[1647, "animating spirit," from L. psyche, from Gk. psykhe "the soul, mind, spirit, breath, life, the invisible animating principle or entity which occupies and directs the physical body" (personified as Psykhe, the lover of Eros), akin to psykhein "to blow, cool," from PIE base *bhes- "to blow" (cf. Skt. bhas-). The word had extensive sense development in Platonic philosophy and Jewish-infl. theological writing of St. Paul. In Eng., psychological sense is from 1910.]
-logy:
["a speaking, discourse, treatise, doctrine, theory, science," from Gk. -logia (often via Fr. -logie or M.L. -logia), from root of legein "to speak;" thus, "the character or department of one who speaks or treats of (a certain subject);" see lecture.]
psychology:
[1653, "study of the soul," probably coined mid-16c. in Germany by Melanchthon as Mod.L. psychologia, from Gk. psykhe- "breath, spirit, soul" (see psyche) + logia "study of." Meaning "study of the mind" first recorded 1748, from G. Wolff's Psychologia]
It is interesting to note that the original meaning of the word "psychology" was given to be "the study of the spirit or soul". Then, in or around 1748, it's meaning was "modified" to mean "the study of the mind". In 1879, the first "psychological" laboratory was established under Wilhelm Wundt, in Leipzig, Germany. Then, again, in or around 1895, the meaning of the word was again modified to mean "the study of behavior".
Prior to Wundt, "...the field of psychology did not exist; psychological questions were in the domains of philosophy, medicine and theology."
(Lester A. Lefton, University of South Carolina; "Psychology - Fifth Edition", p.7)
Just HOW, and more importantly, WHY, did the meaning of the word "Psychology" (and thus, the Field) transform in meaning from "the study of the soul/spirit" to "the study of behavior"? And, is it a coincidence that this change in meaning was shortly preceeded by the emergence of Darwinism?
It is quite apparent that there has been some corruption in the development of the field of psychology, to the extent that many have come to condemn "modern" psychology as a "pseudo-science". The reason being that, in order to be duly classified as a "science", certain criteria must be met, not the least of which is the fact that there must be a Universal and Fixed standard of "behavior" by which the actions of human beings can be effectively evaluated as "proper" or "aberrated". Psychologists, psychiatrists and their critics, alike, all agree that no such standard exists in modern "psychology". The closest thing to such a standard is regarded to be whatever are the cultural and/or social "norms" of the time, and these "norms" are far too fluctuating to be accepted as a "control" or "standard" on which to base a "science" that seeks to evaluate the basic nature of Man.
Since we all share the same basic nature, regardless of time or place, then there must be a common principle or nature which can be used as a standard by which Man's behavior can be evaluated. But where to look for this Universal Standard?
It is interesting that, prior to the establishment of psychology as a field, "...psychological questions were in the domains of philosophy, medicine and theology."
(Please Click Here for More Info)
Of these three fields of study, only "theology" makes significance reference to the concept of "eternal life" and an "eternal God", and an "eternal Law" by which existence is governed. Could it be the existence and/or Nature of God that contains this "universal, fixed standard" that the field of psychology (and "psychiatry") is missing?
If "psychology" originally meant the "study of the soul/spirit", then psychology, in its truest sense must be intimately connected with Theology - "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe"; for how can we study the nature of the soul/spirit and neglect the Source of the soul/spirit?
Why was "God" taken out of the picture???
Additionally, when I consider the Nature of the "I", or the "animating principle" (spirit) which is the admitted subject of "psyche-ology", and then reflect on how intimately the the Pharmaceutical Industry is involved with the field of Psychology; I can't help but think that the field has been "hijacked" by people who want to control and manipulate people's lives for their own selfish gain.
What need does the "Spirit" have for Drugs? The Drugs may inhibit certain activities of the BRAIN -- thus making a patient more docile and more manageable -- but the Brain is not the "I"; and in most cases, it appears that absolutely NOTHING is wrong with the Brain. The problem appears to be with the inability of the "I" to properly interpret certain experiences or data. This can cause "bio-chemical imbalances" in the brain, but the solution is not to introduce "drugs" into the body to affect Brain activity.
The solution would be to Help the "I" to gain clarity or certainty about those experiences which are not being properly interpreted.
Ahhh...but that doesn't yield as quick a PROFIT as simply diagnosing, prescribing, and scheduling for a subsequent visit.
It seems a shame that the Reality of Psyche-ology has been replaced with something more like "torture" of the soul than "study" of the soul, and that so few people are even aware enough to notice...even though we are all affected by it in some way.
Just something to ponder...
RM
No comments:
Post a Comment