English includes diverse words and phrases organized around the combining form ‘psycho’. I call this ‘the psych family of expressions.’ Psych words include psychometric, psychobabble, psychoacoustic, psychological, and psychomotor. Psychological phrases include ‘the psychological moment,’ ‘reverse psychology,’ ‘the psychology of loss,’ ‘smart psychology,’ and ‘’the psychology of the stock market.’ Dictionaries include some psych phrases. such as ‘the psychological moment’ and ‘reverse psychology. I found other phrases, such as ‘the psychology of loss’ in my general reading.

A theme of encouragement and discouragement shows up in glosses of the psych family of expressions. To psych someone up is to encourage them, to psych someone out is to discourage them and so on.

Paraphrases of psych phrases not listed in dictionaries (such as ‘the psychology of loss’) use the theme of encouragement and discouragement to give a vertical translation of each phrase. So, ‘the psychology of the marketplace’ has to do with what encourages investors to invest, discourages them from investing, and encourages them to withdraw their funds. In brief, fear of losses and hope of gains. The triumph of psychology speaks to the continuing financial crisis. Investors lose hope, they get discouraged. Fear reigns, and panic follows.

Ogden’s Basic English does not include the activity verbs encourage and discourage. Basic English encourages users to find simpler ways to express facts and possibilities. So the question became how to vertically translate encourage and discourage as used in paraphrases of the psych family of expressions.

When I dropped the many nuances conveyed by paraphrases of ‘encourage’ and ‘discourage,’ I found this.

Encourage covers techniques that make some subsequent course of action more likely. The technique is identified as encouraging when it has the subsequent effect. The technique or means comes before the effect or result. Encourage names a means-end unit.

The same can be said for discouragement except the effect is to decrease the likelihood of the discouraged activity. Yes, ordinary usage of the two verbs conveys more than these two essentials. But it is a feature of science to strip away much of a narrative to get to the structure of a subject.

‘The Psychological’

The word ‘psychological’ is another member of the psych family of expressions. In brief: In English etymology, the adjective ‘psychological’ once led to ‘morale.’ In some modern usages, such as ‘psychological warfare,’ ‘‘the psychological” still leads to matters of morale, to matters of encouragement and discouragement. This interpretation of ‘the psychological’ is consistent with psychotherapy and but not consistent with ‘the psychological’ as meant by the tripartite theory of mind at the heart of experimental Psychology.

‘Psychological’ came into English in late C17. The adjective entered English as a derivative of the noun ‘psychology.’ ‘Psychological’ carried a sense glossed as ‘relating to psychology.’

Williams included the word ‘psychological’ in his book ‘Keywords’.

According to Williams, by the late C19, ‘psychological’ covered three matters at once:

• inner feelings,
• character and behavior seen from the perspective of inner feelings, and
• the effect of some action on the feelings, especially the morale, of someone, as meant by ‘the psychological moment.’

Notice the wording, ‘the effect of some action on the feelings, especially the morale, of someone.’

By early C20, glosses of ‘psychological’ had narrowed down. Glosses read something like this:

• ‘Something affecting or having to do with someone’s mental or emotional state.’

How does such a gloss compare to the earlier sense of ‘psychological’ as laid out by Williams?

• Omits explicit mention of morale.
• Omits mention of ‘the psychological’ as the effect of action.
• Retains ‘someone’s mental or emotional state’ as the topic.

Modern Usage of ‘Psychological’: Idiomatic Phrases

In some modern usages, ‘psychological’ still leads to, or at least suggests, matters of morale.

Idiomatic phrases headed by ‘psychological’ preserve a ‘psychological’-‘morale’ linkage

Examples:

psychological warfare

actions intended to reduce an opponent’s morale OR the use of propaganda or other psychological means to influence or confuse the thinking, undermine the morale of an enemy or opponent. Sometimes, ‘propaganda’ suffices.

the psychological turning point

the point where a person has undergone a significant change in outlook, conduct, character, etc.

As in “While COVID-19 continues to influence, with restrictions on crowd numbers, the return of fans to the MCG was a psychological turning point.” Perhaps morale?

Sometimes, ‘turning point’ suffices.

psychological block

aka mental block or block, an obstacle to doing something not attributable to a physical, economic, or other material obstacle.

psychological effects

As in:

“the psychological effects of being stalked may never leave her.”

“Mentally I am scarred for life and I worry every day, about my children, my pets, me going out. It’s never-ending.”

psychological damage

What do we mean when we say someone has sustained psychological, mental, or emotional damage?

We often mean damage to the morale, to well-being as indicated by confidence, courage, cheerfulness, which includes willingness to do what needs to be done, possibly despite obstacles, discouragement, and other impediments.

Modern Usage of ‘Psychological’: Dictionary Entries

Contrary to usage, dictionary entries headed by ‘psychological’ omit mention of morale or matters of morale.

Apple Dictionary (last accessed April 20, 2022) lists three senses for ‘psychological.’

• of, affecting, or arising in the mind, related to the mental and emotional state of a person
• relating to the discipline called ‘Psychology’ as in ‘psychological research.’
• of an illness or problem: having a mental rather than physical cause. [(notice the mental, a mental cause, instead of cause in matters of morale)]

Reverse Dictionary gave this list: [From Reverso Dictionary. last accessed Nov 3 2021]

• of or relating to psychology
• of or relating to the mind or mental activity
• having no real or objective basis; arising in the mind, as in his backaches are all psychological
• affecting the mind

I abstracted these fragments from the two lists.

• Something that affects the mind.
• Something that arises in the mind.
• Something related to a person’s mental or emotional state.
• Something to do with mind or mental activity
• Something to do with Psychology (the discipline)
• Something with a mental rather than physical cause
• Something imaginary rather than real or personal rather than public.

Why drop ‘morale’?

Why drop morale from glosses of ‘psychological?’ I speculate here about two possible sources. In a later chapter, I speculate about a third source: Psychology’s tripartite theory of Mind eclipsed matters of morale.

‘State of mind’

Linkage between ‘mind’ and ‘mental’ and ‘morale’ presumed?

Maybe dictionary-makers took for granted that talk about a mental or emotional state implies matters of morale.

English usage makes that assumption reasonable enough.

At least one gloss of ‘morale’ uses ‘state of mind’ as its superordinate: Morale is a state of mind which involves feelings and emotions.

Now I use be-logic, against my better judgement. And, I read the gloss like this: Mind is something that enters various states. Morale is a state of Mind.

I checked on common usage of ‘state of mind.’ I collected glosses and usage examples.

Glosses:

• a person’s emotional state
• a person’s mood and the effect the mood has on the person’s thinking and action.
• the way you are thinking and feeling at the present time
• etc.

Usage examples:

• Both Zeller and Hegel remark upon the difference between the calm of ancient scepticism and the perturbed state of mind evinced by many modern sceptics.
• There is only one virtue — a clear, intelligent, healthy state of mind.
• I was not in the right state of mind to laugh at their jokes.
• You should not make that decision in your present state of mind.
• Morale is a state of mind. It is steadfastness and courage and hope. — George C Marshall

In common English usage, as opposed to dictionary entries, state of mind’ (aka ‘mental state’) evidently implies ‘morale’ and vice versa.

‘Morale’ as an old-fashioned word?

Maybe ‘morale’ has become so old-fashioned that no one would think to include it in a gloss of ‘the psychological.’

Well, no.

Dictionaries still list ‘morale.’ And not with the tag ‘archaic’ or ‘dated.’

APA Dictionary of ‘Psychology’ includes the word ‘morale.’

• the level of enthusiasm, sense of purpose, or confidence in the worthiness of a goal that can affect a person’s or a group’s overall performance in working toward that goal, especially when under pressure. [APA Dictionary entry for morale. Last accessed March 18, 2022.]

Despite the APA listing, I doubt most Philosophers of Psychology would list ‘morale’ among Psych terms.

• The tripartite theory of Mind does not include ‘morale.’
• Chapter headings in Psychology textbooks do not include ‘Morale.’

Why the Ellipsis?

What caused the ellipsis in published glosses of ‘psychological.’

I mean by ‘ellipsis’ specifically the shift from C19 mention of ‘morale’ to omissions of ‘morale’ today?

I suspect the emergence and dissemination of Academic Psychology promoted the ellipsis.

I discuss the possibility in a later chapter, when I get to the tripartite theory of Mind as a source of Psychology’s terms and worldview.

What might have happened as fascination with ‘the mental’ grew? Something housed inside the individual (aka ‘the mental,’ ‘the psychological’) pushed away interest in morale. In contrast, discussions about morale in the language of encouragement and discouragement concern clusters of dated and located activities.

As someone once said, the academic parents of Modern Psychology gained a Mind and lost the world. They forgot about the early linkage of ‘the psychological’ to matters of morale and to the theme of encouragement and discouragement.

Psychology has had at least two fresh starts. One fresh start was the Behaviorist Revolution of the early twentieth century. Another fresh start was the Cognitive Revolution of the mid twentieth century. These fresh starts defined the mainstream of Psychology that followed them.

Other fresh starts were much were less influential if influential at all. These include McDougal’s early twentieth century call for Psych as a science of action. It was made as a competitor to the Behaviorist Revolution but did not compete successfully. Almost a century later. E. Gibson made a similar call in her article “Has Psychology a Future.”

B. F. Skinner called for a fresh start in his 1938 book, “The Behavior of Organisms.” His experimental work, and the applied behavior analysis that followed from it, secured a following but never defined the mainstream of Psychology.

In 1988, I called for a Psychology as the science of action with actions conceived of as means-end units. Again a call for a fresh start, one that went nowhere.

Psychology includes many fresh starts including Descriptive Psychology, Kantor’s call for a psychology grounded in principles of behavior, Shotter’s call for radical change in Psychology, and Harre et al’s call for a science of action. Like my proposal, they went nowhere, at least nowhere towards replacing the mainstream they sought to replace.

Psychology is not the only discipline to have fresh starts, real or proposed.

Someone commented that Philosophy has had endless proposals for fresh starts, proposals to do Philosophy in a new way. It seemed to this comment that every Philosopher sets about making up a new Philosophy, a tendency she called preposterism.

The adjective ‘psychological’ once led to ‘morale.’ In some modern usage, ‘psychological’ still leads to matters of morale.

Early Usage of ‘Psychological’

The adjective ‘psychological’ once led to matters of morale.

‘Psychological’ came into English late C17. The adjective entered English as a derivative of the noun ‘psychology.’ ‘Psychological’ carried a sense glossed as ‘relating to psychology.’

Williams included the word ‘psychological’ in his book ‘Keywords’.

According to Williams, by the late C19, ‘psychological’ covered three matters at once:

• inner feelings,
• character and behavior seen from the perspective of inner feelings, and
• the effect of some action on the feelings, especially the morale, of someone, as meant by ‘the psychological moment.’

Notice the wording, ‘the effect of some action on the feelings, especially the morale, of someone.’

By early C20, glosses of ‘psychological’ had narrowed down. Glosses read something like this:

‘Something affecting or having to do with someone’s mental or emotional state.’

How does such a gloss compare to the earlier sense of ‘psychological’ as laid out by Williams?

• Omits explicit mention of morale.
• Omits mention of ‘the psychological’ as the effect of action.
• Retains ‘someone’s mental or emotional state’ as the topic.

Modern Usage of ‘Psychological’: Idiomatic Phrases

In some modern usage, ‘psychological’ still leads to, or at least suggests, matters of morale.

Idiomatic phrases headed by ‘psychological’ preserve a ‘psychological’-‘morale’ linkage.

Examples:

psychological warfare

actions intended to reduce an opponent’s morale OR the use of propaganda or other psychological means to influence or confuse the thinking, undermine the morale of an enemy or opponent. Sometimes, ‘propaganda’ suffices.

psychological turning point

the point where a person has undergone a significant change in outlook, conduct, character, etc.

As in “While COVID-19 continues to influence, with restrictions on crowd numbers, the return of fans to the MCG was a psychological turning point.” Perhaps morale?

Sometimes, ‘turning point’ suffices.

psychological block

aka mental block or block, an obstacle to doing something not attributable to a physical, economic, or other material obstacle.

psychological effects

As in:

“the psychological effects of being stalked may never leave her.”

“Mentally I am scarred for life and I worry every day, about my children, my pets, me going out. It’s never-ending.”

psychological damage

What do we mean when we say someone has sustained psychological, mental, or emotional damage?

We often mean damage to the morale, to well-being as indicated by confidence, courage, cheerfulness, which includes willingness to do what needs to be done, possibly despite obstacles, discouragement, and other impediments.

Modern Usage of ‘Psychological’: Dictionary Entries

Contrary to usage, dictionary entries headed by ‘psychological’ omit explicit mention of morale.

Apple Dictionary (last accessed April 20, 2022) lists three senses for ‘psychological.’

• of, affecting, or arising in the mind, related to the mental and emotional state of a person
• relating to the discipline called ‘Psychology’ as in ‘psychological research.’
• of an illness or problem: having a mental rather than physical cause. [(notice the mental, a mental cause, instead of cause in matters of morale)]

Reverse Dictionary gave this list: [From Reverso Dictionary. last accessed Nov 3 2021]

• of or relating to psychology
• of or relating to the mind or mental activity
• having no real or objective basis; arising in the mind, as in his backaches are all psychological
• affecting the mind

I abstracted these fragments from the two lists.

• Something that affects the mind.
• Something that arises in the mind.
• Something related to a person’s mental or emotional state.
• Something to do with mind or mental activity
• Something to do with Psychology (the discipline)
• Something with a mental rather than physical cause
• Something imaginary rather than real or personal rather than public.

Why drop ‘morale’?

Why drop morale from glosses of ‘psychological?’ I speculate here about two possible sources. In a later chapter, I speculate about a third source: Psychology’s tripartite theory of Mind eclipsed matters of morale.

Linkage between ‘mind’ and ‘mental’ and ‘morale’ presumed? ‘State of mind’

Maybe dictionary-makers took for granted that talk about a mental or emotional state implies matters of morale.

English usage makes that assumption reasonable enough.

At least one gloss of ‘morale’ uses ‘state of mind’ as its superordinate: Morale is a state of mind which involves feelings and emotions.

I used ‘be logic, against my better judgement. And, I read the gloss like this: Mind is something that enters various states. Morale is a state of Mind. I capitalize ‘mind’ to indicate I mean academic use of the word ‘mind.’ I discuss and reject this academic usage of ‘mind’ in a later chapter.

I checked on common usage of ‘state of mind.’ I collected glosses and usage examples.

Glosses:

• a person’s emotional state
• a person’s mood and the effect the mood has on the person’s thinking and action.
• the way you are thinking and feeling at the present time
• etc.

Usage examples:

• Both Zeller and Hegel remark upon the difference between the calm of ancient scepticism and the perturbed state of mind evinced by many modern sceptics.
• There is only one virtue — a clear, intelligent, healthy state of mind.
• I was not in the right state of mind to laugh at their jokes.
• You should not make that decision in your present state of mind.
• Morale is a state of mind. It is steadfastness and courage and hope. — George C Marshall

In common English, ‘state of mind’ (aka ‘mental state’) evidently implies ‘morale’ and vice versa.

‘Morale’ as an old-fashioned word?

Maybe ‘morale’ has become so old-fashioned that no one would think to include it in a gloss of ‘psychological.’

Well, no.

Dictionaries still list ‘morale.’ And not with the tag ‘archaic’ or ‘dated.’

APA Dictionary of ‘Psychology’ includes the word ‘morale.’

the level of enthusiasm, sense of purpose, or confidence in the worthiness of a goal that can affect a person’s or a group’s overall performance in working toward that goal, especially when under pressure. APA Dictionary entry for morale. Last accessed March 18, 2022.]

Despite the APA listing, I doubt anyone would list ‘morale’ among Psych terms.

• The tripartite theory of Mind does not include ‘morale.’
• Chapter headings in Psychology textbooks do not include ‘Morale.’

Why the Ellipsis?

What caused the ellipsis in published glosses of ‘psychological.’

I mean by ‘ellipsis’ here specifically the shift from C19 mention of ‘morale’ to omissions of ‘morale’ today?

I suspect the emergence and dissemination of Academic Psychology promoted the ellipsis.

I discuss the possibility in a later chapter, when I get to the tripartite theory of Mind as a source of Psychology’s terms and worldview.

What might have happened as fascination with ‘the mental’ grew? Something housed inside the individual (aka ‘the mental,’ ‘the psychological’) pushed away interest in morale. In contrast, discussions about morale concern clusters of dated and located activities.

As someone once said, the academic parents of Modern Psychology gained a Mind and lost the world.

1980s

During the 1980s my life was full of work, to get my degrees, and to support myself.

I remember very little of the feelings I had then apart from tiredness invoked by long hours of work.

I typically worked for 21 consecutive days, sleeping time excluded, then went away for a long weekend spent doing anything other than work.

To say much more, I’d have to make things up.

1990s

In the 1990s I spent most of my time at work as a professor and researcher.

My work included trips to overseas conferences in my field of Behavior Analysis. Mostly I attended conferences on the east coast of the US. My last trip was to the west coast. I also attended a conference in Guadalajara in Mexico and a conference in London where I was an invited speaker.

In my first trip to the US, in the mid 1990s, I had the honor of introducing B. F. Skinner’s closing address. I gave a very short speech and experienced for the first time talking to an audience sitting in a room as big as a football field.

I wish I’d known that the correct form of address in the US is Dr not Professor. In Australia, NZ, etc., ‘Professor’ is the name of an academic rank.

In the US, ‘professor just names a type of work not a rank. I should have referred to Dr. Skinner as ‘Dr’ ( maybe, as B F Skinner, PhD).

After B. F. Skinner’s death later in the decade, the Association for Behavior Analysis organized a symposium to celebrate Skinner’s life.. The conveyor invited five professors, each of them to represent distinct areas of Behavior Analysis. He invited me to speak about the conceptual analysis of behavior, a field initiated by Skinner in his book The Behavior of Organisms (1938).

The convener gave me advance warning that he wanted speeches that deserved the label ‘upbeat.’ So I should not mention the smallness of the conceptual progress made since the 1930 book. Going by the applause, the audience warmly received my short speech.

In the late 1980’s I struggled with a problem diagnosed as a back problem. It was always present to some extent but I had periods of extreme pain and disability with it.

The physician I attended identified a leg length difference that he thought contributed to my problem. From then, I wore a heel support and desisted from going about with bare feet.

The problem I had seemed to have had four sources.

One source was my (apparent) leg length difference.

A second source was an incident when I was about 11 years. As I ran back to my classroom from PE, I jumped from the top of a slope to the bottom. It turned out to be a mistake. As I hit the ground, my left leg felt as though it had gone through my body a couple of centimeters. After that I could not walk normally and I was in a lot of pain. My mother took me to the local physiotherapist, and I spent three weeks at home.

The third source was familial. It seems as though everyone in my family had a back problem.

The fourth source was long hours sitting when I was a student.

Fortunately, my physical problems did not get in the way of my career. My hours spent in the department were flexible, and, so when necessary, I could work at home, long before work at home became commonplace.

When I went to the US or UK for conferences, I took a fold up walking stick with me and hoped for the best. I never had an acute episode during my travels.

Later, in the 2000s, I had an acute episode after moving house. I went to a local physiotherapist who diagnosed my problem not as a back problem so much as a sacral problem. I had painful physiotherapy for several weeks with an excellent outcome. My leg length difference disappeared, and I had no further acute ‘back’ episodes. If only this physiotherapist had been around decades before, preferable in my childhood to give my problem the correct diagnosis and to apply the right intervention.

If ony.

Which Psychology?

I take ‘psychology’ used this way to mean the professional and scientific field that dates back to the late C19, early C20, and is taught today in university Departments of Psychology by Professors of Psychology.

Which Philosophy?
In Standard English, ‘philosophy’ has more than one sense. Here, I review the modern senses.

Why?
The many senses affect the reception of claims made with the word ‘philosophy. ’ That includes claims that Psychology came from Philosophy.

Clarify the question: I don’t ask here what philosophy is.
If I asked that question, I’d end up none the wiser. I can find diverse accounts of ‘what philosophy is …’

I ask what phrase ‘philosophy’ stands for. In the first place, I ask what ‘philosophy’ means in Modern English. Whether we admit it or not, those meanings affect how we hear the claim that Psychology came from Philosophy.

‘Philosophy’ in Modern English

I started with a survey of senses given in dictionaries of Standard English. I looked in dictionaries of Modern English under the headword ‘philosophy.’[¹]

Dictionaries list more than one sense of philosophy. Dictionaries also list the adjective philosophical and the verb philosophize.

One definition among many uses ‘philosophy’ for the academic field by that name. Philosophy is the academic study of basic principles — of knowledge, the nature of reality and of existence, and so on.

Wittgenstein’s famous aphorism applies to Philosophy in this academic sense: “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language.”[¹] Wittgenstein did not mean ‘philosophy’ as in ‘a philosophy of life, a set of principles to guide conduct.’ He meant the academic field called ‘Philosophy.’

A critic had this to say about the academic field called ‘philosophy’; A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.[²]

‘Philosophy’ can apply to a particular system of thought, as in ‘Descartes’ philosophy.’ Different approaches to Philosophy in the academic sense are called ‘philosophies.’ They include Epicureanism, existentialism, idealism, materialism, nihilism, post-modernism, pragmatism, stoicism, structuralism, utilitarianism, etc.

So I might refine the question that I ask: Which philosophy do you mean? Or I might not, so leaving the question about philosophy in a broad academic sense.

The academic sense of ‘philosophy’ contrasts with the sense of the word in common sense. In everyday talk, ‘philosophy’ usually means ‘a philosophy of life,’ or ‘principles that guide conduct in daily life.’ Philosophy in this sense can be told in narratives, in poetry, in fables, in proverbs, etc. Philosophy in this sense might come in aphorisms, not in connected prose.

‘Philosophy’ in this sense merges with the psychological arts, with the art of living. ‘Philosophy’ acquired this meaning of ‘a system a person forms for the conduct of life,’ from about 1771.

Philosophy in this sense belongs too much to literature to have served as a launching pad for Psychology, a field that from its inception rejected literature in favor of imitating the physical sciences.

‘Philosophy’ can be used as an alternative to ‘ideology’ for ‘a system pf thought that serves some vested interests.’ It can be used in its etymologically original sense for ‘the love of wisdom.’ Psychology presumably did not come from an ideology, or from ‘the love of wisdom’ which is too general in scope or perhaps too poetic to serve as the launching pad for Psychology.

After looking at the diverse senses of ‘psychology’ in Modern English, I concluded it is not a straightforward matter to say “Psychology came from Philosophy.” The word ‘philosophy’ has diverse uses in Modern English, as does the word ‘psychology.’ It appears that academic philosophers own the word ‘philosophy’ no more than academic Psychologists own the word ‘psychology.’

Philosophy and the Liberal Arts

I changed the topic, from how Modern English uses the word ‘philosophy’ today, to usage of ‘philosophy’ historically in academe. How have universities used the word ‘philosophy’ over the centuries? At what point in the history did Psychology come from Philosophy?

I read many essays over the years and found disagreements about what happened when. I don’t want to write a scholarly piece which compares and contrasts opinions and opinions about opinions. I write here a rough summary of trends, with a focus on where Philosophy came from, when, and how Psychology came out of Philosophy.

Until about 1800, European universities were organized in much the same way and typically consisted of four faculties. The main distinction was dependence on Catholic or Protestant sovereigns. Given that as a fact, I will take liberties and generalize.

“Until the French Revolution, European universities, although divided by their dependence on Catholic or Protestant sovereigns, were organized in the same way and taught more or less the same branches of knowledge in four or five classical faculties.”

From their birth in C12-C13, European universities consisted of Faculties. Universities varied in the Faculties they had. And the Faculties changed in historical time. A typical list of Faculties was Arts, Law, Theology, and Medicine.

German universities used the name ‘philosophy’ for what English universities called ‘the Arts Faculty.’ In English and other universities, philosophy meant ‘the works of Aristotle,’ and Aristotle was referred to as ‘the philosopher.’

Faculties consisted of (a) the lower faculty, which was the Arts Faculty, or, in Germany, and I think France, the Philosophy Faculty, and (b) the higher faculties. The higher facilities prepared men for professional careers in Law, Theology, or Medicine. The lower faculty prepared men for entrance to the higher faculties.

Up to the BA degree, the Arts consisted mainly of the Trivium. The Trivium came to European universities through Schools of the Arts which prepared men for clerical and other positions that required mastery of language studies.

The Trivium included Grammar, a study of language in a broad sense that included diverse writings, not a narrow study of grammatical rules as today. The Trivium included Rhetoric, which was the oratorial art of expression in writing and speech, and the Dialectic, which included Logic, Metaphysics, and Ethics. Unlike modern undergraduate studies, the curriculum was fixed rather than being a choice of diverse subjects as today.

Students also studied the Quadrivium, which consisted of Arithmetic, Music, Astronomy, and Geometry. Some authorities say universities awarded the MA degree for study of the Quadrivium, which came after the BA. Some say advanced aspects of the Trivium continued to be studied for the MA degree.

Dialectic, as part of the Trivium, attracted students who could argue, and it soon swept aside the other parts of the Trivium. Dialectic became a tool of Scholasticism, which set about trying to reconcile Christian thought with Aristotelian thought and made hair-splitting arguments to that end.

The Humanists of the C15th set themselves against the universities, particularly the Arts Faculty, where Dialectics dominated, and also Theology. Martin Luther (1483–1546), for instance, called the universities, ‘the Devil’s workshops.’

No sign of Psychology so far. at least not the Psychology whose late C19-early C20 practitioners aspired to make the study of mind an experimental science.

A new philosophical movement produced the work of the Encyclopedists (1751 and 1772) known as ‘Encyclopédie.’ This work had many contributors, including Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Denis Diderot. The work, with the full title Anglicized: Encyclopedia, or a Systematic Dictionary of the Sciences, Arts, and Crafts. Psychology was not included as a subject.

From C18, Philosophy had two major divisions in addition to Logic — Moral Philosophy and Natural Philosophy.

Moral Philosophy concerned mores and not, narrowly, only Ethics and morality. The Social Sciences later grew out of Moral Philosophy.

In the early C19, a new field of concentration, Mental Philosophy, grew out of Moral Philosophy. Around the same time, the sciences went from centers of scientific interest outside the universities, such as the Royal Society of London, into the universities. The universities absorbed the flourishing sciences and changed their organizational structure to accommodate them.

Natural Philosophy has continued as a speculative field concerned with ‘deep’ questions about ontology and epistemology, among other topics.

Around the turn of the century, speculative concerns about human nature and the human mind were combined with apparatus borrowed from Physics and Physiology to form the ‘new’ psychology, a self-declared ’scientific’ approach to the problems of Mental Philosophy.

Speculative concerns about human nature and the mind distinguished Mental Philosophy from the ‘new’ Psychology. Mental Philosophy continues to this day.

So What?

So. what can be said about the origins of Psychology in Philosophy?

Considered broadly, Psychology grew out of Philosophy, the body of works that covered advanced parts of the arts and sciences at first and which became a named and separate field around the turn of the C20 when it left behind the aspirant scientists of mind who founded Psychology.

More narrowly, Psychology came out of Mental Philosophy, a field that emerged from Moral Philosophy in early C19. The ‘new’ Psychology left behind Moral Philosophy’s concerns with immortality, morality, and the mind. Moral Philosophy continues today as a field separate from ‘scientific’ Psychology.

Psychology did not leave behind the concept of mind for good. The concept returned in the mid C20, its origins in Mental Philosophy in the broad sense being a matter that needs no defense.

Notes

Reference materials included the following
Burns, J. (1907). The Faculty of Arts. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 1, 2023 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01757a.htm
Pace, E. (1912). Universities. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 1, 2023 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15188a.htm

[¹]: Best source I found and that I draw on mostly for the diverse senses of ‘philosophy’: Collins English Dictionary — Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014, HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014.

[²]: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations.

[³]: Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary.

the systematic study of the structure and properties of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained

’Science’ first meant knowledge of any kind, and that included practical skill as well as general knowledge.

Later, ‘science’ came to mean natural science, which included everything not included as theology. It made sense then to include Ethics as among the natural sciences.

Later still, ‘science’ changed its meaning again, to mean the physical sciences. Much debate later persuaded universities to include other fields as sciences.

Science started with the concrete particulars of daily life, ordinary observation, and ordinary language.

Spratt, of the early Royal Society of the 1600s, emphasized the importance of concrete particulars and of language attuned to them. He said those who would do science had to deal with particulars in the ways of a tradesperson, with language that did not include the flourishes of the professors in the universities and that used a separate word for every particular.

Observation is not uniquely the province of the sciences. Neither are data. Telephone directories contain much data but do not count as science.

Science does not stay limited to concrete particulars. Science deals with classes of particulars, with classes of classes, with classes of classes, and so on. Science deals with particular fires (particulars), with classes of fire (the five classes of fire), with classes of classes of fire, and so on.

Science does not stay limited to the domain of ordinary observation. Science goes out from ordinary observation to the very large (galaxies etc) and the very small (the microscopic world) and to the very fast and the very slow (early evolution of H. sapiens).

Does Psychology do any of these things?

Psychology meets the ordinary definition of ‘science’, at least superficially. Psychologists would tell you they test their theories by experiment. But psychology had not achieved the replication of experiments achieved by the physical and biological sciences. This matters because the sciences ask and answer the question, “Do you see what I see?”

Also, Psychology did not start in ordinary experience, particularly in the experience of those who manipulated conduct and emotions, their own and those of other people. Abundant knowledge of this kind existed before Psychology emerged as a self-declared science in the early twentieth century. An example? The writings of the ancient Stoics.

Instead, Psychology began in professorial debates about the Soul of Man.

Further, Psychology has not gone from ordinary observation to the very fast or the very slow or to the very large or the very small. Psychology did not begin in ordinary observation, so a progression to the very fast, the very slow. etc. makes no sense when it comes to asking how Psychology offers theories about the world beyond the realm of ordinary observation. Instead, as a critic said long ago, at best, Psychology tells us what everybody knows in language no one can understand.

The root difference between (a) coherent discussions about chunks of human lives and (b) the discipline of Psychology lies, especially, in how speakers and writers in the two domains use the finite verbs do and be.

People can discuss chunks of human lives with utterances that use (a) do, did, or done as a finite verb or (b) a finite verb that some form of do can replace. People can say ‘Joe dug a hole in the garden. Yes, he did it.’ They can say, ‘The Australian government presented fake data at an international conference. Yes, it did.’

In contrast, Psychologists could not do Psychology if they relied exclusively on do as a finite verb and its replacements and never used the verb be and its replacements.

Psychologists rely on utterances formed around the finite verb be. They say things like ‘Cognition is ….’ and ‘Psychology is the science of cognition.’ They must make, and reason to and from, such claims to do Psychology.

People who want to discuss chunks of human lives need not use be. They might use be. But they need not. And, they keep their utterances closer to reality when they do not.

To explain these matters, I first discuss some basics of sentence structure, some basics of syntax.

With syntax up front, I will turn off some readers.

So, why do it?

The verb be, in all its forms, when included in claims of all sorts, ultimately misleads us, fuels insanity, and blocks progress in thought.

SVC Sentences

English includes sentences formed around be used as a finite verb. I mean be in all its forms ‘am,’ ‘is,’ ‘are,’ ‘was,’ ‘were,’ ‘being,’ and ‘been.’ I call these sentences, ‘be sentences.’ Or, SVC (subject, verb, complement) sentences.

English includes two groups of be sentence patterns.

Group 1. She is sad. Her hair is long. The nation is anxious.

Advocates of E-Prime, of English without the verb be, call this use of be ‘the ‘is’ of predication.’ The ‘is’ joins a noun (or pronoun) and another noun.

Group 2. ‘She is a Mexican’ ‘He is a professor.’ ‘That is a shoe.’
Advocates of E-Prime (English without the verb to be) call this use of be, ‘the ‘is’ of identity.’ The ‘is’ joins a noun (or pronoun) and an adjective.

What do the two groups have in common?
1. The same sentence pattern: SVC (subject, verb, complement).
2. The verb ‘be,’ in these examples formed as ‘is.’
3. A complement (shown in bold font). Specifically, a subject complement. In ‘She is sad,’ sad complements or adds a comment about the subject, ‘She.’ In ‘He is a professor, a professor complements or adds a comment about the subject, ‘He.’

Linking Verbs

The verb in a SVC sentence can be ‘be’ or a verb that ‘be’ can stand for. To explain:

The term ‘linking verb’ stands for ‘a finite verb that links or connects the subject of a sentence to the subject complement.’ ‘Link’ conveys the sense of ‘make, form, or suggest a connection between things.’

Examples of SVC sentences with some fom of be as the linking verb:
 — ‘They are old’
 — ‘She is an alien.’
 — ‘He had been depressed.’

Examples of SVC sentences with linking verbs other than be:
 — ‘They seem unhappy.
 — ‘He appears sad.’
 — ‘She became fat.’

Tests to Identify a Linking Verb

The same word can function in one sentence (SVO) as a linking verb, and in another sentence (SV, SVO), as an intransitive verb or as a transitive verb (activity verb).

Examples:
They **looked** worried (SVC) cf. They **looked** at the moon (SV)
She felt sad (SVC) cf. She felt the fabric (SVO)
She **smelt** (for “She is smelly”) (SVC) cf. She **smelt** the perfume (with ‘smelt’ in the sense of ‘sniffed at something to detect its odor’) (SVO)
She **sounds** nice (for ’She is nice it seems.’) (SVC) cf ‘She **sounded** the alarm.’ (SVO)
They **look** tired (for ‘They seem or are tired’) (SVC) cf ‘They **looked** at the sky (SVO)

Test of Grammar

In a sentence formed with a linking verb, the verb has no object. The subject of the verb has a complement, which completes the sentence.

Examples:
They **looked** worried cf They **looked** **at the moon**
She **appears** moody cf She **appeared** **at the cafe late**.
She **felt** sad cf She **felt** the timber ** with her finger tips**

Comments
In “They looked worried,’ the verb has no object. The word ‘worried’ complements ‘they.’
In “They looked at the moon,” ‘they looked” could stand alone as a SV sentence. “At the moon” functions as an adverbial added to “They looked.” You don’t need the adverbial to write a grammatical sentence in this case. The adverbial serves as an adjunct to the verb.
And so on.

Explain more: ‘They looked’ could stand alone as a SV sentence. ‘At the moon’ functions as an adverbial added on the end of the SV sentence.

True Linking Verbs?
Some authorities group ‘be,’ ‘become,’ and ‘seem’ together as ‘true linking verbs.’
They mean: be in all its forms (am/is/are/was/were/being/been), become in all its forms (became, becoming, becomes), seem in all its forms (seems, seeming, seemed)

I don’t agree
Become does not always function as a linking verb. Sometimes, become stands for ‘happen to,’ as in ‘What will become of her?” for “What will happen to her?”

Seem does not always link a complement to a subject. Example: A guarded or polite way to suggest something happened or needs doing (“It seems you broke my glass.”)

Become and seem function as linking verbs only when they convey senses that reduce to ‘be.’
Become: “It was something before. Now it is something else.”

Seem. “Maybe it is. Maybe it is not.” Example: “She seems tired” might mean “Maybe she is tired but maybe not.”

Rewrites from Linking Verbs to Activity Verb

Writers can do without linking verbs.

Possible rewrites from linking verb (‘be’ verb) to activity verb (‘do’ or ‘happen’ verb. | SVO Sentence | SV or SVO sentence |
| — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

| She became irritable | Something irritated her. |
| I think, therefore I am. | I think, therefore I live. |
| Are there any castles in this area? | Can I find castles in this area?

| Joe is shy. | Joe avoids people (etc.) |
| That woman is boring. | That woman bores me. |
| John is a botanist. | John works as a botanist. |

| Every particular is unique. | Every particular differs from every other particular, if only in its ‘when’ and ‘where.’ |
| Change is pervasive. | Everywhere I look, if I look hard enough, I see change. |
| Let A be a square matrix of order n. | Think of A as a square matrix of order n |

Why use linking verbs?

To speak or write in ways thought grammatical aka correct.’

To insist that something is.

To avoid having to think hard about who did what to whom for whose benefit.

No one needs any linking verb to get a point across. If you think you must use a linking verb, you have probably not achieved clarity about who did what in a particular situation.

You do need linking verbs, and especially the verb ‘be,’ to do Philosophy or Psychology.

So what?

Any field that would not exist without linking verbs falls outside the requirements of a rational society, as do linking verbs themselves .

“Object vs accept” as in “Do you mind this music.”
“Show caution vs take risks” as in “Mind the step.”
“Look after vs neglect” as in “Mind the children.”
“Notice vs miss” as in “Mind the details.”
“Obey vs disobey” as in “Mind the instructions.”

You can tell a story about yourself, about your mind in the familiar sense, by using these senses of mind. What do you object to rather than accept? What do you accept? What do you show caution towards rather than take risks with it? What do you take risks with? And so on.

“Rule your mind or it will rule you.” — Horace

That advice is not about a central entity between stimulus input to the body and motor output from the body, as Psychology would have us believe.

The advice boils down to the story about mind implicit in the verbal uses of mind. Manage what you notice vs ignore, what you accept vs oppose, what you care about (aka do something about) or ignore (do nothing about), etc.

Some more advice:

Watch your thoughts, they become words; watch your words, they become actions; watch your actions, they become habits; watch your habits, they become character; watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

In a word, notice. Notice what you do, mind it.

In this essay, I draw on the resources of English to distinguish things done from things that happen. Or, put differently ‘do’ from ‘happen.’ I conclude by saying that activity verbs, taken to represent behavior in Psychology, cover things we do and things that happen to us. The resources of English make a distinction that Psychology does not make.

Interchangeability of Do and Happen?

Happen and do often seem interchangeable.

“It happened. We dd it. We let it happen. We didn’t stop it from happening.”

Sometimes usage suggests a belief that only one can be true. Where people contradict uses of one rather than the other. “No it just happened.”

‘Happen’ and ‘do’ are NOT interchangeable in both directions

It was done always implies it happened.

But if something happened, that does not mean it was done.

The happen-do distinction is a case of the blurry distinctions we humans make. Where does the organism end and the environment begin? Etc. Yes, blurry. But that distracts from the next step. What questions does the distinction raise? How does the distinction lead us forward to clarify the topic?

First question: How do humans know something has happened

First question. “Did it happen at all?”

“Did you see it? Did someone else see it? Did you or someone else infer it from what was seen or from something inferred before from what was seen.”

These questions lead to statements in who-did-what syntax. Who saw it happen?

Second question: Just happen or done?

Sometimes the distinction boils down to a fuller or less full way of talking about something. The light came on. Talking in the language of things and what happens to them. Ask: who made it come on. Get a fuller statement: Joe turned on the light.

Did it just happen? Or did someone do it? Was it done (by a human agent) or did it just happen? Did Joe die? Yes. But, did he just die? Or did someone kill him? Did someone contribute, did someone cause his death?

I checked usage of ‘happen’ by looking in dictionaries.

Like most words in English, ‘happen’ has more than one sense. Happen functions only as a verb. The noun form adds the suffix -ing.

The leading sense of ‘happen’? Take place, occurred, as in “the accident occurred at 3:30.”

Other senses occur in the collocation ‘happen to.’

In some cases, you can replace happened to with occurred by chance. In other cases, you can replace happened to with befell someone.

I use the leading sense of happen here, with its nominal equivalents of a happening, an occurrence, or something that has taken place. Psychology would use ‘happen’ in its sense of something that befalls someone.

Things that Happen Include Things Done by Persons

Consensible prose lays bare two topics:

• Things and what happens to them. That includes persons as things (aka three-dimensional entities) and what happens to persons as things which includes what is done to them or what befalls them.
• Persons and what they do (i.e., begin, continue, and complete).

This distinction accommodates all activity verbs, which cover what happens to things and what persons do. The house sat on the hill. The blood ran down Joe’s face. Etc. Joe mowed the lawn. Mary bought the groceries this week. Etc.

What does all this mean for the traditions in Psychology of equating ‘behavior’ with ‘do’ and of treating what we do as something that happens to us?

In these traditions, whatever we do amounts to something that befalls us.

On the contrary, the resources of English distinguish what we do from what happens to us in the sense of what befalls us. And ‘to do something’ is a subset of ‘what happens’ in the sense of ‘happen’ that equates it with ‘occurrence.’ Psychological thought contradicts the resources of English.

Like most words in English, academic expresses more than one sense.

In its leading sense, academic stands for ‘of or relating to education and scholarship.’

In a variation of the leading sense, academic stands for ‘emphasizing reading and study rather than technical or practical work.’

In its second major sense, academic stands for ‘not of practical relevance, or of only theoretical interest.’ Used that way, the word often implies disapproval and perhaps contempt.

How I Use the Word Academic, and Why

I keep the familiar sense of academic that implies disapproval.

I follow the C16 New Philosophers, who rejected the way the professors of their time wrote and reasoned.

Spratt. writing about the academics of his time, rejected the failure to square assertions with practical matters.

“in Philosophy; a thousand fine Argumentations, and Fabricks in the mind, concerning the Nature of Body, Quantity, Motion, and the like, if they only hover aloof, and are not squared to particular matters, they may give an empty satisfaction, but no benefit”

Much if not most of the writing done in academc Psychology is academic in this sense.