In this dissertation I consider the question, "Is it possible to think the subject qua subject or must any theoretical attempt to understand the subject necessarily reify it?" To answer this question, I appealed to Immanuel Kant's distinction between theoretical and practical reason, noting that practical reason could think the subject as a free soul rather than as a naturally-determined object. I then divided the sciences of the subject into four general types to determine which science could think the subject qua subject. Three sciences were shown to necessarily reify the subject: empirical psychology, rational psychology, and heteronomous ethics. I then paralleled Kant's insight with Michel Foucault's analyses of the human sciences, showing the concrete consequences of objectification. Using Foucault's work on ethical practice and askesis as a guide, I returned to Kant and explained how practical reason can think the subject qua subject only insofar as it considers the subject as something to be made rather than a theoretical object to know. I then posed the question, “What are the necessary conditions for someone to be a subject of possible experience?” which led into a Kantian-inspired theory of love and intersubjectivity. Finally, I concluded that contemporary psychology is mired in an impasse between happiness and freedom, insofar as therapeutic practice is no longer an ethic. I suggest the need for a practical psychology to solve this impasse. / McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts; / Philosophy / PhD; / Dissertation;
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:DUQUESNE/oai:digital.library.duq.edu:etd/197201 |
| Date | 04 May 2017 |
| Creators | Valentine, Matthew Gordon |
| Contributors | James Swindal, Fred Evans, Jay Lampert |
| Source Sets | Duquesne University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | One year embargo: no access to PDF file until release date by author request.; |
Page generated in 0.0055 seconds