Christian de Quincey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMUNICATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scrapbook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sitemap
|
|
|
Deep Spirit: Fundamental Meaning
|
|
|
|
|
The Fundamental Meaning of ‘Consciousness’
Q: You distinguish between the philosophical and psychological meanings of consciousness—but don't philosophers sometimes use consciousness in the "psychological" sense, and don't psychologists sometimes address philosophical issues?
Both philosophers and psychologists talk and write about consciousness as a topic of research; and they often use the term in radically different ways.
But you are quite right: It’s not really a difference between psychologists and philosophers, or their respective fields of study that's responsible for this fundamental discinction. It’s a difference between psychological and philosophical uses or meanings of “consciousness.”
Many philosophers can and do use the “psychological” meaning when discussing consciousness; and vice versa, many psychologists use the “philosophical” meaning.
The issue to focus on is not the field of the people talking or writing about consciousness, but their use of the term: Are they using “consciousness” in contrast to non-consciousness (philosophical meaning) or in contrast to un-conscious (psychological meaning)?
There is a world of difference between being “unconscious” (e.g., being asleep, dreaming, or in a coma) and being “nonconscious” (utterly lacking any mental or subjective reality). To be “unconscious” still implies or requires some trace or degree of consciousness (mental activity still goes on during sleep or dreaming, for instance). So the “psychological” unconscious still has consciousness in the philosophical sense.
The philosophical meaning of consciousness, therefore, is more fundamental—because the psychological meaning presupposes the existence of consciousness in the philosophical sense.
Next: Spiritual Meaning
|
|
|
