Limitations and inconsistencies of synthetic definitions for psychology

Authors

  • William Barbosa Gomes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35699/1676-1669.2022.35827

Keywords:

psychology field, psychology unit, psychology definition

Abstract

The purpose of this memorandum is to propose a conceptual definition for psychology capable of integrating unfolding objects, methodological differences and application diversity. The argument is based on the obvious fact that there is only one psyche, even if one recognizes different ways of describing, studying, preventing and treating it. Thus, psychology can be defined as a vast field of impressive and expressive manifestations which can be synthesized in articulations of their affective, cognitive and conative properties, and such manifestations can be observable (third-person perspective) or not (first-person perspective). The enunciation terms will be discussed after logical and historical analysis on definitions presented by philosophers and psychologists, from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 21th century. The proposition is based on the clarifying differentiation between plurality of objects (ontological hierarchy or unfolding of objects) and pluralism of conceptions (epistemological diversity).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

William Barbosa Gomes, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

William Barbosa Gomes é professor aposentado e Fellow Senior do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Foi Bolsista Produtividade CNPq de 1988 a 2019, onde chegou a Pesquisador 1A entre 2006-2019. Dedica-se, atualmente, a projetos teóricos de longa duração, entre os quais se destacam Diferenças entre Aportes Conceptuais e Estruturais na História da Psicologia, Unidade em Psicologia, e Contribuições da Fenomenologia à Ciência. 

References

Alvarado, C. S. (2015). Théodore Flournoy. Em Psi Encyclopedia. The Society for Psychical Research. Recuperado em 03 de março, 2021, de https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/theodore-flournoy.

Araújo, S. F. (2020). A ideia de uma ciência da alma: Christian Wolff e o surgimento da psicologia científica na Alemanha. Doispontos, 17(1), 44-51. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de http://dx.doi.org 10.5380/dp.v17i1.74871.

Arstila, V. & Lloyd, D. (Eds.). (2014). Subjective time: the philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of temporality. Cambridge, MA; Londres: The Mit Press.

Ballantyne, P. F. (1993). Unity and diversity of subject matter or pluralism? Em Annual Meeting of Cheiron, 24st. New Hampshire: USA. Recuperado em 02 de abril, 2019, de http://www.comnet.ca/%7Epballan/Unityvsplural.html.

Behavior (1994). Em Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (p. 168). Bexley, OH: Gramercy Books.

Blair-Broeker, C. & Ernest, R. M. (2019). Thinking about psychology: The science of mind and behavior. Worth Publishers.

Bunge, M. (1987). Epistemologia: Curso de Atualização (C. Navarra, Trad.). São Paulo: EDUSP (Original em espanhol publicado em 1980)

Davidoff, L. L. (1987). Introduction to psychology. NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing.

Davidoff, L. L. (2001). Introdução à psicologia (L. Perez, Trad.). São Paulo: Pearson Education.

Dilthey, W. (1977). Descriptive psychology and historical understanding (R. M. Zaner & K. L. Heiges, Trads.). Haia: Martins Nijhoff. (Original publicado em alemão em 1894).

Figueiredo, L. C. M. (1991). Matrizes do pensamento psicológico. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes

Gomes, W. B. (2017). How can "the play of signs and the signs of play" become an attractive model for dealing with eidetic and empirical research? Semiotics, 37, 1-19. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de https://doi.org/10.5840/cpsem20173.

Gomes, W. B. (2019). Looking in history for novel integrated view on psychological science and method. Em S. H. Koller. (Org.). Psychology in Brazil: Scientists making a difference (pp. 167-193). Cham, Suíça: Springer International Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11336-0_10.

Gomes, W. (2021). Pluralidade de objeto versus pluralismo de concepções em teorias psicológicas. Memorandum, 38, 1-29. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de https://doi.org/10.35699/1676-1669.2021.25462.

Henriques, G. R. (2004). Defining Psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(10), 1207-1221. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20061.

Hilgard, E. R. (1980). A trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation. Journal of History of Behavioural Sciences, 16, 107-177. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(198004)16:2<107::AID-JHBS2300160202>3.0.CO;2-Y.

James, W. (1981). The principles of Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original publicado em 1890).

Jung, C. G. (1981). A prática da psicoterapia (M. L. Orth, Trad.). Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes. (Original publicado em alemão em 1958).

Justo, H. (1987). Identidade do psicólogo. Canoas, RS: La Salle.

Koch S. (1969). Psychology cannot be a coherent science. Psychology Today, 3, 64-68.

Koch, S. (1992). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua "science". Em S. Koch & D. E. Leary, D. E. (Eds.). A century of psychology as science (pp. 7-35). Washington, DC: APA.

Krech, D. & Crutchfield, R. S. (1958). Elements of psychology. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. [Em português, Elementos de psicologia [D. M. Leite & M. L. M. Leite, Trads.). Pioneira, 1963].

Krech, D. & Crutchfield, R. S. (1963). Elementos de Psicologia (D. M. Leite & M. L. M. Leite, Trads.) São Paulo: Pioneira.

Lanigan, R. (1992). The human science of Communicology. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Marsh, T. & Boag, S. (2014). Unifying psychology: Shared ontology and the continuum of practical assumptions. Rev Gen Psychol, 18(1), 49–59. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036880.

Melchert, T. P. (2016). Leaving behind our preparadigmatic past: Professional psychology as a unified clinical science. American Psychologist, 71(6), 486–496. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de https://doi.org/10.1037/a00402Milton 2010.

Milton, N. R. (2010). A New Framework for psychology. Review of General Psychology, 14(1), 1-15. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018325.

Mind (1994). Em Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (p. 1144). Bexley, OH: Gramercy Books.

Nietzsche, F. (2001). O crepúsculo dos ídolos, ou, A filosofia a golpes de martelo (E. Bini, & M. Pugliesi, Trads.). São Paulo: Hemus (Original publicado em alemão em 1889).

Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Pavlovic, R. Y. & Pavlovic, A. M. (2012). Dostoevsky and psychoanalysis: The eternal husband (1870) by Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–1881). British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(03), 181. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.093823.

Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). Collected Papers (Vols. 1-6, C. Hartshorne, & P. Weis, Eds.; Vols. 7-8, A. W. Burks, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Petocz, A. (2011). Re-thinking the place of semiotics in psychology and its implications for psychological research. Em S. C. Hamel (Ed.), Semiotics: Theory and applications (pp. 99–147). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Petrovski, A. (Ed.) (1985). Psicología geral (Tradutor para o espanhol não informado). Cidade do México: Editorial Progresso. (Original publicado em russo em 1976).

Posinsky, S. H. (1958). Elements of psychology: By David Krech and Richard S. Crutchfield. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1958. 694 pp. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 27, 426-427. Recuperado em 25 de novembro de 2019 de https://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=paq.027.0426a.

Radecki, W. (1933). Tratado de psicología (C. Payssé & V. Delfino, Trads.) Buenos Aires: Casa Editora Peuser Ltda. (Original publicado em português em 1928).

Rancour-Laferriere, D. (Ed). (1989). Russian literature and psychoanalysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing.

Stanovich, K. E. (2013). How to think straight about psychology. Londres: Pearson Education.

Valsiner, J. (2009). Integrating psychology within the globalizing world: A requiem to the post-modernist experiment with Wissenschaft. Integr Psych Behav, 43(1), 1–21. Recuperado em 24 de novembro, 2021, de https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-009-9087-x.

VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2015). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington: APA

Wiley, N. (1994). The semiotic self. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Wolman, B. B. (1981). Contemporary theories and systems in psychology. New York: Plenum Press

Wundt, W. (1897). Outlines of Psychology (C.H. Judd, Trans.) Wilhelm Engelmann (Reprinted Bristol: Thoemmes, 1999; Original publicado em alemão em 1896).

Wundt, W. (1916). Elements of folk-psychology: Outlines of a Psychological History of the Development of Mankind (E.L. Schaub, Trans.). Lawrence, KS: Allen. (Original publicado em alemão em 1912). Recuperado em 04 de abril, 2019, de https://archive.org/details/elementsoffolkps00wunduoft/page/xvi.

Downloads

Published

2022-01-27 — Updated on 2022-01-27

Versions

How to Cite

Gomes, W. B. . (2022). Limitations and inconsistencies of synthetic definitions for psychology. Memorandum: Memory and History in Psychology, 39. https://doi.org/10.35699/1676-1669.2022.35827

Issue

Vol. 39 (2022)

Section

20 anos de Memorandum: memória e história em psicologia

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Memorandum: Memory and History in Psychology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The works published in the electronic journal Memorandum: Memory and history in Psychology are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License that allows sharing with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.