Cittasanto wrote: danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:the standard definition would suffice.
There isn't a standard definition that I'm aware of, and my B.A. is in Psychology.
The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behaviour in a given context.
I believe this would be a general description of most if not all psychological disciplines.
This is quite helpful and might help clarify my perspective. I was (and at times still am) partial to behaviorism. But as an undergrad and graduate student, I also took as many philosophy classes as I could, so I was constantly checking those studies against what Skinnner et al
called "mentalism," and became especially oppposed (and still am) to it's Freudian Structuralist expression. Skinner himself was also very interested in epistemology, which I found a little strange since knowing implies mind. Granted, Skinner et al
(despite Chomsky's serious misunderstandings and propoganda campaing against Skinner) never denied the existence of Mind, but they did seriously question the utility of the using mind experimentally. However, when I became a Buddhist, I further re-examined my views on mentalism and Philosophy of Mind and warmed up more to the value of understanding reality in terms of Mind. This effect was compouned when I was turned on to REBT (Albert Ellis) and CBT (David D. Burns) which combined
behaviorsim with the psychology of cognition. Currently, I find that behaviorism is "covered" by the Buddha in terms of karma, but that the "best" general fit for Buddhism (for now) seeems to be with CBT and REBT, especially the lattter.
So, what does this have to do with your OP? This: it's an outline of my attempt to approximate intellectual integrity as a modern Buddhist. How do you think I've done so far?