Psychology

It seems as if the primary issue at hand, and to be examined, is the goal of a Human Science approach to Psychology. One the one hand it asks the question of what type of knowledge is produced through personal refection, which implies that the human part of the human science orientation is only concerned with the understanding of the subjective side of the human psychological processes. This process includes gaining an understanding of the meaning and relevance of values, experiences, and culture through the eyes of the individual. The science aspect comes in when that information is gathered, analyzed and embedded within a context.  Here is where the first, seemingly contradictory element of a human science approach to psychology begins if the goal of human science is not to predict and control, then why bother with attempting to understand I think that the goal of human science is to predict and control human behavior, its just that academics and researchers discovered that they had a bit of a problem when analyzing the human. They had to figure out how to come to terms with the many binaries that blend together in various forms to create the unique experience of every human being, so they thought to combine the humanities and the sciences to provide a wider lens for doing so. A great idea in theory, however, without the proper philosophical framework to integrate the disciplines, all of the research and information gained is nothing more than fragmented aspects. The model went from a reductionist framework, which was too limited in its paradigmatic scope, to a post-modernist framework, which is too disjointed. Is there a philosophical framework that can integrate, and make sense of the seemingly contradictory elements of man There is.
 
The post-modern perspective focuses on alternative discourses and meaning rather than on goals, choices, behavior, attitudes and personality (Roseneau, 1992). Confidence in emotion replaces efforts at impartial observation, relativism is preferred to objectivity as fragmentation is to totalization. When applied to the humanities, Post-modernism claims not to seek to improve and perfect the social sciences (like psychology), but to make their underlying assumptions explicit and to undermine their foundational claims (Roseneau, 1992). In a way, post-modernism is like a teenager who feels as though their identity has been in some way stifled by its parents modernism and natural laws. Postmodernism felt the desire to strike out on its own, and to form a new identitybut in reality, all it did was create the same reality as its parents, just at an opposing pole. In all of its attempts to re-define thought and the nature of things, it forgot that it still lives in its parents house  planet earth, and as long as it exists in as a concept in the minds of humans, which is also a part of the body of humans, it is still subject to the same natural laws as humans. Postmodernism cant disregard the tenants, validity, and significance of natural law, unless it agrees to, in the process, invalidate everything about itself.

Whether Postmodernists want to admit it or not, the fact still remains that natural law contains within it, positive law (laws created by man, including the concept of post-modernism), since all objects  that exist are nothing more than matter and energy, and objects include thoughts (Nicosia, 2010). The philosopher DHollback, a mechanistic materialist and hard determinist, holds the position that everything in the universe is matter, which follows physical laws. He inductively reasons that if matter is subject to laws, and laws determine the actions of things, then everything is matter and is subject to and determined by universal physical laws. Adding to this view, he points out that even the process of birth is beyond the will of the individual and since the brain is made of matter and all it produces is matter, will (a product of the brain) is nothing more than a modification of the brain. He further asserts that any idea or decision is still a product of the brain, which is matter, and therefore subject to the laws of determinism. This is a fact, and will remain a fact as long as humans live and operate within the context of the third dimension here on planet earth. Therefore, the scientific method and natural science will always be valid for what it does observe, describe and make testable inferences about natural processes of living organisms in the biological world. Once this fact is recognized, Post-modernism, can easily be placed within the paradigmatic framework where it belongs as a part of the humanities, since the type of thinking that it utilizes is not beneficial unless it is connected to a human behavior. After it is given its proper home, then we can examine a meta-philosophy that ties it in harmoniously with science in presenting a unified totality of the human experience.

The late philosopher Soren Kirkegard addressed this issue in his essay eitheror, in which he framed the moral dilemmas of man on a binary  man either lives either an essentially hedonistic life or a virtuous one (Kirkegard, 1992).  A better framework, or philosophical meta-theory to be used, by all parties involved would be on that makes space for both points of view to be integrated, and is therefore an and perspective. Using an and perspective would immediately de-escalate the tension of the conflict because it would in essence allow both parties to say to one another you are right in that you have a perspective that you perceive as valid. If we were to isolate either side of the human experience, we would be doing nothing more than succumbing, yet again to reductionism. However, using a philosophical framework that integrates seemingly contradictory elements gives both the opportunity to exist simultaneously, as they are. In order for this to occur, though, each element must be properly defined and used appropriately, neither attempting to define or re-define elements of information outside of their respective scope. If human science were able to keep this distinction clear, I think that it would make invaluable contributions to an understanding of man and all of his various aspects, separate as they may all be, yet all under the same umbrella.

For the rest of this paper, I would like to do something unconventional  I would like to remove the comparative framework, or the vs element. Instead I would like to work from the more inclusive and framework to unify the remainder of my analysis. In doing so, I would like to agree, that observation can be used as a personal reflection, but the term observation does not pertain to the eyes, and therefore is not referring to observation in the traditional scientific sense. It is referring to the internal process of reflection, which, is by nature subjective since it requires the subject to reelect, which, naturally, is subjective, HOWEVER, the process of reflection, is objective in that it is a psychological process that all human beings are capable of doing. This explains why the information gained about human experience from subjective reflection is objective  the topics are all a part of the various human experiences, except they are expressed subjectively, depending on the subject in which the experience is contained.

Rike attempts to help the young Franz to understand this complex arrangement between the subjective experience of the self and the paradox of how this reflective process is directly linked to the objective processes that humans experience  but he does do without using the sophisticated philosophical analysis by which we describe and identify phenomena today. He simply points out the contradictions, and advises Franz to wrestle with them as he may

You are looking outside, and that is what you should most avoid right now. No one can advise or help you - no one. There is only one thing you should do. Go into yourself.

Here, Rike informs Franz that there is nothing that he can find outside of himself for validation, as the only true validation is the sincerity of his work. Paradoxically, as soon as he is able to do that, he will gain the external validation that he seeks, since others will praise his work if it can grasp the essence of their own universal human processes. He also points out a sometimes harsh reality about the individuals experience of life

ultimately, and precisely in the deepest and most important matters, we are unspeakably alone.
While there is physical reality to the suggestion that as humans we are often alone, and that we are alone in two of the most profound moments in life itself, birth and death, it can also be noted that we are only alone in the psychical sense. In the sense of experiencing human processes, we are inextricably connected to our fellow man when we experience feelings of loneliness, fear, love, heartache, and all of the other aspects that are universal in the human experience. We can again see the combined reality of the individual and collective human experience when Rike says that he cannot advise Franz of anything and points him to self-examination in order to find the answers that he seeks. This gesture displays an artful, accurate, and logical contradiction Rike says that he cannot advise Franz as he does just that, and says that he cannot give him the answers, as he does just that by pointing him to where he may find another layer of answers, which lie in his subjective experience of reality. Removing the contradictory elements is, therefore, only a matter of definition and semantics, as is the notion of an inclusive paradigm. When one points out that what Rike is really saying to Franz is that no one can advise you on the subjective reality that is your interpretation of universal human experiences. Having an inclusive framework allows for such philosophical bridges, since usually, when using the vehicle of language to communicate processes that are not directly experienced by the senses, or are, but in a state that is removed from immediacy, it is semantics that can bridge or isolate concepts, perceptions, and frameworks of reality.

In this way, all of what Rike offers to Franz is therapeutic, with the role of the therapist being to examine their own internal processes, which are universal, and then guide the client to a better understanding of their own. This assertion is further validated when Franz strongly asserts that Franz be his own poetic north star

Always trust yourself and your own feeling, as opposed to argumentations, discussions, or introductions of that sort if it turns out that you are wrong, then the natural growth of your inner life will eventually guide you to other insights.

Rike suggests here that if Franz sticks to an authentic expression of his experience, this authenticity will lead him beyond any conceptual or perceptual short comings, and by staying patient with and in his creative process, he will ultimately be able to manifest his experiences with fidelity towards his internal processes and this will be reflected in his work. Rike is again prophetic for his time as he continues to attempt to define and lead Franz to understand that there is a philosophical framework that integrates all of human experience, and that he should look to find it in his work

(if man) can remember that all beauty in animals and plants is a silent, enduring form of love and yearning, and he can see the animal, as he sees plants, patiently and willingly uniting and multiplying and growing, not out of physical pleasure, not out of physical pain, but bowing to necessities that are greater than pleasure and pain, and more powerful than will and withstanding.

Rike asserts that every process in nature has both elements of pleasure and pain as a part of different phases of its experience, and therefore since it contains both elements, its own nature is more than simply the sum of both of its parts. In his own way, Rike is suggesting that the reductionist framework is not an appropriate one for poets to use in their exploration of themselves, nature, or the human experience.

There is no shortage of post-modernistcontructionalists philosophers who would have us believe that there is no one to one correspondence between propositions and reality (Sarup, 1993) with Derrida stating that he only believes in a system of floating signifiers, pure and simple, with no determinable relation to any extra-linguistic referents at all (Sarup, 1993). Post-contructionalists go further to critique the subjectauthor, as an originating consciousness, and authority for meaning and truth (Sarup, 1993). Derrida and Foucault wanted us to believe that human reality is nothing more than a structure and that human beings are subjects (Sarup, 1993)  and our connection with reality is a product of signifying activities which are both culturally specific and generally unconscious (Sarup, 1993). They, in essence, wanted us to believe that there is no true form of truth, and if it were, how would man, in his ongoing use of symbols (language) and symbolic interaction, be able to perceive it This is where the notions of truth vs fact got skewed, and thus threw a skew in the interpretations of both notions in the minds of most people in academia, who would even suggest that post-modernism could be a meta-theory that can be used across the disciples. They failed to realize that all forms of human behavior, are set within the context of the natural law, earth, and all of the rules that govern it, therein. However it should be noted that the Post-contructionalists are correct in an aspect if we are determining and defining truth within a universal context there is no way to determine it in actuality because we are restricted by language. The argument against the connection between facts and truth was again, based on the inconsistencies of symbolic language, and the notion that when the language changes, so changes the truth. Again this is true within the universal context of what may or may not be true, but we do not live at the macro-cosmic level if anything, we live within a small micro-cosom called earth, in the 3rd dimension, and are thus restricted by the laws of it, and the laws of our avatars, the human body governed by sensory perception.

In order to understand the truth as facts about the nature and function of living things as they operate in the sphere of earth in the 3rd dimension, one must seek to understand the laws as defined in metaphysics, biology, and natural law. Combining humanism and science to understand psychology is a step in this direction, except that it needs to go one step further by integrating the two based on defining the roles that each discipline will play. As a writer, and developing social scientist, I complete agree with this entire presentation, when framed against a philosophical framework that integrates the binaries and what appear to be contradictions in the human experience. I had some trouble digesting the notion of having to pick one philosophical framework over another to define and describe human experience, this unification is much, much better in that it offers a clarity from which I feel comfortable creating and exploring my own human experience. Yes, it is true that there are human experiences that are subjective, but they are only subjective in the unique form in which they manifest within a person. The experiences themselves are not unique, they are universal, as Rike points out in his own way. Yes, humans can thus, be studied from a humanistic framework that focuses on description, refection and articulation, as is advocated with the postmodern framework, while simultaneously being studied from a scientific framework that relies on observation, in the physical sense, and analysis. Both the scientific and human parts can link in that the human elements can provide science with new insights about which universal processes, as articulated through subjective experiences, trigger or withhold certain predictable and controllable behaviors. This way, human science can successfully be a blended discipline, in that it works from a larger philosophical framework that allows for contradiction, yet seeks to find a way to unify.