[I was replying here to Jebediah's message #25, but I see that things have moved on apace!]
I accept that that is true, although it would be more accurate to say that literature and psychology (in the sense of a science) are both parts
of the study of persons.
My interest in the study of persons is not limited to that part of it which is scientific.
This reminds me (of something I was thinking of mentioning in this thread anyway):
Cutting a long story short (because it's past my bedtime here in the UK), what brought me to this forum was an online conversation, back in January, on one of the BBC Radio 4 message boards, which was cut short (as so many conversations there are cut short, to the frustration of many of us!).
We were discussing a radio programme in which Richard Dawkins had said something about devout Muslims. This led on to a mention of Buddhism, and a reference to an interesting article by Sam Harris:
Shambhala Sun - Killing the Buddha
In message #79 of the thread on the BBC message board:
BBC - MESSAGE BOARDS - Radio 4 - Richard Dawkins' Fundamentalism - Conversation
I identified what I took (and still take) to be a non sequitur
in Harris's argument.
The conversation was cut short, and I haven't had the opportunity to pursue the argument any further; however, I remain very interested in the form which a "progressive, non-dogmatic understanding of the mind" might take.
In message #39 of that thread, I had written:
I really hope we will move beyond both organised religion and medical psychiatry, into some kind of progressive, non-dogmatic understanding of the mind; but such an understanding cannot be scientific, it will in many respects resemble religion, and we do not even seem yet to have an intellectual framework in which to develop such an understanding.
and, to the first part of that sentence, someone had immediately replied:
We did 2.5 thousand years ago - it's called Buddhism.
The conversation appeared to be moving into an interesting and fruitful area, which is why it was so frustrating that it was cut off [is that the root meaning of "frustrated"? - I forget], prompting me to look for a philosophical forum where I could discuss this issue, in particular (as well as others, of course).
In message #68 of the thread, I had written:
Yes, it's a very interesting article indeed, and bears out what betula was saying earlier (in response for something I wrote about the need for a progressive non-dogmatic understanding of the mind, or something to that effect).
Also, we now have Dawkins quoted or paraphrased thus:
(1) "If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book."
(2) Dawkins regards Buddhism (like pantheism) as a species of atheism.
So there appears to be much fertile ground for peaceful, creative, intelligent and honest agreement in No Man's Land.
That was before I ran into what I considered to be the non sequitur
of Harris assuming that there could be a "scientific
account of the contemplative path" (my emphasis) which would "utterly transcend its religious associations".
The syllogism I invented here earlier reminded me of the fallacy I believed to exist in what Harris was saying.
But I was already thinking of referring to that article, and the conversation on the BBC message board, to give a slightly clearer idea of what kind of interest I have in philosophy.
I haven't re-read Harris's article, and it's possible that I'm misrepresenting it, or otherwise indulging in some logical fallacy of my own.
Anyway, I will probably start a thread about this issue in one of the other forums here.