|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
More sober rewrite recommended
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)
Contradiction with disambiguation page
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.
THe article is not scientific
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)
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. 188.8.131.52 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
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
|This page 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)
By the way: I am German and I don't think that the German Seele means psyche and soul. Seele means soul. Full stop. The German word Geist produces problem when translation because Geist means both mind and soul. --184.108.40.206 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section "Consider" because it was a statement of someones personal opinion rather than an expression of facts. Such topics in my understanding, need to be given in the context of verifiable points of view from referenced historical and contemporary literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Article needs broader point of view
The title of this article is "psyche (psychology" and yet the article covers only one school of psychology, namely psychoanalysis, which at present is a minority school. The article should be rewritten from the point of view of the general history of psychology, which includes ancient, medieval, and modern psychology. The discipline of psychology itself obviously refers to the concept of the psyche, but it does not follow from this that the discipline of psychology is wedded to psychoanalytic concepts. Psychoanalysis is one of many schools of psychology. The use of the word psyche in other schools of psychology and philosophy needs to be examined here - and other analogous words such as anima, soul, etc.Wwallacee (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Suggested change to Cognitive Psychology section
I'd like to offer a suggested change to this page but since I'm such a newbie I'd rather propose it here and see what other, more experienced, Wikipedians think. Here's my suggested change:
Instead of "Cognitive psychology" as the last section of the page, I suggest the following:
The term mind has largely replaced "psyche" to describe the central mediating force in humans (and, perhaps, in other animals as well) that experiences thoughts, feelings, and perceptions and which instructs the body to respond to the external environment.
I suggest the above because, in part, I don't think it's only cognitive psychologists who hold this view.
I wish I could cite references but the only one I could find is Stedman's Medical Dictionary, which offers this definition of "psyche":
"The mind functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and behavior and consciously or unconsciously mediating the body's responses to the social and physical environment."
The reference for Stedman's is:
"psyche." The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 22 Jul. 2011. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psyche>.
Although I think the Stedman's definition of psyche is pretty darn good, I assume that it's copyrighted so can't be used on a Wikipedia page. Is this correct?