Derleme
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

A Critical Look at Wittgenstein's Opinions on Psychology

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 130 - 142, 30.11.2019
https://doi.org/10.30613/curesosc.556600

Öz

In the first half of the twentieth century, Wittgenstein claimed that philosophy is ended in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and that he found the solution to all questions previously asked in philosophy. He later traveled the world and changed his mind in the early stages of his work, especially after reading Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Psychology was also influenced by these changes as in the other social sciences and was influenced by the philosophy of Wittgenstein at the paradigmatic level. In this paper, the relationship of Wittgenstein's philosophy with the science of psychology and with contemporary social psychology in general is critically examined. Specifically, we argue that Wittgenstein's philosophy contributed to the emergence of the critical psychology movement and led mainstream psychology to scrutinize their decontextualized and individual-focused approach. In order to support this argument, a brief history of psychology in general and social psychology in particular will be given first. Then, two different portraits of Wittgenstein, which we call as the early and late periods of him, will be explained and finally, the impact of Wittgenstein's work on psychological studies will be discussed.

Kaynakça

  • Allport, F. H. (1924). Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Baker, G. P. (1984). On the very idea of a form of life. Inquiry, 27, 277-289.
  • Burge, T. (1986). Intellectual norms and foundations of mind. Journal of Philosophy, LXXXIII(12), 649-663.
  • Budd, M. (1989). Wittgenstein’s philosophy of psychology. London: Routledge.
  • Farr, R. M. (1991), The long past and the short history of social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology. 21(5), 371-380.
  • Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a Free Society. London: NLB.
  • Freud, S. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego (Standard edition, 18). London: Hogarth
  • Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
  • Gibson, J. J. (1986/1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Harré, R. (Ed.) (1986). The social construction of emotions. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Harré, R., & Gillet, G. (1994). The discursive mind. London: Sage.
  • Heidegger, M. (2008/1927). Varlık ve Zaman (çev. Kaan H. Ökten), Agora Kitaplığı.
  • Hilgard, E. R. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16(2), 107-117.
  • Hortaçsu, N. (2012). En Güzel Psikoloji Sosyal Psikoloji. Ankara: İmge Kitapevi
  • Husserl, E. (2010/1907). Fenomenoloji Üzerine Beş Ders (çev. Harun Tepe). Bilgesu Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  • Hyman, J. (Ed.). (1991). Investigating psychology. London: Routledge.
  • Jost, J. T. (1995). Toward a Wittgensteinian social psychology of human development, Theory & Psychology, 5(1), 5-25.
  • Lakatos (1976). Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Le Bon, G. (1896/1960) The crowd: A study of the popular mind [La psychologie des foules]. Viking Press. (Original work published in 1896.)
  • Lundgren, D. C. (2011). Social Feedback and Self-Appraisals: Current Status of the Mead- Cooley Hypothesis. Symbolic Interaction, 27(2), 267-286.
  • Kruglanski, A. W., ve Stroebe, W. (2011). The Making of Social Psychology. A. W. Kruglanski, ve W. Stroebe (Ed.). Handbook of the History of Social Psychology içinde (s. 3-17). New York: Francis & Taylor.
  • Kuhn, S. T. (2000/1962). Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı (Çev. Nilüfer Kuyaş), İstanbul: Alan Yayınevi.
  • McDougall, W. (1921). The group mind: A sketch of the principles of collective psychology with some attempt to apply them to the interpretation oJ national life and character. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Mead, G. H. (1956). On social psychology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Parker, I. (Ed.) (1998). Social Constructionism, Discourse and Realism. London: Sage.
  • Pepitone, A. (1981). Lessons from the history of social psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 972-985.
  • Reed, E. S. (1988). James J. Gibson and the psychology of perception. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Rotry, R. (1977). Wittgensteinian philosophy and empirical psychology. Philosophical Studies, 31, 151-172.
  • Shotter, J. (1992). Social Constructionism and Realism: Adequacy or Accuracy? Theory and Psychology, 2, 175-182.
  • Shotter, J. (1996). Wittgenstein in practice: from the way of theory to a social poetics. In C. W. Tolman, F. Cherry, R., van Hezewijk, & I. Lubek (Eds.), Problems of Theoretical Psychology. North York, Ontario: Captus Press.
  • Shotter, J., & Katz, A. M. (1996). Articulating practices: Methods and experiences. Articulating a practice from within the practice itself: Establishing formative dialogues by the use of a “Social Poetics.” Concepts and Transformations, 2, 213-237.
  • Sullivan, G.B. (2000). Wittgenstein and Social Constructionism: “Methods of social poetics” or “Knots in our thinking”? In Morss, J., Stephenson, N., & Van Rappard, H. (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Psychology. Proceedings of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology 1999 Conference. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
  • Sullivan, G. B. (2015). Wittgenstein’s later philosophy and “pictures” of mixed-method research in psychology: A critical investigation of theories and accounts of methodological plurality. Theory & Psychology, 25(4), 473-493.
  • Suter, R. (1989). Interpreting Wittgenstein: A cloud of philosophy, a drop of grammar. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  • Swanson, G. E. (1961). Mead and Freud: their relevance for social psychology. Sociometry, 24(4), 319-339.
  • Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations: International social psychological perspectives. New York: Praeger.
  • Van Dijk, L., & Withagen, R. (2014). The horizontal worldview: A Wittgensteinian attitude towards scientific psychology. Theory & Psychology, 24(1), 3-18.
  • Williams, M. (1985). Wittgenstein’s rejection of scientific psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 15(2), 203-223.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (2006/1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (çev. Oruç Aruoba). Metis Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Zettel. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Notes for lectures on “private experience” and “sense data”. The Philosophical Review, 77, 271-320.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Remarks on the philosophy of psychology (Vol. I). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wittgenstein’ın Psikoloji Bilimine Dair Görüşlerine Eleştirel Bir Bakış

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 130 - 142, 30.11.2019
https://doi.org/10.30613/curesosc.556600

Öz

Wittgenstein 20. yüzyılın ilk yarısında Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus adlı yapıtında felsefenin öldüğünü ve felsefede bugüne kadar sorulmuş tüm soruların çözümünü bulduğunu iddia etmiştir. Daha sonraları dünyayı dolaşmış ve özellikle zamanını Kierkegaard ve Nietzsche okuyarak geçirdikten sonra erken dönemlerinde savunduğu düşüncelerini değiştirmiş ve hem dil felsefesinde hem de bilim felsefesinde paradigmatik bir değişikliğin ilk zeminini ortaya koymuştur. Sosyal bilimlerin genelinde olduğu gibi psikoloji de bu değişimlerden ve Wittgenstein’ın felsefesinden paradigmatik düzeyde etkilenmiştir. Bu yazıda genel olarak Wittgenstein’ın felsefesinin psikolojiyle ve bugünün sosyal psikolojisiyle olan ilişkisi eleştirel olarak incelenmiştir. Özel olarak ise, Wittgenstein’ın felsefesinin, eleştirel psikoloji akımının ortaya çıkmasına ve ana akım psikolojideki bağlamdan kopuk, birey odaklı yaklaşımların irdelenmesine katkı sunduğunu savunuyoruz. Bu argümanı savunmak için ilk olarak psikolojinin ve özel olarak sosyal psikolojinin kısa bir tarihi verilecektir. Daha sonrasında erken dönem ve geç dönem olarak ayırdığımız iki farklı Wittgenstein portresi anlatılacak ve son olarak Wittgenstein’ın çalışmalarının psikolojik çalışmalara olan etkisi tartışılacaktır.

Kaynakça

  • Allport, F. H. (1924). Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Baker, G. P. (1984). On the very idea of a form of life. Inquiry, 27, 277-289.
  • Burge, T. (1986). Intellectual norms and foundations of mind. Journal of Philosophy, LXXXIII(12), 649-663.
  • Budd, M. (1989). Wittgenstein’s philosophy of psychology. London: Routledge.
  • Farr, R. M. (1991), The long past and the short history of social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology. 21(5), 371-380.
  • Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a Free Society. London: NLB.
  • Freud, S. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego (Standard edition, 18). London: Hogarth
  • Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
  • Gibson, J. J. (1986/1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Harré, R. (Ed.) (1986). The social construction of emotions. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Harré, R., & Gillet, G. (1994). The discursive mind. London: Sage.
  • Heidegger, M. (2008/1927). Varlık ve Zaman (çev. Kaan H. Ökten), Agora Kitaplığı.
  • Hilgard, E. R. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16(2), 107-117.
  • Hortaçsu, N. (2012). En Güzel Psikoloji Sosyal Psikoloji. Ankara: İmge Kitapevi
  • Husserl, E. (2010/1907). Fenomenoloji Üzerine Beş Ders (çev. Harun Tepe). Bilgesu Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  • Hyman, J. (Ed.). (1991). Investigating psychology. London: Routledge.
  • Jost, J. T. (1995). Toward a Wittgensteinian social psychology of human development, Theory & Psychology, 5(1), 5-25.
  • Lakatos (1976). Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Le Bon, G. (1896/1960) The crowd: A study of the popular mind [La psychologie des foules]. Viking Press. (Original work published in 1896.)
  • Lundgren, D. C. (2011). Social Feedback and Self-Appraisals: Current Status of the Mead- Cooley Hypothesis. Symbolic Interaction, 27(2), 267-286.
  • Kruglanski, A. W., ve Stroebe, W. (2011). The Making of Social Psychology. A. W. Kruglanski, ve W. Stroebe (Ed.). Handbook of the History of Social Psychology içinde (s. 3-17). New York: Francis & Taylor.
  • Kuhn, S. T. (2000/1962). Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı (Çev. Nilüfer Kuyaş), İstanbul: Alan Yayınevi.
  • McDougall, W. (1921). The group mind: A sketch of the principles of collective psychology with some attempt to apply them to the interpretation oJ national life and character. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Mead, G. H. (1956). On social psychology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Parker, I. (Ed.) (1998). Social Constructionism, Discourse and Realism. London: Sage.
  • Pepitone, A. (1981). Lessons from the history of social psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 972-985.
  • Reed, E. S. (1988). James J. Gibson and the psychology of perception. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Rotry, R. (1977). Wittgensteinian philosophy and empirical psychology. Philosophical Studies, 31, 151-172.
  • Shotter, J. (1992). Social Constructionism and Realism: Adequacy or Accuracy? Theory and Psychology, 2, 175-182.
  • Shotter, J. (1996). Wittgenstein in practice: from the way of theory to a social poetics. In C. W. Tolman, F. Cherry, R., van Hezewijk, & I. Lubek (Eds.), Problems of Theoretical Psychology. North York, Ontario: Captus Press.
  • Shotter, J., & Katz, A. M. (1996). Articulating practices: Methods and experiences. Articulating a practice from within the practice itself: Establishing formative dialogues by the use of a “Social Poetics.” Concepts and Transformations, 2, 213-237.
  • Sullivan, G.B. (2000). Wittgenstein and Social Constructionism: “Methods of social poetics” or “Knots in our thinking”? In Morss, J., Stephenson, N., & Van Rappard, H. (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Psychology. Proceedings of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology 1999 Conference. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
  • Sullivan, G. B. (2015). Wittgenstein’s later philosophy and “pictures” of mixed-method research in psychology: A critical investigation of theories and accounts of methodological plurality. Theory & Psychology, 25(4), 473-493.
  • Suter, R. (1989). Interpreting Wittgenstein: A cloud of philosophy, a drop of grammar. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  • Swanson, G. E. (1961). Mead and Freud: their relevance for social psychology. Sociometry, 24(4), 319-339.
  • Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations: International social psychological perspectives. New York: Praeger.
  • Van Dijk, L., & Withagen, R. (2014). The horizontal worldview: A Wittgensteinian attitude towards scientific psychology. Theory & Psychology, 24(1), 3-18.
  • Williams, M. (1985). Wittgenstein’s rejection of scientific psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 15(2), 203-223.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (2006/1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (çev. Oruç Aruoba). Metis Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Zettel. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Notes for lectures on “private experience” and “sense data”. The Philosophical Review, 77, 271-320.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Remarks on the philosophy of psychology (Vol. I). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Derleme Makale
Yazarlar

Onurcan YILMAZ 0000-0002-6094-7162

Fatih BAYRAK Bu kişi benim 0000-0001-6350-6234

Sinan ALPER 0000-0002-9051-0690

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Kasım 2019
Kabul Tarihi 25 Kasım 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA YILMAZ, O., BAYRAK, F., & ALPER, S. (2019). Wittgenstein’ın Psikoloji Bilimine Dair Görüşlerine Eleştirel Bir Bakış. Current Research in Social Sciences, 5(2), 130-142. https://doi.org/10.30613/curesosc.556600