From Psychology to Philosophy

When I was in academia, I sometimes thought I was misplaced in a Psychology department, and that I should be in Philosophy. I thought I could be more effective, more in peace, in a Philosophy department, working with and alongside philosophers. I thought philosophers would have broader and deeper concerns, compared to the narrow-mindedness and irrelevance of most psychologists.

Then I discovered that the other side has similar problems. I discovered the problem wasn’t about where I was placed, in this or that discipline, but about being ‘disciplined’ in general. Pursuing a career in ‘pure psychology’ or ‘pure philosophy’ means responding to problems that arise only from within the discipline, which means being unresponsive to other concerns of human life, some of which could arise from other disciplines.

The answer isn’t in philosophy and it isn’t about being in a Philosophy department. It is, instead, in the movement between disciplines, the movement between different forms of thought. I detected the importance of moving toward–and connection with–another discipline, but I attribute too much of that importance to philosophy itself. It is about movement, and philosophy gives you one excuse (among many others) to move.

To move (entelechy), you need a reason, and object; to express ‘soul,’ you need to find soul. Soul is expressed in movement, but it is also found in movement.

---