Some people have asked me why I want to pursue a PhD in Philosophy instead of Psychology. My undergraduate major is Psychology with a research concentration. The simplest way to explain it is by defining what a PhD is. It is actually a acronym for Doctorate in Philosophy, because at the highest level of every field of study must reach the level of philosophy. I always tease my friends who prefer science and math because there are tangible answers unlike those liberal arts (in fact they usually claim that the liberal arts studies are too easy). I explain to them that even in math, with its tangible answers, at the highest level there are unanswerable questions.
I’ve know this for a while, yet I still pursed psychology. The book Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide brought forth a new perspective. Epistemologies are “knowledges” or ways of thinking. The dominant epistemology in the Global North Orthopedic Thinking grows out of science. One might say that scientific thought is appreciated by everyone around the world. It is a higher way of thinking. In fact, these comments are related to the Global North’s epistemology.
The Global North sees time moving in a linear line. It comes from “roots” (wide spread beliefs with firm foundations and symbols, like religion) to “options” (greater variety of smaller segments and choices). And science propels us from all these options to a new root, a root that is distinct in that it exists in the future and once we reach it, all our questions about life will be answered in the same way we thought they were by religion but we will have real truth now not tainted by that ancien regime. This is how people in the Global North define progress, how far away from the ancien regime are they and how close are they to the future root.
We should reflect on the tool that brings us to the future root, namely science and the scientific method. There was on old theory that the world used to be equal in scientific abilities until the Renaissance period when the West suddenly became more advanced. This is incorrect, because the West didn’t create better science, they only had an intensification of the scientific tradition because it was useful in the promotion of capitalism. A prominent cultural psychologist, wrote a book on how capitalism is actually related to Protestant ideas which emerged about this time. So in truth, the increased focus on science is related to the growth of Protestant values and ideas of capitalism.
Additionally, since it’s conception, people were aware of the limitations of science. Namely, it is unable to answer questions such as what is the purpose of life, what is a good society, is there a God, etc. And most importantly, science is incapable of proving its of scientificity. That is to say, science relies on a higher framework of philosophy for it to be considered valid.
However, with the increase of Protestant values science did become the propelling force of capitalism. This caused a epistemological shift in the Global North that suddenly believed the only questions worth asking were those proposed by science. Thus all existential questions were reduced to what could be said about them scientifically. For example the meaning of life could be answered by saying: there is not meaning of life, we are just made up of cells the live, breath, and die. Perhaps not all scientists would say this but here is another perspective to consider.
Currently the best minds in quantum physics are searching for the higsboson particle because by finding it they will make a large leap in their understanding of M-theory which is often described as a “theory of everything” or “the mind of God.” They will be able to have a more profound understanding of how all things are connected from these sub atomic particles to the 11 dimensions and multi verses within them. It is very exciting. This is the future root. Within our grasp. But what happens once we have found this particle? We will celebrate that we have found it all, no more scientific questions to be asked. And then some one will create a new measurement tool and discover there is something even smaller. Perhaps this will also show there are more than 11 dimensions too! What is the point? One needs to remember science cannot prove it’s own scientificity. Science cannot answer questions about the existence of God.
What is needed to be done, cannot be completed by this epistemology alone. In fact the reason I am so harsh on this scientific epistemology is not because I hate it, hate the people who do it, or even hate my own culture. Rather I need to demonstrate there are weaknesses present. The defense cannot be “that question is not worth asking” when the truth is “my epistemology cannot answer that question.” The false impression that the Global North’s epistemology is the most advanced because it is practiced everywhere “advanced” is more related to colonization than to reality. By demonstrating the weaknesses once can see there is a hole that needs to be filled. This is where one can acknowledge other epistemologies that might be better suited to handle certain questions. From the Daoist School of Philosophy there is a profound phrase: 海納百川 (lit. The sea encompasses one-hundred rivers). Our natural way of thinking is that we are like a strong river, sometimes we come across other streams (epistemologies) and we allow them to flow into our river if they are compatible. If they are not compatible, we will build a dam so that they do not disturb our flow. This way we still keep the dominant identity as the River. In contrast, the Sea takes in all the different rivers (epistemologies) without discrimination and instead of one being dominant, they are all present creating something new with all the strengths and weaknesses.
My ultimate goal is to help people find the Sea. Psychology as a field is too limiting because it operates within the scientific epistemology. William James is known as the “father of American psychology” because of his incredible work in advancing the field. He then moved on to philosophy because he found psychology to limiting in that it could not answer real questions.
Psychology has been useful to me on my journey but I don’t think it will allow me to accomplish what is necessary. That is why I will pursue Philosophy.