Philosophy vs. Psychology

Is Kant the latest casualty in this war?

An article entitled ‘Psychology vs. philosophy: Beauty requires thought’ in Medical News Today reports that:

'In the 18th century, the philosopher Immanuel Kant laid out a couple of theories on beauty - in fact, he is still considered the preeminent authority on the topic. He theorized that beauty requires thought, but that sensuous pleasure can never be beautiful. Although the claims, at face value, appear challenging to approach scientifically, a study published in Current Biology goes some way toward testing them.'

Given the framing of the issue as a confrontation, a response from the other side seems in order. In a culture where scientific claims of almost any kind can generate widespread, often uncritical attention, and where the humanities are under increasing attack, it is worth considering an exemplary case of what happens if you ignore the humanities.

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Latest Releases
Join the conversation

Janne Moriggan 28 July 2021

Therapy reviews useful aspect of these reviews is the rich text content that they provide. This therapy reviews - https://therapy-reviews.com/ give more information about the specific service or feature offered by the online therapy sites. These therapy reviews usually tell readers about the specific benefits of having telehealth sessions, such as the improvement of self-esteem, stress management, social interaction skills, and the like. These benefits can definitely come in handy. However, not all people may feel that the value of these benefits really outweigh the price that they would need to pay for getting these sessions.

Abraham Joseph 30 June 2017

Sad, that there still live Scientific men( often very senior!) who have not yet grasped the central message of the Quantum physics, ie. the very absence of all 'objective realities'. Truth QP reiterates is the UNIQUENESS of each observer, ie each human being. "Objective' often means, that which is 'shared' among a few! Hard objective facts can just remain 'very subjective' if that could not be shared with any one else. We know, how long young Einstein's theories remained very 'subjective' to him until he was able to convince few others about its veracity!
Science and Scientists are often more fanatic than hardened fanatics about what they BELIEVE; they refuse to OPEN their mind to any other propositions outside! The role of our faculty of REASON as an internal 'sense organ', that has been the chief source of providing 'sense of certainty 'certainty' to all past and present scientific theories is still to be even looked at by them!!
The consistency or ORDER between the hypothesis and the evidences or analogies is the 'object' of a hidden sense organ, but Science still vaguely believes, it the work of their 'intelligence', understanding and special abilities!
Like the above referred 'logical order', beauty, justice,liberty etc are also 'typical, non physical objects' of the faculty of Reason. Love to share with all open minded scientists, a dedicated study on Reason in the role of a 'sense organ': http://philosopherskorner.blogspot.in/
Knowing this new organ at close angles will simply and naturally link Science, philosophy and Psychology, and give world, a new theory of knowledge.