The Cartesian Continuity: The Enduring Influence of Descartes' Philosophy on Modern Psychology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64744/tjiss.2025.37Keywords:
theoretical foundations, dualism, mind-body problem, modern psychology, Cartesian philosophyAbstract
This paper examines the persistent and often unacknowledged influence of René Descartes' philosophical framework on the conceptual foundations of modern psychology. Despite explicit rejections of Cartesian substance dualism by many psychological schools, this analysis argues that core Cartesian ideas concerning the mind-body relationship, subjectivity, and methodological rigour continue to shape contemporary theory and research. The paper first outlines the essential tenets of Cartesian ontology and methodology. It then traces the transformation and adaptation of these ideas across five major psychological perspectives: cognitivism, subjectivism, psychoanalysis, behaviourism, and biological psychology. The findings reveal that Cartesian philosophy functions as a generative paradigm, with its distinctions between mind and body, subject and object, and rational and empirical inquiry remaining central to psychological discourse. The paper concludes that recognising this "Cartesian continuity" is crucial for understanding the theoretical fragmentation within psychology and advocates for a renewed integration of philosophical reflection with empirical science to achieve a more coherent understanding of the human mind.
Downloads
References
[1] Chen, Q. (2011). A review of the development of Marxist psychology. Journal of Hexi University, 03, 77–82. https://doi.org/10.13874/j.cnki.62-1171/g4.2011.03.018.
[2] Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[3] Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4952.001.0001
[4] Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1552.001.0001
[5] Clark, A. (2016). Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217013.001.0001
[6] Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Putnam.
[7] Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness.New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
[8] Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
[9] Descartes, R. (1933). Methodology. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[10] Descartes, R. (1991). Guiding principles for the search for truth. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[11] Descartes, R. (1991). Talk about methods. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[12] Descartes, R. (1998). First Philosophical Meditations. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[13] Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
[14] Fodor, J. (1990). A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[15] Freud, S. (1957). The unconscious (J. Strachey, Ed.). Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1915)
[16] Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787
[17] Frith, C. D. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2213–2223. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0123
[18] Fuchs, T. (2018). Ecology of the brain: The phenomenology and biology of the embodied mind. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199646883.001.0001
[19] Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199271941.001.0001
[20] Gallagher, S. (2018). Action and interaction. Oxford University Press.
[21] Gazzaniga, M. S. (2018). The consciousness instinct: Unravelling the mystery of how the brain makes the mind. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[22] Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
[23] Henley, T. (2019). Hergenhan's An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Boston: Cengage Learning.
[24] Hohwy, J. (2013). The predictive mind. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682737.001.0001
[25] Husserl, E. (1960). Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology (D. Cairns, Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. (Original work published 1931) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4952-7_1
[26] Jung, C. (1971). Symbol of transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[27] Jung, C. (1972). The psychological foundation of beliefs. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[28] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[29] Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
[30] Li, S. (1933). Introduction to philosophy. Beijing: World Book House.
[31] Li, X. (2006). Research on Descartes' methodology. Guizhou University.
[32] Lin, C. (2003). The Dictionary of Psychology (Part II). Shanghai: Shanghai Education Publishing House.
[33] Liu, H. (2014). "Decoding" the Shape and quality theory of the second generation of cognitive science paradox. World philosophy, (6), 120–128. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZXYC.0.2014-06-012
[34] Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
[35] May, R. (1969). Love and will. New York, NY: Norton.
[36] Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Fredrickson, B., Loftus, R., & Wagenaar, A. (2009). Atkinson & Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology. Andover: Cengage Learning.
[37] Panksepp, J., & Biven, L. (2012). The archaeology of mind: Neuroevolutionary origins of human emotions. New York, NY: Norton.
[38] Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
[39] Searle, J. R. (2004). Mind: A brief introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195157338.001.0001
[40] Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behaviour. New York, NY: Macmillan.
[41] Tibbetts, P. (1973). A historical note on Descartes' psychophysical dualism. Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, 9(2), 162–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(197304)9:2<162::AID-JHBS2300090209>3.0.CO;2-F DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(197304)9:2<162::AID-JHBS2300090209>3.0.CO;2-F
[42] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
[43] Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001
[44] Watson, J. B. (1994). Psychology as the Behaviourist Views It. Psychological Review, 101(2), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.101.2.248
[45] Wertz, F. J. (1998). The Role of the Humanistic Movement in the History of Psychology. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 38(1), 42–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678980381006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678980381006
[46] Wu, L. (2005). Two Humanistic Approaches In Western Psychology: On the Humanistic Psychology and Phenomenological Psychology. Journal of Northwest Normal University (02),50–54. https://doi.org/10.16783/j.cnki.nwnus.2005.02.012.
[47] Zahavi, D. (2019). Phenomenology: The basics. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315441603
[48] Zhang, G. (2008). From Descartes to Marx. Social science forum.
[49] Zhou, X. (2010). Two cognitive orientations of the humanistic view of education: A comparative study of Sukhomlinsky and Carl Rogers’ humanistic educational thought. Modern Education Forum, (6), 7–9. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:XDJY.0.2010-06-004
