PSY:Historical Conceptions of an Enduring Issue

See attachments for further instructions

For literally thousands of years, people have discussed the answers to questions about reality and the nature of being. The 350 years surveyed thus far in this course have included a broad spectrum of philosophers and psychologists that demonstrate this tradition. This assignment will focus this broad perspective by providing two seminal themes and a few major theorists for further consideration.

General Requirements: 

Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

· Doctoral learners are required to use APA 7th style for their writing assignments.

· Refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for specific guidelines related to doctoral level writing. The Manual contains essential information on manuscript structure and content, clear and concise writing, and academic grammar and usage.

· This assignment requires that at least four additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least one in-text citation from each source be included.

Directions:

In a paper (1,650-1,750 words), do the following:

1. Contrast the views of Aristotle and Descartes on the relationship between body and mind/soul.

2. Contrast the nature of introspection from the vantage points of Titchener, Comte, and Kant.

References:

A History of Introspection Read: Boring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50(3), 169-189.

https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/h0090793

https://eds-s-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=32a778c5-4453-4ef3-b1f0-cb8c9e541c08%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=1954-01916-001&db=pdh

Darwinism, Process Structuralism, and Natural Kinds Read: Griffiths, P. E. (1996). Darwinism, process structuralism, and natural kinds. Philosophy of Science, 63, S1-S9.

https://eds-s-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=0677ae34-0c81-432f-9ea5-b6e0d48c8c89%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=edsjsr.188505&db=edsjsr

A History of Modern Psychology Read Chapters 4 and 5.

https://bibliu.com/app/#/view/books/9781305548916/pdf2htmlex/index.html#page_Cover

1

3

Comment by Stacey Bridges: Please save your file as
Firstname Lastname PSY810 M2 Paper
Please delete all assignment instructions and comments prior to submitting your work for grading

Historical Concept of an Enduring Issue

Student A. Sample

Grand Canyon University: PSY-810

Instructor Name

Month day, year

Historical Conceptions of an Enduring Issue

This is the sentence that will capture the reader’s attention and make the point that it is important to read this paper. Be careful not to simply use a summative topic sentence, but instead get the reader excited or intrigued regarding the content within your paper (i.e., think outside of the box). Provide an introduction that introduces the main ideas, or provides context for the content that will be addressed in the paper. Be careful to include in-text citations where appropriate when establishing the context for your paper. Do not introduce the articles
. Comment by Stacey Bridges: This means I do not want to see sentences such as
In the article by Klocko et al. (2020)….
The three articles discuss….
Keep your focus on contextualizing your TOPIC for the reader, the articles you use are only the knowledge base from which you pull evidence to support your assertions.

Identify the themes that emerged from your reading and how they will be discussed in the paper. Synthesize your interpretations of content. Include a purpose statement for the paper. You may not have been asked to use a purpose statement before. Here is an example of a purpose statement for this paper The purpose of this paper is to discuss the antecedents of the schools of thought in modern psychology focusing on the mind-body relationship and its connection to introspection. Conclude the introduction with your thesis statement, please note that a purpose statement serves a different purpose in your paper than a thesis statement. There are resources in my side comments to explain further. A thesis statement is sometimes referred to as the ‘position you are going to defend’ coming out of your review of relevant literature and appears at the END of the introduction section. Comment by Stacey Bridges: You may or may not have been given the advice to include a purpose statement in previous courses. Unlike the papers you have completed in previous courses, a purpose statement is justified in this paper which contrasts two different topics.
Students get confused about the difference between a purpose statement and a thesis statement.
A purpose statement is a declarative sentence, which summarizes the specific topic and goals of a document. It is typically included in the introduction to give the reader an accurate, concrete understanding what the document will cover and what can be gained from reading it. To understand the difference between a purpose statement and a thesis statement, see https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Thesis_or_Purpose.html
A thesis statement is a sentence (or sentences) that makes an assertion about a topic and predicts how the topic will be developed. It does not simply announce a topic: it says something about the topic.
Thesis handout: http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/thesis-statements/
For ideas on how to write a thesis, please see http://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/pages/developing-thesis

The Mind-Body Relationship

Start your theme with a topic sentence that connects the theme to the topic of the paper. As this is your original position, your topic sentence cannot be cited. Next you will include contextual information for the mind body problem. It is important to keep in mind that this section of the paper should be an overview but still needs to be supported by at least 3 empirical sources. Each sub-section needs to be supported by a minimum of three academic resources. Use as many of the required readings (including the textbook) to support your essay and remember that the instructions as you to find 4 additional scholarly research sources related to the topic. I will provide a list of supplemental sources that are especially helpful in filling in the gaps, you can utilize the resources from the weekly lecture notes, or you can find your own sources. Comment by Stacey Bridges: Throughout the paper avoid forecasting. Specifically this means that I do not want to see sentences like
This paper will discuss…
This section will discuss the relationship between body and mind/soul.

Aristotl
e Comment by Stacey Bridges: Notice that a subsection (2nd level) heading is left justified and not centered

This section will include an argument for Aristotle’s views. Each sub-theme must have support from at least 3 scholarly sources.

Descartes

This section will include an argument for Descartes’ views. Each sub-theme must have support from at least 3 scholarly sources. After explaining Descartes position, be sure you contrast Aristotle and Descartes’ views. Finish this section with a transition sentence that links this theme to introspection.

Introspection

Again start with a topic sentence that connects the theme to the paper topic. Next provide context for what introspection is and how it relates to the mind-body relationship. This section needs to include support from at least 3 empirical sources.

Remember that the flow of your paper is important. Use evidence from at least three resources to support your discussion for each philosopher or psychologist. Provide your own analysis of these findings to strengthen your narrative and use APA style in-text citations. Avoid discussing articles in isolation, and instead integrate ideas from multiple sources within the same paragraph or even the same sentence! Discuss what you perceive to be significant points, discuss how they are interrelated, being careful to diligently avoid writing in the first- and second-person (i.e., no I, me, my, you, your, we, us, our). Each sub-section needs to be supported by a minimum of three academic resources.

Kant

This section will argue Kant’s views on introspection. You must support this section with at least 3 empirical sources. Add a transition that links Kant to Comte.

Comte

This section will argue Comte’s views on introspection. You should compare Comte’s views with those of Kant’s that you have discussed earlier. You must support this section with at least 3 empirical sources. Add a transition sentence that links Comte to Titchener.

Titchener

This section will argue Titchener’s views on introspection. Compare Titchener’s views to Kant’s and Comte’s. You must support this section with at least 3 empirical sources.

Conclusion

Restate the thesis statement in a novel way to bring the paper full circle and tie it back to the introduction. Provide conclusion(s) that can be drawn from all arguments made in paper. Summarize key take-aways from each philosopher and psychologist, using APA style in-text citations. Finally, discuss the conclusions you have drawn when considering all content together.

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. Comment by Stacey Bridges: Please note that you should not list sources on the reference page if you have not cited them in the paper and vice versa.
Notice that the ONLY correct format for a doi in 7th edition APA is https://doi.org/####

You must include a doi for articles retrieved online. You can check crossref.org to see if a doi is available for a source. If a doi is NOT available then you use the website for the publishing journal.

LOPES information should never appear on a reference. I

Last, F. M. (2017). Type the title here: Be very careful to use capital letters only when suggested by APA style. Journal of Best Annotations, 1(56), 42-50.

https:/doi.org/10394766sa6.kjbf082375x

2

Comparing the view of Aristotle and Descartes

Edgar Rangel

Department of Psychology, Grand Canyon University

PSY-810: History and Systems of Psychology

Dr. Stacey Bridges

February 9, 2022

Comparing the view of Aristotle and Descartes

The intention to inquire more about knowledge has led to huge concerns amongst the philosopher while trying to understand the purpose of life. They are also concerned with investigating the connections between the material and the immaterial. Despite numerous arguments that can be made and the words are used to describe the possible aspects of life, it is still impossible for humans to agree or achieve an excellent understanding of life. Nevertheless, while supporting and arguing against the opinions or arguments presented, the focus is to arrive at the potential reasons that math and science cannot offer.

Various philosophers have presented their arguments and made some notable contributions towards understanding the relationship between the soul or mind and the body. The philosophers such as Aristotle have made some contributions to understanding the aspect of the soul and its role in the grand scheme of life. In contrast, Descartes has taken the more metaphysical point of view while discussing the impact of the individual’s mind. Descartes believed that the reason exerted control over the brain via a pineal gland.

The gland, in his view, is the primary location where the soul resides and is responsible for the formation of all human ideas. According to his argument using the treatise of man, the approach of the human body is constructed by the gland that is moved in the manner in which the soul or any other cause. According to Descartes, cartesian dualism connects the soul and the body, or substance dualism. Consequently, he believed that the mind was separate from matter and could influence it.

Descartes believed that body and mind/soul are distinct, and this is a thesis that is presently considered mind-body dualism. He concluded by arguing that the nature of the reason that involves thinking, the non-extended thing is different from the body, which he deemed extended and non-thinking. He believed that either the mind/soul or the body could exist independently without the presence of the other. There is no way for the body to feel or think; only the mind feels material.

Descartes’s argument resulted in the emergence of the well-known issues of the mind-body causal interaction that is still debated up to date. The primary question asked by Descartes in offering he argued that how it can be possible for the mind to cause some parts of the body limbs to move, for instance, putting a hand up to respond to the question asked. He also aimed to discover how the body’s sense organs lead to the sensations within the mind when their nature still shows some significant variations.

Descartes also believed that the mind was non-physical, and it tends to permeate the whole body. Nevertheless, the mind and the body are involved in an interaction process via a pineal gland. In this case, Descartes’s argument is categorized as interactionalism. This perspective is based on the idea that the mind and the body are two distinct substances, but each affects the other.

On the other hand, the interpretation of Aristotle’s account concerning the body and soul have been broadly different. Some philosophers, such as Thomas Slakey, believed that Aristotle was trying to expand more on the perception as an event within the sense-organs. Jonathan Barnes considered the work of Aristotle as hesitantly leaning towards the opinion that desire and thoughts are whole non-physical. He, however, felt the emotions and the sense-perception as the intermediate position. Aristotle considers these aspects part of the physical and the non-physical components (Sorabji, 1974). Based on Aristotle’s work, the object produces the changes in the organism, resulting in the changes in the sense organ or the perception.

Aristotle considered the soul or mind as the actuality of a body that has life. In this case, energy refers to individual sustenance, growth, and reproduction. A person who believes that living things are made up of matter and forms, according to him, views the soul to be a natural or organic body. According to Aristotle, the mouths of animals and the roots of plants have specific functions in the organic organism.

Aristotle grouped soul based on hierarchical order with the plants with vegetables or the nutritive soul that possesses the power to grow, nutrition, and reproduce. Animals, on the other hand, consists of the capabilities of perception and locomotion, and this implies that they have a sensitive soul. Humans, according to Aristotle, can think and reason, and he called this “the reasoning spirit.” Contrary to Descartes, Aristotle never considered the soul the immaterial interior agent that acts on the body. In his perspective, the soul and the mind were two separate entities. He saw the soul as a collection of abilities with distinct functions and outcomes. The ability to grow is unique from the ability to feel, and the sense of sight is different from the mind of hearing.

Contrasting the nature of Introspection

Introspection concerns the aspect of internal inspection that designates the idea of looking inside. It focuses on the knowledge that the subject can investigate their mental situations. This situation involves the personal observation, analysis, interpretation, and characterization of the individual’s own cognitive and emotional processes. Titchener’s structuralist psychological work was based on the utilization of the introspective technique whereby the trained subject exercises the observer’s role and the descriptor of their psychological processing (Giustina, 2021). For their provocation, various categories of stimuli were applied. The stimuli differed based on their tasks and the type of mental content researched.

Titchener used a robust approach when using the introspective technique. Specifically, he rejected the research on unconscious processes that included the constructs like instinct. Therefore, the study was focused on describing conscious psychological experiences. Titchener believed that it is easier to acquire reliable information concerning the nature of the mind by adopting introspection and personal knowledge (Giustina, 2021). He also thought that this was the only approach or the technique that could help in the successful analysis of the mental processing more reliably since he was able to affirm that psychology must be used as a discipline based on introspection.

Comte argued that introspection is retrospection and that humans are unaware of their occurrent states since they have them, but the instant memories of these states. Because these memories do not form part of the stream of consciousness, the impossible splitting in the conscious self is always avoided. Comte also believed that introspection is distorting the first-order mental activity being introspected (Boring, 1953). The distortion part of the argument offered by Comte was considered to be a severe issue for the introspectionists psychologists in the late 19th-century ad early 20th century.

Comte believed that the very notion of the introspection of the interior observation is the basic sophism and pure illusion. It amounts to the man’s supposition of viewing themselves and thinking clearly in absurdity. Comte denied the idea of introspection, and the formulation was done in its infancy, exercising a clear impact on the formative and the subsequent development. The Comte denunciation of psychology applies to some psychology categories characterized by outstanding defects. The defects include the introspective method and the overemphasis of the intellect. While arguing against this type of psychology, Comte insisted that there are only two potential techniques that can be used, i.e., the study of physiology and the brain structure and other organs, and the study of the products of the mind located in the culture and the history of the individuals (Boring, 1953). Comte attempted to utilize both, but he was mainly concerned with studying the products of the minds within the culture and people’s history.

Comte concluded that positive techniques tend to be successful for all, especially those who consider a study of the intellectual and the moral functions as inseparably linked with that of other physiological nature and as suitably investigated by adopting the same techniques and similar spirit. Therefore, Comte believed that the metaphysical psychologists were not operating based on the scientific fold. While arguing against the introspective process, Comte believed that man could observe what is external to him, and there are some roles of their organs and the thinking organ (Boring, 1953). He ascertained his argument by stating that humans can even observe themselves based on their passions since distinct cerebral organs exist.

Kant supports the idea that humans have no impression, therefore, lacking the ensuing notion of the empirical self. He supports this idea by stating that practical consciousness accompanying diverse representations is dispersed and not associated with the subject’s identity. It implies that when humans introspect in their inner sense, they get specific mental states like boredom, happiness, and particular thoughts (Boring, 1953). Therefore, man lacks any intuition of the subject of the mental situation.

Kant supported the idea of the mines and the togetherness of the individual’s introspective mental status, just like the data required to support an explanation. Kant links the synthesis operations to the possession of initial concepts or categories not based on the experience (Boring, 1953). Therefore, while making his argument that the synthesis is needed to illustrate the mines and the togetherness of the individual’s mental condition, and through linking the synthesis to the utilization of the categories, Kant stated that humans are unlikely to experience the aspects of the mines and togetherness of their mental condition without necessary using the types.

Kant believed that there is only a single reason for the individual’s appreciative knowledge of their psychological states as individuals’ own and all conditions linked to each other. Based on those states, a person has spontaneous authority to synthesize the individual’s representations according to general principles or rules (Boring, 1953). Since Kant leverages some factors of human ability for personal knowledge in his argument while illustrating the aspect of the legitimacy of the categories, the degree to which he offers his argument ideas for the radical limits on human ability for self-awareness might be surprising.

References

Boring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50(3), 169-189.

https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/h0090793

Giustina, A. (2021). Introspective acquaintance: An integration account. European Journal of Philosophy.

Griffiths, P. E. (1996). Darwinism, process structuralism, and natural kinds. Philosophy of Science, 63, S1-S9.

Sorabji, R. (1974). Body and soul in Aristotle. Philosophy, 49(187), 63-89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3749985