Talk:Psyche (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
This article needs to be rewritten in more sober language as a theory, with names, quotes, sources, etc. Currently, it makes outlandish statements like, "Psyche is a non-material digestion organ that masters fear," as though they were fact -- that won't do at all for an encyclopaedia.
Can anyone defend the article's text as it stands, or suggest suitable alterations? If not, maybe it should be reverted to the initial stub, which at least had the virtue of not overreaching itself. R Lowry 14:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I raise objection against the revertation. The summarised ideas deliver such deep insights into the humain being that - though the remark of R Lowry is utterly correct - they should at least be present on this page about psyche in any kind. The fact that you can find new and explosive ideas like this in the Wikipedia is one of its most remarkable strengths. "Outlandish" or not I never read anything more distinct and enlightening about the inner functions and collaboration of the parts of a human being than these short paragraphes. Fact is psyche is non-material, fact is psyche is tightly connected with fear and fact is psyche is capable of amplifying or reducing fearful distortion in its views about the world.
I tried to combine the original stub with the article in question and I seriously doubt that the result is worse. Please feel free to rewrite this article if you know better or extend it, but I ask you to take care of the precious content that Gordon Axmann was so kind to summarise and translate from its German origin. Kindest regards, Corcov 09:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah im the guy who was so overtly horified with this article's origional version that i deleted it and reverted it to a previous more linear sounding version. I thank you for fixing this up. Its got a nice content and isint wishy washy like its predecesor while still having the linear clarity that i wanted. Thanks a lot. -Nightpotato
"Fact is psyche is non-material" !?? This is certainly not a fact. It's only a hypothesis at best. There's no way to even prove that a psyche exists. I agree strongly with R Lowry, in that this article is very outlandish with respect to the mainstream view of science. While it is one of wikipedia's strength to provide such hypotheses, it should be clearly indicated that these are not the views of mainstream science. CrazyVas 6 January 2006
The term „non-material organ“ is used to relate to the two parts of psyche from paragraph “Horizontal and vertical intermediary": “non-material” refers to the fact that psyche is not visible whilst “organ” designates something that inseparably belongs to the body. Hence the non-material quality relativises the idea of an organ inasmuch it is not located in the body, notwithstanding its effects strongly influence the physicalness. In this regard I like to keep to the expression „non-material organ“.
On the other hand I can understand you. As I am only interested in keeping these valuable ideas alive, I like to suggest that you make a proposal how to “clearly indicated that these are not the views of mainstream science” (which seems a good idea to me). But please lets try not dilute the contents of this article. Corcov 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
A problem with this article is that it seems to contradict the disambiguation page for "psyche".
The disambiguation page says: "the psyche is the entirety of the non-physical aspects of a person.".
But this article says: "psyche gives a connective link between the physical (body) and the spiritual aspects (mind, soul) ", implying that mind and soul are separate entities to "psyche". But certainly "mind" and "soul" are also non-physical aspects of a person - thereby implying that the psyche is not "the _entirety_ of the non-physical aspects of a person" - a contradiction.
Personally, I think much of what the article says just "sounds good", and has little other value. But not being very knowledgeable in the field of psychology, I'm really not qualified to judge it. --Avl 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] specifically???
the psyche is any part of the mind other than the conscious mind. Hello? This article got long winded on metaphysics and philosophy, but missed the most important point on psychology and thus USEFUL use-age.
I think models of the regions of the brain , and the idea of ego, id, and superego are pretty relevant here. 209.129.49.65 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ======================================================
I think the problem is that most readers are looking for science when they link to Psyche. "Soul" and the other metaphysical elements have no place in a scientific description. Whatever merits readers might find from the "spiritual enlightenment" offered in the text there is no fact, no sound science. It sould be labeled as such and a scientific essay should have predominance. An encyclopedia is not the bible, it is not a spiritual text. PT
In my opinion the debate here needs to be reflected in the item. There are at least three main approaches to psyche. Plenty of modern psychologists eg James Himan & Archetypal school have a coherent aproach to the ontology of psychological material, and they use Henri Cobin's philosopy as a basis for that. This can be contrasted. The phenomena are not seen as either metaphysical or material but more as metaphorical constructs that can have a material influence on life.
waltzzz Friday, 14 April, 2006
Good lord, they did it! The article has been deleted. - Personally I find waltzzz's idea good to reflex this debate in the actual article. In contrast to Avl I do not think that it is a problem that the old article "seems to contradict the disambiguation page for psyche", because what the disambiguation page says, is simply wrong. Corcov 17:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2006. The result of the discussion was delete. |
I translated most of the text from the Spanish version of this article, basically as an exercise in translating. I hope it doesn't contradict any of the stuff in this discussion page. Ricky Clarkson 10:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
