From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 05:15:05 BST
Dear Ilya,
You wrote 11 Aug 2004 17:01:28 +0400:
'It seems to me, psychology do[es]n't necessarily need to be based on
metaphysics.
Metaphysics, as you said in your article, "is understood to mean our answers
to three questions:
1) How can we know? (epistemology)
2) What can we know? (ontology)
3) How can we know what we should do? (meta-ethics)"
Psychology, on the other hand, have to consider these three questions:
1) What do we have? (The possible answer is: experience.)
2) What can we say about it? (How can we conceptualize it?)
3) What can we do about it? (How can we become more happy, more
harmonious and so on.)'
Answering any question presupposes an epistemology.
Answering 'experience' to 'What do we have?' implies giving the broadest
possible answer according to the MoQ ontology.
Answering the question 'What can we do about it?' presupposes a meta-ethics.
What is the 'psyche' in your psychology? I.e. about what does pscychology
want to know?
What should we do about the 'psyche' in your psychology? Are happiness,
harmony etc. indeed the highest and/or most desirable goals possible??
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 05:49:52 BST