Academia.edu has a special interest group of over 500 members interested in "philosophical psychology" broadly speaking.

'Philosophical psychology' is a broad area with many publications. I suggest you search using that term.

Thanks Martin, do you know any publications on this subject?

Well, an interest of mine is the work of Sir William Mitchell. He published "Structure and Growth of the Mind" in 1907. It's a flawed masterpiece but an early work in the field when it was not popular. It's hard to get this book in hard copy but some libraries have digitised it. My own book exploring his book is posted here: https://www.academia.edu/456823/The_Philosophy_of_Sir_William_Mitchell_1861-1962_A_Minds_Own_Place._Studies_in_the_History_of_Philosophy_Volume_73._Edwin_Mellen_Press_Lewiston_USA

Cognitive scientists explore themes in philosophical psychology a lot. Do a search using the term.

Academia.edu has a special interest group of over 500 members interested in "philosophical psychology" broadly speaking.

Many thanks Martin, I will read what you have sent me the link to and also look up Mitchell.

Perhaps this can help:

http://www.socphilpsych.org/, even if you had already explored here; ask members directly. I would be interested to see if you actually find p. Philosophy. What is your definition of the field?

The link I sent you was to an entire book. A rough summary is here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/mitchell/ This in turn is based on this article: Davies, M. (1999). Sir William Mitchell and the "New Mysterianism". Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77(3), 253- 257.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048409912349031

There is also this paper (attached), which has a wider ambit, but which mentions Mitchell and philosophical psychology at the turn of the 19th century in Australia. This piece is forthcoming in the two volume: 'A History of Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand' (Springer, forthcoming 2014). (My take on it is that Mitchell and others were interested in philosophical psychology at precisely the time when most philosophers were turning towards language, and away from substantive issues concerning psychology and mind, e.g., the Wittgensteinian influence, Vienna Circle, A. J. Ayer, logical positivism, etc (ironically, there is a resurgence of interest in Phil Psych now).

Check out Lou Marinoff?

I have recently published two books which integrate psychological, philosophical, and spiritual perspectives involved in compassionately transforming one's individual life, personal relationships, and society. This involves a detailed examination of Martin Buber's distinction between the I-Thou Relationship and the I-It Relationship, as well as insights from various other prominent philosophers, psychologists, and spiritual visionaries such as, Krishnamurti, Alan Watts, Lynne McTaggart, Hugh and Gayle Prather, Marianne Williamson, Jean Houston, Eckhart Tolle, Erich Fromm, Alfred Adler, Roberto Assagioli, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Abraham Maslow, Frances Vaughan, Ken Wilber, Carl Rogers, and my late father, Dr. Max Hammer. Both of the books that I have recently completed and had published on behalf of my father Dr. Max Hammer present many highly original, significant insights into the essential process of consciously understanding and overcoming (often subconscious, unrecognized, insidious) egocentric factors that impede the development of psychologically healthy and fulfilling, compassionate, individual functioning, and the related process of compassionately transforming personal relationships and society. The books also integrate psychological, nonsectarian spiritual, and philosophical insights into the relational nature of reality and the process of tapping into a level of limitless creative insight, referred to in our books as the Plenitude, the Source or core level of our being, energy, and intelligence.

Both books are available through Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and/or our author/publisher website, http://sbprabooks.com/MaxHammer. I have also posted sample chapters of both books on my ResearchGate profile page. The bibliographical information for both books is as follows:

PRIMARY AUTHOR: DR. MAX HAMMER (WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DR. BARRY J. HAMMER AND DR. ALAN C. BUTLER)

THE TITLES OF OUR NEW BOOKS ARE:

1) “DEEPENING YOUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: DEVELOPING EMOTIONAL INTIMACY AND GOOD COMMUNICATION” (ISBN: 978-1-61897-590-4)

2) “PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALING THROUGH CREATIVE SELF-UNDERSTANDING AND SELF-TRANSFORMATION.” (ISBN: 978-1-62857-075-5)

Both books were published in 2014 by Strategic Books Publishing and Rights Agency Company (SBPRA)

I thought that was a natural combination. Many psychology publications talk about and base research on philosophy.

Mouracade, J. M. (2000). Pleasure and motivation in Plato's "Republic". (Order No. 9971487, The University of Rochester). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 167-167 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304621442?accountid=39364. (304621442).

Heil, John Ferguson,,Jr. (1995). Minds, bodies and affections: Plato and aristotle on the metaphysics of the mental. (Order No. 9603861, The University of Texas at Austin). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 181-181 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304241352?accountid=39364. (304241352).

ee, C. J. (2006). Rationality as methodology, aim, and explanation in philosophy and psychology. (Order No. 3238010, University of Michigan). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 134-134 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305314051?accountid=39364. (305314051).

Waterman, A. S. (2013). The Humanistic Psychology-Positive Psychology Divide: Contrasts in Philosophical Foundations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 124-133. doi:10.1037/a0032168

Demetriou-Achilleos, C. (2013). Exploring student moral development through the perspectives of Aristotle, Xenophon, Piaget, and Kohlberg. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 74,

*** I just reviewed my own posting here and found several typos. For some reason Plato nor The Republic was capitalized. I think I assumed there was a spell check. Apologies for the errors. --Marilyn.

It is a most interesting discussion. If you ever want to have a discussion or ask a question...I will be happy to do my best since I have a special interest in the topic.

--Marilyn

I have been combining philosophy and psychology in my research classes. Central to research is a paradigm and paradigms are based on philosophy. Philosophy is fundamental and a mother of all disciplines, including psychology. Human being started to philosophise about nature before they could turn to how they think, feel and behave. The guiding principles of psychology are based on the principles of philosophy.

The American Psychological Association has a division " Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology" (Division 24). Here is a link of APA's divisions:

http://apa.org/about/division/index.aspx

Philosophy and psychology are ever blended as the philosophy is the basis for psychological thinking. It is the one that disciplines the psychological aspect of human beings.

Dr. Hackett:

I have been thinking about your question, and how it stressed “not talking about the philosophy 'of' psychology." I also checked out your introduction page and found you to have an extensive education. I continued to read your material and found myself wondering about your question. Could go into a bit more detail about your construct of interest? I am sure that a scholar with two PhD's knows the difference between Plato and Pavlov. I would like to assist you in your quest.

Regards,

Marilyn

Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology

Editors and Editorial Board

Founding Editor

K. W. M. Fulford, UK—Psychiatry/Philosophy

Co-Editor

John Z. Sadler, USA—Psychiatry

Associate Editors

Gwen Adshead, UK—Psychiatry

Rom Harré, UK—Philosophy/Psychology

Nancy Nyquist Potter, USA—Philosophy

Jennifer Radden, USA—Philosophy

Kenneth F. Schaffner, USA—Philosophy/Medicine

Michael A. Schwartz, USA—Psychiatry

Reviews Editor

Richard Gipps, UK—Philosophy

Editorial Board

George J. Agich, USA—Philosophy

Anita Avramides, UK—Philosophy

Claudio Banzato, Brazil—Psychiatry/Philosophy

Arnd Barocka, Germany—Psychiatry

Derek Bolton, UK—Psychology/Philosophy

Matthew Broome, UK—Psychiatry

Ruth Chadwick, UK—Philosophy

Louis C. Charland, Canada—Philosophy

Martin Davies, Australia—Philosophy

Natalie Deprez, France—Philosophy

Carl Elliott, USA—Philosophy/Medicine

David Faust, USA—Psychology

Thomas Fuchs, Germany—Psychiatry/Psychology

Philip Gerrans, Australia—Philosophy

S. Nassir Ghaemi, USA—Psychiatry

Grant Gillett, New Zealand—Philosophy/Neurosurgery

Gerrit Glas, Netherlands—Psychiatry/Philosophy

Alison Gopnik, USA—Psychology

Bernard Granger, France—Philosophy

Jennifer Hansen, USA—Philosophy

Markus Heinimaa, Finland—Psychiatry/Philosophy

Martin Heinze, Germany—Psychiatry

Chris Heginbotham, UK—Philosophy

Tony Hope, UK—Psychiatry

Julian Hughes, UK—Psychiatry

Jerome Kroll, USA—Psychiatry

B.I.B. Lindahl, Sweden—Philosophy

Katherine Morris, UK—Philosophy

James Phillips, USA—Psychiatry

Louis Sass, USA—Psychology

Deborah Spitz, USA—Psychiatry

Manfred Spitzer, Germany—Psychiatry/Philosophy

Giovanni Stanghellini, Italy—Psychiatry

G. Lynn Stephens, USA—Philosophy

Mark D. Sullivan, USA—Psychiatry/Philosophy

Tim Thornton, UK—Philosophy

Werdie Van Staden, South Africa—Psychiatry/Philosophy

Robert Woolfolk, USA—Psychology

Peter Zachar, USA—Psychology

Richard Zaner, USA—Philosophy

Chair of Advisory Board

Mary Warnock, UK—Philosophy

Advisory Board

Sidney Bloch, Australia—Psychiatry

Margaret Boden, UK—Philosophy/Psychology

Stephen R. L. Clark, UK—Philosophy

Hubert Dreyfus, USA—Philosophy

Alfred Freedman, USA—Psychiatry

George Graham, USA—Philosophy/Psychology

Edward M. Hundert, USA—Psychiatry/Philosophy

Daniel Isaacson, UK—Philosophy

Juan Lopez-Ibor, Spain—Psychiatry

Paul R. McHugh, USA—Psychiatry

Juan E. Mezzich, USA—Psychiatry

Christoph Mundt, Germany—Psychiatry

Lennart Nordenfelt, Sweden—Philosophy

Ahmed Okasha, Egypt—Psychiatry

Kamlesh Patel, UK—Philosophy

Edmund Pellegrino, USA—Medicine

Sir Martin Roth, UK—Psychiatry

Osborne P. Wiggins, USA—Philosophy

Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology

Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology is the official journal of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry.

Volume: 20 (2013)

Frequency: Quarterly

Print ISSN: 1071-6076

Online ISSN: 1086-3303

Access Journal Online Go

Advertising Go

Author Guidelines Go

Editorial Board Go

Indexing/Abstracting Go

Library Recommendation Form Go to pdf

Pricing Go

Related Links Go

Sample Articles Go

We have a lively philosophical psychology community with an emphasis on continental philosophy at Duquesne University. Journals of interest: Jnl of Phenomenological Psychology, The Humanistic Psychologist, Janus Head, Theory and Psychology. Continental philosophy (Dilthey, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Levinas) has led to the attempt to articulate psychology as a Geisteswissenschaft, a "Human Science Psychology" and qualitative phenomenological research methods, and in the US and Canada this has been carried and expanded by the Duquesne School (Giorgi, Wertz, C. Fischer, Simms, Walsh, Adams, Brooke, Laubscher) with a strong emphasis on clinical psychology, and by Max van Manen of the University of Alberta and his students for pedagogy. Our Simon Silverman Phenomenology Center is the best library for phenomenology in the US and part of the Husserl Archives. The work of philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty has found a resurgence in neuroscience, and the journal of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science might be of interest to you as well. In my own work I am applying concepts from continental thought to understand the structures of children's experiences of space, embodiment, relationships, and language, and my community based qualitative (phenomenological) research practice develops new ways of researching and transforming people's experience of nature (ecopsychology). Continental philosophy has given us powerful tools to turn psychology once more into a real intellectual discipline and to grapple with basic questions, such as "what is perception?" "what are representations?" "is there such a thing as an "inner subject"? "is mind in us, or are we in mind?", "how does language constitute us?" "what are the power structures that shape our discipline", "what is identity?", "what is ethics in relation to humans and the more than human world?" and most fundamental of all: "what is human experience and how do we research its complex structure?"

this is the idea of the whitehead psychology nexus ; it has been implemented with ups and downs the last ten years ; see http://www.chromatika.org or http://chromatika.academia.edu/MichelWeber

Marilyn, I have written to you off discussion. Thanks for your contributions.

Thank you Gary, you make interesting points and I agree with you about cognitive sciences offering an interesting possible blend of approaches. I made the statement, 'not the philosophy of psychology' as I was interested in trying to focus upon how philosophers have incorporated psychological understanding and outlooks into their contemporary theories. However, I agree that the division between the disciplines and the orientation I am talking about is ambiguous, hence I did not ask specifically about how contemporary philosophy is influenced by psychology.

I agree that interdisciplinary and multicultural perspectives are needed in order to develop a unified holistic understanding of human experience and healthy human transformation, as well as various other thematic topics. Any field of study is best understood within the context of how it dynamically relates to other branches of knowledge and areas of endeavor. Nothing can be adequately understood in total isolation because nothing exists in total isolation. Everything naturally interacts with, affects, and is affected by everything else. The whole field of phenomena or reality is basically indivisible because it is an inherently unified field of energy, like a hologram. Therefore, studying any aspect of human experience, or other phenomena, in total isolation must necessarily lead to distorted false conclusions, because everything and everyone is necessarily influenced by the relational field of interactions or contextual reality in which they naturally abide. However, focusing on particular areas of inquiry and endeavor can be necessary and useful at times, if that focus is viewed as a matter of emphasis without totally ignoring broader contexts that dynamically interact with the particular phenomena that one is focusing upon. That is why I utilize broad interdisciplinary, multicultural, and other contextual or relational perspectives in my published books, posted blogs, and other publications. For more information about my books, please see the enclosed attachment, my ResearchGate profile page, and/or my author website, http://sbprabooks.com/MaxHammer

Psy & philosophy go Hand -In -Hand & it cannot be separated .Psy relate to our mind where we carry out our day to day activities & our action for performing our assignment.Unfortunately certain cases ,we as human being do not keep our mind in control due to our mental irritation - Anger-Jealousy -Ego which are coming to way of our development losing the very basic happiness of our life.

It at this stage philosophy comes under our green signal & act as our guiding force .Philosophy is a tuning of our action from the within which help us to move towards silent zone of Religion ,Spirituality & if one gets aversion to this two said word one can get recourse to meditation the pathway for controlling our mind .

Hi there Paul, my friend.

HELPFUL HINT:

Write your responses on a word doc and then copy and paste. I had a post here I was nearly finished and had spent a good long while thinking about.....the Internet went out and there is no save button.......I will rewrite tomorrow. Excellent Topic, Paul as usual. The part about Fast Food that is no so good for the enrichment of family time is the word "Fast"......However, Fast does not necessarily negate quality time.

Hi,

Here is an excerpt from Arthur Burks' treatment of Peirce's theory of abduction:

"The question immediately arises: can there be a logic of discovery? For are not discovery and invention the work of genius, and hence the proper subject matter of psychology rather than of logic?... One might expect Peirce's view to flow out of a confusion of logic and psychology, or out of a theory which held them to be inseparable. But he very clearly separates logic from psychology: psychology, he frequently says, is a study of how we do think and is irrelevant to logic, which is a study of how we ought to think." ~Arthur Burks

We recently published a report on peircean abduction.  I'm a biologist and never even entertained the notion of touching upon psychology or philosophy at the beginning of the project.  Yet, once you take an interest in Peirce, the matter becomes unavoidable because of the role played by the interpretant in connecting the object with the sign.

I hope that helps!

Best,

Jerry

as it is hinted supra, interdisciplinary and multicultural perspectives need to be contextualized. The philo-psy interd. question arouse from the split, say in 1879, of phi and psy. There was an original holistic perspective. Now, the multic. persp. on western psy makes its achievements quite doubtful. On the one hand, that holism was flawed by dualism. On the other, the age of technology presupposes the one of technique, that is by def the one of alienation.

One example, Commens

http://www.commens.org/about

There’s cognitive science and then there’s Cognitive Science (another example):

Philip Johnson-Laird, COGNITIVE SCIENCE (1980)

Mental Models in Cognitive Science

"If cognitive science does not exist then it is necessary to invent it…

experimental psychology is not going to succeed unaided in elucidating

human mentality; artificial intelligence is not going to succeed unaided in modelling

the mind; nor is any other discipline-linguistics, anthropology, neuroscience,

philosophy-going to have any greater success. If we are ever to understand

cognition, then we need a new science dedicated to that aim and based only

in part on its contributing disciplines…

Cognitive science does not quite exist: its precursors do, but it lacks a clear

identity.  Perhaps the major function of this conference should be to concentrate

our minds on what that identity might be."

The field of humanistics does. It is an interdisciplinary field of study that focusses on (existential)meaning and humanization, making use of different humanities and social science fields, among which are psychology and philosophy. see f.i. http://www.uvh.nl/english/research/publications/academic-publications