Psychophilosophy studies
Hello Rabbi, I wanted to ask a pragmatic question first: what research in psychology do you think could advance research in philosophy?
The Rabbi actually proposes in his philosophical approach an additional “unconscious”
Unlike the impulsive unconscious known in psychoanalysis, there is the intuitive unconscious that the Rabbi proposes. This unconscious can be discovered through the analysis of our intuitive assumptions and the connection of intuitive assumptions that will lead to a conclusion.
In fact, philosophical discourse reveals this.
This element that the Rabbi explains actually reveals to us our true unconscious.
Now, it seems to me that from a psychological perspective, we need to examine whether the person who discovers this really believes what he unconsciously assumes, even when we show him.
For example, a person who claims to be an atheist who believes in the principle of causality, the concept of planning, morality, etc., will it seem to him that this indicates belief in God? Will he accept that he believes in God unconsciously?
Could such research advance the philosophical discourse on the subject, according to the Rabbi, or does it actually fall on another plane?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And if he says, “I accept the premises, I accept the process,” but I don’t accept the conclusion.
It’s clear to us that this is absurd, but the phenomenon is familiar. Many people end up saying, “Yes, but you haven’t shown me yet..I don’t believe.”
They maintain a view that is inconsistent with the move they made.
I saw a similar phenomenon with the subject of providence, explaining that neither man nor God could have chosen. They understand and agree, and yet they still say that they hold to this view.
Sometimes, to save themselves, they will say, “There are things that cannot be understood, etc.”
In my opinion, this goes beyond the realm of psychology. They hold to an opinion even though it does not match the logical conclusion they themselves made.
Perhaps faith in this sense is really a concept that is inconsistent with logical inferences; people simply believe what they believe.
In my opinion, it has nothing to do with psychology. They suspect that something is wrong with the argument without knowing exactly what. It is the same with paradoxes and good jokes. It is an intuition that their logic is not sharp enough to back it up.
In the case of a phenomenon from the field of psychology (repression, etc., it can happen) there is again no philosophical interest in it.
I don't think it's necessarily psychology in the psychoanalytic sense, such as defense mechanisms, etc.
But rather a problem in the cognitive domain, as you said the logical tool is weak or defective, I'm curious by the way why and how the disciplinary separation between the emotional tool and the logical tool was created... and is logic not part of the components of the brain, just like emotion?
What does the rabbi think about Henri Bergson's method?
Thank you
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
