Philosophy and Psychology Engaged: The Sincere, Practical, Timely and Felicitous Proposal of a Highly Suitable Marriage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting and well written paper advocating the education of psychology and philosophy in a combined manner so as to promote applied wisdom in the educational system and correspondingly also general human well-being. The conceptual substructure of the paper is a phenomenological-existential perspective on the basis of Jungian analytical theory combined with a developmental approach as provided by Piaget and Erickson. Clearly, the arguments provided are very thoughtful and I can only applaud the author for his remarks. While I agree that welding of psychology and philosophy is valuable, I am surprised that the field of ethics is not explicitly included. Thus, the implicit assumption seems to be that ethics is an integral part both of philosophy and psychology. While that might be true, it can also be debated. I would argue that ethical reflection and behaviour would be the necessary third component. Also with regard to the developmental perspective over a lifetime, what I miss is the discussion of a central positive psychological construct “post-traumatic growth” given that this seems to be central for individual growth and development. Nevertheless, if that conceptual approach was to be taken seriously, it would consequentially lead to the reintegration of the spiritual realm into education. Having worked in higher education for almost 20 years and having tried to introduce mindfulness and spirituality at different levels at the University sector, I have come to the conclusion that this is a very difficult and painstaking endeavor. The largest obstacle from my perspective is – apart from aversion against the term spirituality as a purportedly antiscientific or at best acientific endeavor - the divisional structuring of the sciences with the theoretical rather than a pragmatic grounding. I opine that higher education would need a more ethically reflected pragmatist approach, correspondingly shifting education in a more applied direction with self reflection and self regulation skills at the center. This may be considered to be a functionalised and secular form of spirituality, and correspondingly the question arises, whether it has to be framed as “spiritual”. I believe that the paper could merit from including this discussion and reflecting it on the current COVID crisis to a larger degree. I also have some general remarks and points of criticism while I read the manuscript. My my most important points are marked with an Asterisk (*).

1. *Throughout the whole manuscript this seems to be a problem with the references, as the brackets “[]”are empty.
2. (p2) A point is that developmental psychology being the most important sub-branch of psychology for this endeavor. While I would agree that developmental psychology is of people importance from a clinician´s viewpoint, this statement could be debated. In contrast to famous William James, Wilhelm Wundt, one of the founding fathers of experimental psychology would have disagreed and therefore suggested to use general psychology or as a makeshift solution psychophysiology as a starting point. So this argument seems to be a bit arbitrary to me.
3. *(p3) Science is contrasted with Wisdom, and I wonder why the also has not used the term knowledge. As a matter of fact, there is no single coherent enterprise of science as such, but rather a plethora of endeavors such as e.g. quantum physics and gender studies summarized under the umbrella term science. How can “wisdom” then be obtained in quantum physics, given inability to have direct experiential access to subatomic dimensions? Also, what is the essence of wisdom in gender studies given its cultural and contextual dependence? Additionally I would strongly disagree with the notion that Science is Science is the (intellectual) knowledge of facts; from a functional point of view become the new church. I am also not sure, if wisdom can be married to an utilitarist-pragmastist ethics by stating “Wisdom is the knowledge of how to be and behave for the best, for all concerned, in any given situation”. Does this imply that in the Philippa Foot`s trolley problem for example, I wise men would push another person actively in front of the train so as to save the life of five others?
4. (P.4) “The world is never seen as what it is but only as what it becomes once we decide to observe it and hence modify it". The same is of course true for introspection as famous physicist Nils Bohr has elaborated on in his famous essay “Atom physics and human knowledge).
5. (P.4) “It may seem to some like heresy to say so, but science has no absolute knowledge.” Formally proven by young Kurt Gödel in the 1930s!
6. (P. 11). I am not completely sure if the constructs depicted in table 1 are complementary or have perhaps to be considered as opposites! Please clarify!
7. (P 14). “Two of the most useful wisdom practices are 'contemplation' and 'meditation'” - it might be noteworthy to mention, that both notions meditation and medicine share the same etymological core, “medi”, which in Sanskrit refers to “to make whole again”. In this vein, this can be considered to be similar the connection between health and wholeness discussed earlier in the paper.
8. (P. 14) Neuro-psychologists have clarified what happens at the biological level during meditation. I am a bit surprised that only EEG findings are summarised while imaging studies are not mentioned.

Author Response

R 1.This is an interesting and well written paper advocating the education of psychology and philosophy in a combined manner so as to promote applied wisdom in the educational system and correspondingly also general human well-being. The conceptual substructure of the paper is a phenomenological-existential perspective on the basis of Jungian analytical theory combined with a developmental approach as provided by Piaget and Erickson. Clearly, the arguments provided are very thoughtful and I can only applaud the author for his remarks. Response: Thank you. In return, I applaud your attempts to introduce mindfulness and spirituality to the university. I agree with your conclusion, "That this is a very difficult and painstaking endeavor", hence my recommendation (despite the apparent urgency associated with global warming, the Covid-19 pandemic etc.) for an unhurried evolutionary, rather than precipitate revolutionary approach... "Rome wasn't built in a day". You may have confidence, I would say, that among your fortunate students there will be many pioneers of the next generation who will contribute to the spreading of wisdom.

R 1. While I agree that welding of psychology and philosophy is valuable, I am surprised that the field of ethics is not explicitly included... I would argue that ethical reflection and behaviour would be the necessary third component. Response: You have shared something of your academic background, so perhaps I can reciprocate. I am a seventy-year-old retired physician, psychiatrist and wisdom-seeker with no academic training in philosophy, and little education concerning the field of ethics, so do not feel competent to discuss this subject. I can only apologize for my ignorance. I have, though, added a paragraph on Kohlberg's scheme of moral development, which fits with the rest of the paper, and a definition of ethics attributed to Schweitzer. I hope those inclusions will go some way towards satisfying your concern.

R 1. I opine that higher education would need a more ethically reflected pragmatist approach, correspondingly shifting education in a more applied direction with self reflection and self regulation skills at the center. Response: Thank you again. I have included this opinion (with slightly altered wording) in my Conclusion.

R 1. What I miss is the discussion of a central positive psychological construct “post-traumatic growth”. Response: Thank you for the nudge. I have now included some remarks on post-traumatic growth.

R 1. I believe that the paper could merit from including this discussion and reflecting it on the current COVID crisis to a larger degree. Response: I am not sure I have exactly understood your point here. I am concerned not to make the paper over-long and unwieldy, and the Covid-19 pandemic is already mentioned several times throughout the paper. (I have also now added two further references to it, including in my Conclusion.) If this remains an issue for you, please clarify what you are looking for and I will do my best to address it.

R 1. General remarks and points of criticism: Most important marked with an Asterisk (*).

1. *Throughout the whole manuscript this seems to be a problem with the references, as the brackets “[]”are empty. Response: I apologize. The brackets contained numbers when I uploaded the document, but I used Word 2003 software, so they obviously got lost when re-formatted. I will do my best to put it right.
2. R 1. (p2) A point is that developmental psychology being the most important sub-branch of psychology for this endeavor. While I would agree that developmental psychology is of people importance from a clinician's viewpoint, this statement could be debated. In contrast to famous William James, Wilhelm Wundt, one of the founding fathers of experimental psychology would have disagreed and therefore suggested to use general psychology or as a makeshift solution psychophysiology as a starting point. So this argument seems to be a bit arbitrary to me. Response: I counter your use of 'arbitrary' because the decision to use the developmental psychology approach was carefully considered. However, I accept that other branches of psychology are relevant and have amended that paragraph accordingly.
3. R 1. *(p3) Science is contrasted with Wisdom, and I wonder why the also has not used the term knowledge. I have indeed used the term knowledge. As a matter of fact, there is no single coherent enterprise of science as such, but rather a plethora of endeavors such as e.g. quantum physics and gender studies summarized under the umbrella term science. How can “wisdom” then be obtained in quantum physics, given inability to have direct experiential access to subatomic dimensions? Also, what is the essence of wisdom in gender studies given its cultural and contextual dependence? Response: Again, with apologies, I am not sure I have understood your point exactly. However, I have now introduced further discussion of science, and of both quantum physics and gender studies, in the hope of addressing these points in your favour. I have also expanded the paragraph on health.

R 1. Additionally I would strongly disagree with the notion that Science is Science is the (intellectual) knowledge of facts; from a functional point of view become the new church. I am also not sure, if wisdom can be married to an utilitarist-pragmastist ethics by stating “Wisdom is the knowledge of how to be and behave for the best, for all concerned, in any given situation”. Does this imply that in the Philippa Foot`s trolley problem for example, I wise men would push another person actively in front of the train so as to save the life of five others? Response: Again, I'm afraid that my ignorance regarding ethics gets in the way of my fully grasping your comments and criticism. I had to look up Foot's 1967 paper on the Trolley Problem. On doing so, I decided I could include reference to it, but perhaps not precisely in the way you might have anticipated.

4. R 1. (P.4) “The world is never seen as what it is but only as what it becomes once we decide to observe it and hence modify it". The same is of course true for introspection as famous physicist Nils Bohr has elaborated on in his famous essay “Atom physics and human knowledge). Response: Thank you again. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the Bohr essay. I would say, though, that ego-driven "introspection" and ego-free "contemplation" may lead to qualitatively different experiences and conclusions.

5. R 1. (P.4) “It may seem to some like heresy to say so, but science has no absolute knowledge.” Formally proven by young Kurt Gödel in the 1930s! Response: That's great! Thanks again for the heads up.

6. R 1. (P. 11). I am not completely sure if the constructs depicted in table 1 are complementary or have perhaps to be considered as opposites! Please clarify! Response: I have revised the introductory comments to Table 1. I hope it's clearer.

7. R 1.(P 14). “Two of the most useful wisdom practices are 'contemplation' and 'meditation'” - it might be noteworthy to mention, that both notions meditation and medicine share the same etymological core, “medi”, which in Sanskrit refers to “to make whole again”. In this vein, this can be considered to be similar the connection between health and wholeness discussed earlier in the paper. Response: Thank you. My researches on this reveal that the words meditation and medicine do share an origin: the Proto-Indo-European med-, which meant “measure” or “take appropriate measures”, and by extension also “to give advice” and “to heal”. It is not a strong connection, but I have included it anyway in the section on Spiritual Skills.

8. R 1. (P. 14) Neuro-psychologists have clarified what happens at the biological level during meditation. I am a bit surprised that only EEG findings are summarised while imaging studies are not mentioned. Response: Thanks for the nudge here. I have added an account of imaging studies, also in the section on Spiritual Skills.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper does not fit into this expression in the requirements of a scientific article in the field of philosophy, being rather a material for the educational field, after a revision of the content and citations used. The requirements of a scientific paper are not fully respected, by presenting the subject, the sometimes excessive use of quotations and the scholastic interpretation of some authors in the field, the inserted figure do not clearly express the author's contribution, and the indicated references are incomplete. The paper seems to be a draft, especially by using citations like [] without indicating the final reference number. By using an epigraph at the beginning of the paper and recounting an allegory told at the end, the paper moves away from the requirements of a scientific article specific to the field, being rather a good book chapter. I recommend the complete revision of the paper and the correct choice of the field and the journal in which the approached topic can be included.

Author Response

Reviewer 2. The paper does not fit into this expression in the requirements of a scientific article in the field of philosophy, being rather a material for the educational field, after a revision of the content and citations used. The requirements of a scientific paper are not fully respected.

The author's contribution, and the indicated references are incomplete. The paper seems to be a draft, especially by using citations like [] without indicating the final reference number.

I recommend the complete revision of the paper and the correct choice of the field and the journal in which the approached topic can be included.

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review this paper. I apologize for the absence of citation numbers. These were present when I uploaded the Word 2003 document but went missing when it was reformatted. I will do my best to correct this. I am now using Word Microsoft 365.

Please note that I was invited to write this paper for the Special Edition of the journal, 'From the Acquisition of Knowledge to the Promotion of Wisdom'. I do not have an academic scientific or philosophical background, being a retired physician and psychiatrist, and a long-term wisdom-seeker. Regarding your concerns, I sought advice and received the following message from the journal's editorial office: According to the opinion of the academic editor, I  revise my manuscript based primarily on the opinion of the reviewer 1.  For this reason, as instructed, I have based my revision primarily on the opinion and extensive comments of the other reviewer, which read in part; "This is an interesting and well written paper... Clearly, the arguments provided are very thoughtful and I can only applaud the author for his remarks". Reviewer 1 also noted the regrettable absence of citation numbers.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper shows improvements . We recommend that the closing allegory from the end of paper to be noted by author like as addendum of the paper, and will be respected the structure for article form, with a short comment can be included inside the conclusion section, as a reference at this annex.

Author Response

Thank you for your further comments. I consider the allegory as integral to the paper, being an important way of conveying wisdom. Setting convention aside by including it at the end, rather than finishing with the Conclusion, is also consistent with this paper, aimed at introducing new thinking to challenge existing academic stereotypes. Nevertheless, I have made the alteration you have requested, altering too the Abstract to reflect this change.