Search

Concerned with the study of empirical correlations between elements of behavior and external circumstances, and especially with the research of these empirical relationships in a much simpler manner than it would be suitable for their complex nature, many psychologies rarely look at the fundamental issues of capability, or assumptions, of their own noetic efforts. Instead, there are multiple "views" that pretend to be psychological theories. The concept of psychology as a study of soul necessarily relies on the concept of science, and on the concept of soul as its subject. It is still the case - especially in academic circles - that the ruling concept of science is the modern, Cartesian, scientific concept where natural science is the only paradigm of science. When applied to the science of soul, that scientific paradigm inevitably gives different variations of reductionist psychology: from experimental psychology to neurophysiology. The truth (or factual knowledge as content) of such studies of soul must inevitably be reduced and scarce, namely, a reduced and scarce knowledge of soul itself. General psychological theory, of course, cannot be a compromise formation of disparate attitudes, rules and principles, nor can it, epistemologically, be an eclectic knowledge of mental phenomena. If different psychological theories, approaches, and points of view, which are sometimes, pretentiously, being called schools, see each mental theme or content in a totally different way, then it is necessary to examine the type, quality and place of the truth those psychologies strive for. It is not logical to expect such different approaches to reach the same truth, the same understanding of the correlations of psychological facts. In that case, the most logical question that can be asked is whether it is the same area of research and whether it is the same science about psyche.

In psychology, as in other sciences, surely there are concepts that are not theoretically based and are not consistently thought trough. One of these concepts that has found a significant place in the understanding of artistic creativity and psychology of art overall is Arnheim's term: 'visual perception'. It can be said, as Arnheim does, that any perception is thinking at the same time, all reasoning is also intuition, each observation invention, provided that this approach can be deduced from a psychological theory. Starting from Gestalt psychology that seems to be impossible. Understandably, Arnheim, as Gestalt psychologist, with this term wanted to point out that the whole is different than the sum of its parts. 'A visual thinking' was supposed to add something more to the perceptual experience, a property that the perception does not have. Since Gestalt psychology is not based on the psychic apparatus and deferred system, with different functions and especially those unconscious, it is difficult to talk about the theoretical grounding of this notion. Only after postulating these moments Arnheim could elaborate his view that the process of observing the world is interaction between the properties that certain object provides and observers nature. That 'nature of the observer' can only be viewed within the psychic apparatus. In the creativity (art and science), where it aims to be a basic explanatory principle, 'visual perception' is faced with difficulties such as statements from Goetea and Helmholtz, that what is important and new in their creation was given as a free forethought, and that their knowledge came as something almost complete.