Still reading but enjoying it MUCH.Much was said about Imam Ghazali r.a. and the philosophers for his 20-point refutations but (someday, I will expound on this!), Imam Ghazali r.a. actually extended their views on mental processes via Qalb, Nafs, Ruh and Aql.Let me give you an example from the book -(On Plato)Yet he was a sensible man with wide experience of the world, and some of his psychological conjectures about the soul are down-to-earth and sound almost contemporary. In some of the middle and later dialogues - notable the Republic, the Phaedrus, and Timaeus - he says that when soul (me in: RUH!) inhabits a body, it operates on three levels: thought or reason (me in: AQL!), spirit or will (QALB!), and appetite or desire (NAFS!).... He likens the soul, in the Phaedrus, to a team of two steeds, one lively but obedient (spirit), the other violent and unruly (appetite), the two yoke together and driven by a charioteer (reason) who, with considerable effort, makes them cooperate and pull together."....(Pg. 27)I am convinced 100%, you know I know, what beliefs they had :)*Will never forget how that professor said for us to abandon Imam Ghazali r.a. for newer theories. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to prove to her that what Imam r.a. did is timeless and relevant for all times. I don't think she understands how truly great our classical scholars of the Golden Age were.** Also I am convinced that those who subscribe to the orientalists' views (that Imam Ghazali r.a caused downfall of Muslim philosophy) have neither read and understood Imam Ghazali r.a. nor have they read and understood the philosophers' works themselves!
Ok, this is a history book so it's quite dry. But if you've read or heard about Edward G. Boring's (not kidding about that name) tome on the history of psychology, Hunt's book is a delightful read.If you are a psychology major or thinking about heading in to grad school, you might find this book helpful / interesting because it shows the progression of schools of psychological perspectives (how/why did neo-Freudians break from true Freudians?) and evolution of other perspectives (how/why did existentialism / humanism come from behaviorism?).But you have to be 'into' psychology to really get in to this book. Even then, it's quite dry and reads like a textbook (which it is).
Do You like book The Story Of Psychology (2007)?
It's a pleasure to learn about the giants in the field of psychology. Morton makes at least one apology for his focus on "great men in history." While he admits that the times in which these men lived contributed to their ideas and work, Hunt is much more concerned about how individual pioneers shaped psychology in particular and popular thought in general. I had little use for the early chapters about the Greek and European thinkerss whose ideas anticipated psychology. Things became much more interesting when Hunt introduces protopsychologists who worked in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
—SassieFrassie
I really like the way that this book was constructed. It is basically a history of psychology and doesn't get bogged down in any single topic for too long. Contrary to some other readers, I enjoyed the chapters concerned with early philosophical speculation about the origin and nature of mental processes. It greatly added to my knowledge in this area which previously consisted of what I learned in an Intro to Philosophy course. The section on the "proto-psychologists" was highly enlightening insomuch as it discussed the transition from metaphysical theorizing to scientific inquiry. I was already familiar with Freud and the Behaviorists so those sections were a sort of review. The parts of the books dedicated to developmental and social psychology made for fascinating reading and the section on the cognitive revolution was very informative. The book lost its momentum toward the end. I felt that the writer gave a skimpy overview of the many forms of psychotherapy and said little to nothing about psychopharmacology. But I can't be too critical as these topics can be considered to be beyond the scope of this work and somewhat incongruous. Perhaps these were the revisions of the 1993 text but in my opinion, the final two chapters seemed like an afterthought. But overall this was a great history of a complex and fragmented field.
—John M.
