How psychology became a separate discipline

Disclaimer: I am writing here as a philosopher and as a historian, not as a psychologist. That is, I freely admit that I am not an “expert” in psychology, although I do have some minimal exposure to the subject. My intent here is only to show how psychology fits into the broader history of philosophy, by talking about how psychology became a separate discipline in the last two centuries.

Psychology has long been one of the most popular majors in the United States. By some measurements, it is second only to business in its popularity among college students. And it’s easy to see why the subject is so popular. It has a strong human interest element, and helps you to understand all kinds of human behavior. Classes focused on psychological disorders are often so popular that there are waitlists to get into them. Many want to enter the mental health professions, and use their training to help people in the most personal way. And it has long drawn students interested in the scientific side of things, who want to do research – or, at least, to benefit from the prior research of others. But psychology as we know it has only been around since 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt’s Laboratory was founded in Leipzig. And the discipline has many predecessors from back in antiquity, in various attempts to make a distinction between the mind and the body.

Wilhelm Wundt

Struggle over the Marxist heritage: The battle for the ivory tower

Karl Marx attacked other socialist and communist schools in “The Communist Manifesto”

The debate over the Marxist heritage is at least as old as Marxism itself. In the nineteenth century, for example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published a brief work called “The Communist Manifesto.” This remains one of the most influential tracts ever written on economic theory. In that same century, they also published a three-volume work called “Das Kapital.” Some would argue that this is the most talked-about book in the social sciences – or, at least, the work that’s most frequently cited in academic journals of the social sciences. These nineteenth-century works are thus among the most influential books in human history. But Karl Marx debated with others in the budding socialist and communist movements, even attacking many of them in “The Communist Manifesto.” For example, “The Communist Manifesto” contains specific attacks on “reactionary socialism” – including “feudal socialism,” “petty-bourgeois socialism,” and “German, or ‘true,’ socialism” (as it was then called). He also attacks “conservative, or bourgeois, socialism,” although he has more mixed feelings about “critical-utopian socialism and communism” – as he states in the work itself. (Source: Chapter III, Section 3) Thus, the debate over socialism and communism goes back at least as far as the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, it still continues in full force today. Thus, this post will give a brief overview of the debates within the Marxist community, in the years since Marx’s death at age 64. I will have to skip over the original words of Marx himself, since I cover them elsewhere. Therefore, this will include a special focus on both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the developments in Marxist thinking since the twentieth-century Russian Revolution.

Karl Kautsky

A review of “Skepticism and Religious Relativism” (audiobook)

I was expecting something very different from this audiobook. Specifically, I was expecting to get an overview of agnostics, atheists, and other like-minded groups (including “secularists”). And these groups are certainly covered therein. But it is really a treatment of religious skepticism, including within the religious community. This audiobook also talks about the different kinds of skepticism, and the responses to it from within the believing community. And it finally talks about religious relativism – the idea that all religions are just a “state of mind,” and that none of them is more valid than any other. (More about that later.)

A review of “Protestant Christianity” (audiobook)

In 1517, Martin Luther wrote the “Ninety-Five Theses,” a written attack on the Catholic Church. Luther may or may not have pinned this document onto the door of All Saints’ Church. Regardless, this is often dated as the beginning of the “Protestant Reformation.” You could argue that there were other proto-Protestant groups before that. However, this audiobook basically begins in the sixteenth century. That is, it begins at the traditional date of the Protestant Reformation in 1517. It then gives a brief overview of some of the major branches of Protestant Christianity. Incidentally, the name “Protestant” comes from past protests against the Catholic Church. Today, relations between Catholics and Protestants tend to be somewhat better than they were in previous centuries. That is, they no longer tend to be violent.

A review of “20th Century European Philosophy” (audiobook)

I already thought that twentieth-century Western philosophy was a vast wasteland, before I ever listened to this audiobook. But I listened to this audiobook with an open mind, because I wanted to better understand the history of philosophy. After listening to this audiobook, my worst fears seemed to be confirmed therein. It is hard for me to imagine a greater disaster area than the philosophies of the twentieth century.

What fascism is (and why it stinks)

Warning: This blog post contains a disturbing picture, related to the Holocaust.

It seems that people in most political movements will eventually denounce their political opponents as “Fascists” or “Nazis” (as I will describe later on in this post). At the very least, they sometimes compare their opponents to Nazis – sometimes accurately, sometimes inaccurately. Either way, though, they are right to denounce the Fascists and the Nazis, even if they do not always correctly identify who they are. (More on that later on.)

Hitler addressing the Reichstag, 1933

But what is fascism, and why exactly does it stink (and it definitely does)? What are the biggest problems with this system of government, and why should it be left on the “ash-heap of history” (to paraphrase a characterization of communism by someone else)?. That is what I will be discussing in this particular post. I will here give a brief overview of both the history and philosophy of fascism. In so doing, I will show why it cannot possibly bear the honest scrutiny of history. This will only be an introduction to this complex topic, which will touch on some of its major themes. Indeed, I have covered other aspects of this topic in some other blog posts (which I link to here). But I may nonetheless succeed in showing why fascism is an utter travesty, and why it should be discarded. I will also give my own take on it, with my own unique perspective.

Nazi book-burning in Berlin, May 1933 (which included some Jewish authors)

A review of “Einstein’s Revolution” (audiobook)

The name of Albert Einstein has become synonymous with genius. More than any other person, he is seen as the quintessential smart guy, and nearly everyone knows his name. There are other candidates for the greatest scientist in history, but nearly everyone would put Einstein on a short list. And why not? The man was brilliant. In particular, he’s associated with the famous equation “E = mc²,” later used to build atomic weapons and bring energy to the masses. There is brief coverage of that topic in this audiobook. But the main focus of this audiobook is on the theory of relativity, which may be the most astonishing breakthrough of the twentieth century.

A review of “Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel” (audiobook)

“What is rational is real; And what is real is rational.”

– Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s “Elements of the Philosophy of Right” (1821)

In his youth, Karl Marx described himself as a “Young Hegelian” (or follower of Hegel). He liked a number of things about Hegel – such as his “dialectic,” which influenced Marx’s theory of the evolution of societies, leading gradually towards communism. (This Marxist theory is sometimes known as “historical materialism,” an application of Marx’s version of the dialectic.) Marx would later break with Hegel on a number of issues, but Hegel’s influence upon him was nonetheless quite profound. More than any other thinker, Hegel helped to shape the thought of the young Karl Marx, who would in turn shape the future of socialism and communism.

A review of “Immanuel Kant” (audiobook)

“I openly confess, the suggestion of David Hume was the very thing, which many years ago first awakened me from my dogmatic slumber, and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy quite a new direction.”

– Immanuel Kant, in the Introduction to his “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics” (1783)

Immanuel Kant may have been the most influential philosopher since antiquity. He was active in virtually every area of philosophy, with writings on many of its subfields. These included epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics. He was probably the most influential of all of the German philosophers, and helped to establish a tradition of writing philosophical works in the German language.

A review of “Arthur Schopenhauer” (audiobook)

“To desire immortality is to desire the eternal perpetuation of a great mistake.”

– Arthur Schopenhauer

Arthur Schopenhauer is known as a pessimist, but that is a great understatement. He had a very dark way of seeing the world. For example, he once said that “To desire immortality is to desire the eternal perpetuation of a great mistake.”

A review of “Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity” (audiobook)

“I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

– Closing lines of the “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed” (381 CE), a modified version of the “Nicene Creed” (325 CE) – as translated by the 1975 ecumenical version from the “International Consultation on English Texts” (or ICET)

In the eleventh century, Christianity was split into two groups: the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. These churches are the subjects of this audiobook.

A review of “The Austrian Case for the Free Market Process” (audiobook)

So I recently finished listening to an economics audiobook about Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek. It was called “The Austrian Case for the Free Market Process.” This audiobook was the sequel to another audiobook called “Early Austrian Economics,” which I first listened to some years ago. One might have titled this audiobook “Later Austrian Economics,” except that applying the term “later” to this will no doubt be outdated before too long, if it isn’t already. Besides, “The Austrian Case for the Free Market Process” is probably a more exciting title, and may do more justice to the nature of the subject matter.

A review of “The German Historical School of Economics” (audiobook)

So I recently finished an audiobook about “The German Historical School of Economics,” an important school for economic thought. They were active in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, and do not have a lot of modern counterparts. In fact, most economists today wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole.

A review of Karl Marx's “Das Kapital” (audiobook)

“A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.”

– Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” (1867), Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 4

Those who know me would not be surprised to hear that I’m not exactly a fan of Karl Marx. He has long struck me as a nutball who was wrong about virtually everything he said, and who had very little to contribute to economic science. Nonetheless, he is someone that is worth learning about anyway for someone who debates about economic issues. Many a liberal is a disciple of Karl Marx, and does not shy away from making Marxist arguments. Thus, knowing about Marxist arguments is helpful to anyone who wants to debunk them as I do.

Because of this, I have long thought about reading Karl Marx in the original German – reading his short work “The Communist Manifesto” in German, and even his much longer work “Das Kapital” in German. I’ve read “The Communist Manifesto” in English translation, as it turns out, and have even read parts of “Das Kapital” in English as well. But I have never yet spared the time to read all of “Das Kapital” in any language (even English). Thus, on the off-chance that I would never have the German to tackle this in the original, I acquired an audiobook about it some years ago which gives some basic background information about the book, and which helps to place Marxism as he conceived it into the context of the times – one of the best investments I’ve ever made, in my opinion.

A review of “Early Austrian Economics” (audiobook)

So I recently finished an audiobook about “Early Austrian Economics,” about the famous Austrian School in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. This is a school that has long been admired by conservatives, because they supported the idea that free markets reflect the subjective preferences of individuals (specifically consumers). Thus, they considered free markets to be a positive thing on this account. Their work was highly focused on economic science, but it did have obvious political implications as well, because of the insight that markets meet the demand of society, and satisfy its needs and wants.

A review of “Joseph Schumpeter and Dynamic Economic Change” (audiobook)

I recently finished listening to an audiobook about the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, who lived from 1883 to 1950. He eventually emigrated to the United States, and obtained U. S. citizenship. This was a good audiobook about him, and seemed to offer a good summation of his life's work. But I have somewhat mixed feelings about Joseph Schumpeter's ideas.

A review of “Friedrich Nietzsche” (audiobook)

“There are no facts, only interpretations.”

– Friedrich Nietzsche

He was the most controversial thinker in the entire history of philosophy …

I have never been a fan of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, or any part of his philosophy that I have ever heard about. He may be the most controversial person in the entire history of philosophy. He attacked virtually every aspect of the existing culture, and advocated disturbing ideas in their place. But there are still people today who believe in his ideas, so I thought that it would be worthwhile to know something about them. Thus, I listened to this audiobook (narrated by Charlton Heston), to learn about him. I was not disappointed, and learned much about him and his ideas – much of it disturbing, as you will see in this post.

A review of “The Communist Manifesto” (audiobook)

I once read “The Communist Manifesto” itself in English translation in 2012, because it is a shorter work that requires very little time commitment. I am not a fan of this work, and tend to find it a bit on the nutty side. Nonetheless, I'm glad that I read it, and took the time to think about its ideas. Some years ago, I acquired an audiobook about “The Communist Manifesto” which briefly discusses its main ideas, and gives some historical background about it as well. This is the audiobook that I will be reviewing here.

Why I want to read philosophy in other languages

It is well-known among my friends that I am a foreign language buff. Some of my friends also know that I am a philosophy buff as well. These things might seem to be totally separate from each other, and to some degree they really are. But there is one way I'd like to combine them, which is to read some philosophy written in French, German, or Greek without the aid of translation. Why would anyone want to do this, you may be wondering? This post attempts to explain it.

A few problems with “The Communist Manifesto”

"A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter ... Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself."

- Opening lines of "The Communist Manifesto" (1848)

I was recently told that I should write a blog post about why Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were wrong - arguing not on values as I did in another post (though there is a place for that as well), but on facts and theories, challenging their dubious factual and theoretical claims.

Karl Marx

Friedrich Engels

In discussing problems with Marxism, where does one start?

To someone who's read and understood their book "The Communist Manifesto," that might seem easy - and in some ways, it is. But in trying to debunk it, I had one big problem: where to start. Despite "The Communist Manifesto" being a tiny book (which I read through in a day), it sometimes seems when I'm reading the book like its two authors were having a competition to see who could cram more fallacies into a small amount of space. And they both won.

Marx and Engels

Discussion of Marxist fallacies is practically a genre in its own right ...

I intend this blog post to be a short one, so I will only be able to summarize this book's problems. But if you're after a more thorough treatment of its fallacies, this is practically a genre in its own right, so there are lots of works to choose from.