|Abstract||Today, any credible philosophical attempt to discuss personhood must take some position on the proper relation between the philosophical analysis of topics like action, intention, emotion, normative and evaluate judgment, desire and mood --which are grouped together under the heading of `moral psychology'-- and the usually quite different approaches to ostensibly the same phenomena in contemporary theoretical psychology and psychoanalytic practice. The gulf between these two domains is so deep that influential work in each takes no direct account of developments in the other.(1) I believe that there is much to be learned about dominant and often hidden assumptions in contemporary approaches to personhood by comparisons between these fields,(2) but at the outset I want to distinguish this intuition from another one in vogue among philosophers working to bridge the gap between philosophical and psychological disciplines today. This is the somewhat positivist sense that philsophical investigation must take its starting-points and limits from well-established psychological findings, and that philosophical accounts at odds with these are for that reason unrealistic, or obviously trading on outmoded and scientifically discredited `folk metaphysics.' For example, this sense that philosophy must acknowledge its secondary position relative to empirical psychology is implicit throughout Bernard Williams's work on motivation and morality, and it is the explicit basis of Owen Flanagan's recent attempt to limit ethical theory by `psychological realism' and argue for a form of relativism by "[a]ttention to psychological facts." (3) Because all modern conceptions of morality are committed to making "our motivational structure, our personal possibilities, relevant in setting their moral sights," they cannot be developed without..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
G. Fletcher (1995). Two Uses of Folk Psychology: Implications for Psychological Science. Philosophical Psychology 8 (3):375-88.
John Deigh (1996). The Sources of Moral Agency: Essays in Moral Psychology and Freudian Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Andrew Apter (1991). The Problem of Who: Multiple Personality, Personal Identity, and the Double Brain. Philosophical Psychology 4 (2):219-48.
James T. Lamiell (1987). The Psychology of Personality: An Epistemological Inquiry. Columbia University Press.
Steve Matthews (1998). Personal Identity, Multiple Personality Disorder, and Moral Personhood. Philosophical Psychology 11 (1):67-88.
Laurence Thomas (1994). Must We Care About Morality? Philosophical Psychology 7 (3):383 – 394.
Thomas E. Wren (1991). Caring About Morality: Philosophical Perspectives in Moral Psychology. Mit Press.
Trevor Butt (2003). Understanding People. Palgrave Macmillan.
Daniel Kolak (1993). Finding Our Selves: Identification, Identity, and Multiple Personality. Philosophical Psychology 6 (4):363-86.
Kathleen V. Wilkes (1984). Pragmatics in Science and Theory in Common Sense. Inquiry 27 (December):339-61.
Lucy Huskinson (2004). Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites. Brunner-Routledge.
John D. Greenwood (2011). On the Social Dimensions of Moral Psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 41 (4):333-364.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads6 ( #154,770 of 722,932 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,932 )
How can I increase my downloads?