Integrating Philosophy and Psychology Into A Model Of The Psyche

Which came first? Philosophy or psychology? And which spawned which? Did philosophy spawn psychology or did psycholgy spawn philosophy?

Technically and academically speaking, philosophy did, or at least 'organized, passed down, and remembered philosophy: it goe back to at least 600 B.C. in ancient Greek philosophy (Thales) -- that is as far back as our records go, and arguably much earlier here and/or other in other parts of the world like China, India, and The Middle East with or without reliable records.

As an organized field of study, psychology spawned out of philosophy. In this regard, Alexander Bain can arguably be considered to be the first psychologist with his first major work in this area being published in 1855, 'The Senses and The Intellect.

However, it could be easily argued that psychology and philosophy have both been a part of man's nature from Day 1 of his creation, and/or from as long as he has had consciousness with perhaps man's 'psychology' motivating him/her to put together a coherent 'world philosophy' and from this, the same world philosophy eventually motivitating him to look inward (Descartes, Bain, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Mesmer, Charcot, Freud, Janet...) back at his/her psychology.

What I have done here is to put together my own personal verson (perspective, paradigm, theory, model, map, school...) of man's psychology based on my editorital organizing of the history and integration of both philosophy and psychology. Thus, we might call this model an integrative 'philosophy-psychology model'.


We start with the concepts of 'self', 'psyche' and 'ego' which I will use here to mean basically the same thing. For our purposes here, the concept of 'ego' -- one of Freud's main concepts that made Psychoanalysis famous -- is my concept of preference.

Now Freud only used the concept of 'ego' to mean a portion of the 'psyche' (as contrasted against the 'superego' and the 'id') whereas I am using the concept of ego to mean the full psyche or full self. Definition matters, and is at least partly arbitrary, partly dependent on the author's purposes and 'organizing desires'. Regardless of who you are reading, you have to know that all authors -- or at least those authors who are venturing into 'different phenomenal and conceptual territory' -- organize differently. It is part of their 'creative signature' and when they use the same words to describe different concepts and/or different words to describe the same or similar concepts, it can become confusing. In the name of art and science, we have to give every author enough leeway, enough creative license, to either succeed or fail at what he or she is attempting to do, gain trust and credibility -- or not, and in so doing, 'break creative barriers' -- or not, all of which is imperative to the ongoing evolution of art and/or science -- culture and life. Jung didn't use the concept of 'ego' (or 'libido') the same way that Freud did. Nor will I use the concept of ego the same way that either Freud or Jung did. I am going a partly similar direction to both of them; and a partly different direction than both of them.

Now the ego is like a piece of pie. When we first look at it after it is baked or brought home from the store, it is 'whole'. So is the ego, the psyche, the self. We are looking at an undivided, wholistic entity. Just as the pie can be cut into as many pieces as we want to, so too, for study and/or educational purposes, for matters of more focused specialization, we can divide the ego, the psyche, the self into as many different 'pieces' or 'compartments' as we want to. This is called 'reductionism' as opposed to 'wholism'. Reductionism and wholism do not have to be 'righteous either/or' conflicting philosophies. You do not have to choose one or the other. You can choose both -- and should choose both -- depending on exactly what you are studying and what you are trying to accomplish. Reductionism should be like the 'close-up lens' in a camera where as 'wholism' is like the 'panoramic lens'. Both serve different purposes but both are 'important tools' in the good photographer's tool kit. This is the same with a 'doctor specialist' who may specialize in the study of the liver but must also know how the liver functions relative to its inter-workings with the rest of the human body. Same with a good psychologist -- or 'psycho-theorist' -- who, regardless of how many different 'pieces' or 'compartments' he or she may divide the self into, must still have an organized picture of how everything comes together into a coherent, organized whole.

For study and educational purposes, I have divided the self or ego -- 'cut the pie' -- into 10 pieces or compartments, seven conscious, and three subconscious. These are:

1. The Interpretive Ego.
2. The Narcissistic Ego.
3. The Socially Sensitive Ego.
4. The Ethical Ego.
5. The Emotional-Romantic-Spiritual Ego.
6. The Dynamic, Subconscious Ego.
7. The Structural (Transference and Archetype-Driven) Subconsicous Ego.
8. The Genetic, Potential, Creative or Destructive Self.
9. The Mediating, Conflict-Resolving Ego.
10. The Executive, Action-Producing Ego.

And this is where I will stop today.

db, July 24th, 2007.