each other. Descartes proposed that the transmission between body and mind happened in the pineal gland in the brain (Kemp, 1990). Additionally, Rene Descartes assumed that there was no problem that human reason could not solve if the correct method was employed. This was also the assumption Locke called into critical question, namely the belief that the human mind has capabilities that enable it to discover the true nature of the universe. To his contemporaries, Descartes was wasting his time by trying to discover what must be absolutely true in the real world. He is not arguing against material objects, just material object substances. He says that something can exist when either he sees or feels it, when he perceives it, or when some other spirit perceives it (Palmer, 2001). View of material object substances was that they are caused by the object itself or by God. And God would be a deceiver if he caused the ideas, but God isn’t a deceiver so material object substances exist in and of themselves. Some psychologists reject Descartes’ ideas because he thinks that God is the cause of material object substances, but that doesn’t make him a deceiver (Palmer, 2001). Descartes aimed at the more modest objective of clearing the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way of knowledge. Descartes hit upon a bold and original interpretation of how the mind works, and from this, described the kind and extent of knowledge we can expect from the human mind. The scope of our knowledge, according to Descartes, is limited to our experience. This was not a new insight as both Bacon and Thomas Hobbes had urged before him that knowledge should be built upon observation, and to this extent they indeed could be called empiricists. And so through the centuries, humanity remained absorbed in the attempt to explain human nature. The philosophers like Rene Descartes speculated. Literary giants wrote of human passions, struggles, triumphs, and tragedies. But the facts were not available; only personal opinion and guesswork. It was impossible to know for sure how we see and hear until modern science learned about light and sound waves and the way they affect nerve endings within the body. Human moods and emotions could not be analyzed until science identified the substances secreted by the human glands and the complex way the glands interact with the brain. The process of heredity could not be understood until biologists discovered the chromosomes, genes, and the chemical key to life called DNA. The influence of environment was unclear until psychologists established the facts about learning and about development from infant to adult (Kantor, 1963). Though Descartes may have seen science and psychology as unified science, the relevant eternal worth of each exhibits the enormous disparity between them. Descartes’ version of psychology is rooted in conjecture that has ever since been abandoned with improved comprehension and technology brought to light, while his role in biology was found on competent annotations deduced with ardent insight that survived centuries of criticisms (Calkins, 1916). Even today, we do not know the full story, and perhaps we never will, for human behavior is so complex that it may forever defy complete understanding. But psychologists aided by the progress of other scientists have found some of the answers, and they are making new discoveries all the time. The psychological experiment, psychology itself, has come a long way since the science began. At the start, the idea of taking approach to the study of behavior required a radical shift in human thinking and invention of brand-new techniques of study. The early psychologists lacked the tools necessary for sophisticated exploration. All in all the science has had a remarkably rich history, and it would be impossible to list all of Rene Descartes’ influential ideas that have made important contributions. The progress has been especially rapid in recent years, as knowledge has built on knowledge, and many of the facts and terms were unknown even a few decades ago. Each new finding made by Descartes’ descendants raises new questions and demands new explanations, and it is unlikely that psychologists will ever complete their exploration of the vast domain they have entered. But they have gone a long way toward probing the very core of human nature and human experience, including mental processes and behavior in all their great variety from a baby’s first faltering attempts at learning to an adult’s complex emotions, strivings, conflicts, and social adjustments or maladjustments. Without taking the scientific approach, it is difficult to reach valid conclusions about human behavior. The nonscientist is almost bound to commit numerous mistakes of observation and interpretation and to make judgments based on faulty or insufficient evidence. All of us tend to generalize from our own feelings and experiences, though what we see in ourselves is not necessarily characteristic of people on general. Or we generalize from the actions and opinions of the people we know, which again are not necessarily universal. Thus the findings of Descartes often come as a surprise, even to psychologists themselves (Murchison, 1929).