Veritas, you've got to be kidding.
Philosphy is the realm of fundamental realities and metaphysics, psychology is the realm of human consciousness, so saying psychology should self-decapitate into philosophy is like saying Biology should self-decapitate and turn into maths. Realms of knowledge are not identical and philosophy (which I love, mind you) is just one area of human knowledge. Philosphy is concerned with objective reality, psychology is about how human minds work based on intuitions into a breadth of human experience. There is no way philosophy can replace it.
Veri I get you, I felt the subjectivity while learning Psychoanalysis 101 from Freud, half the time I was like WTF. Things get even more hazy when you get into psychologically profiling personalities and sorting them into boxes the way Jung seems to have done. There just isn't enough descriptive data to foolproof the classifications, it's like a new language that needs to build up on the vocabulary so it can capture a broader more accurate sense of the human experience. I don't know how many words one needs to accurately quantify a pixel, 1000? Human experiences are as unique as the fingerprint, no 2 individuals in the whole history of mankind have identical fingerprints. Yet some conditions are so extreme that they can actually be classified eg I do believe that psychopaths exist.
By the way Bella has provided an intersect between the cosmic precog and actual events. It's worth a note.
Brynn, I get what you are saying. The thing about psychology in general, including all forms of psychotherapy, is that because it studies the human mind it necessarily goes subjective, built on insights gained from the study of particular/individual minds which experiences must be transmitted and cant be put in a lab for a test. Only so much personal experience can be transmitted to another. Yet, over time, there is enough data for patterns across individuals in general to begin to emerge. Which makes sense, because while we are all unique individuals, we are also a single species, so there must be a shared structure in our psyche. There's much grey area where individual experience (which is unrepeatable) coupled with individual choices and abilities meet with the more general areas. Sorting all that out is the stuff of psyche subjects like psychology/psychiatry and its necessarily messy. But it's not useless. Not all of it, anyway.
Jungian psychological types are not meant to explain everything about an individual. They are just an intuition of certain more or less definite patterns that humans display in their thinking. They dont' account for psychosis, personal choices or the entire breadth of experience a human grows thro'. I do find that they are very uselful, however, in some interpersonal situations. They can go along way in clearing up personality clashes that at first glance appear to be something more,--ike misunderstandings based on dislike/character etc which may not be true at all, that is, once you start knowing how to pick up the patterns.
