Psychology as Applied & Practical Philosophy

The proceeding discussion argues (briefly) that psychology, particularly in its theoretical and counselling forms, is not a science in the conventional sense but a form of applied or practical philosophy. While psychology borrows empirical methods and terminology from the natural sciences, its subject matter-the human mind, meaning, and moral reasoning-requires interpretive and philosophical understanding. Through an examination of how psychological theory operates at multiple levels, from empirical data to ultimate worldview assumptions, and using cognitive dissonance research as an illustrative example, this discussion demonstrates that psychological explanations often rest on unacknowledged philosophical foundations.

Counselling psychology, especially, depends on subjective interpretation, ethical reasoning, and existential dialogue, aligning it more closely with philosophical inquiry than with experimental science. Recognising psychology as applied philosophy restores its rightful place among the humanities and clarifies its essential role as a reflective practice aimed at understanding human meaning rather than merely predicting behaviour.

Psychology’s Enduring Identity Crisis

Few disciplines occupy such an ambiguous position between science and philosophy as psychology. Since its formal separation from philosophy in the late nineteenth century, psychology has aspired to the methodological rigor of the natural sciences. Yet, its central concerns-thought, emotion, motivation, identity, and morality-are fundamentally interpretive. Psychology studies beings who make meaning, not merely objects that behave (Gergen, 2015).

This tension has long haunted the field. Experimental psychology’s commitment to objectivity and replication coexists uneasily with counselling and theoretical branches concerned with subjectivity, ethics, and personal growth. As researchers observe, theoretical activity in psychology occurs along a continuum from proximate data to ultimate worldview assumptions. While the lower levels of this continuum resemble empirical science, the upper levels-meta-theory and worldview reasoning-are unmistakably philosophical.

This discussion, albeit briefly, critically examines psychology’s claim to scientific legitimacy and argues instead that it should be understood as applied philosophy. The argument unfolds in three stages: first, by analysing the multi-level nature of psychological theorising; second, by examining cognitive dissonance research as a case study; and third, by showing how counselling and meta-theoretical psychology depend on philosophical assumptions about meaning and value.

Ultimately, it is contended that recognising psychology as practical philosophy restores coherence to its methods and reclaims its moral and interpretive depth.

In modern psychology, theory-building is rarely a simple process of induction from data. As various research outlines, psychological theorising operates across several distinct but interconnected levels. At the most proximate level, psychologists collect empirical data through observation and experimentation-replicable public findings that provide the appearance of objectivity. These data are the foundation of what psychologists’ call “evidence-based” knowledge.

The next level involves micro-theories, which attempt to explain specific phenomena or mechanisms behind observed behaviours. For instance, why people conform to group pressure (Asch, 1955) or how memory retention works (Baddeley, 1992). These theories, though still empirical, already rely on conceptual framing and interpretation.

At a higher level are meta-theories-broad integrative models that synthesise diverse findings into general statements about human nature. Examples include Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) need to belong theory and Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory. These frameworks are interpretive and unavoidably philosophical because they move beyond raw data to speak about the essence of human functioning.

Finally, at the worldview level, psychology often ventures into explicitly philosophical territory. When psychologists attribute ultimate explanations to evolutionary theory, moral reasoning, or sociocultural narratives, they cross from empirical description into ontological and metaphysical speculation. As researchers note, psychology “allows researchers to go well beyond the data and engage in ultimate/worldview-level theorising.”

At this level, the discipline reveals its philosophical core: its conclusions depend as much on value-laden assumptions as on measurable evidence.

Thus, psychology is not purely a natural science but a layered interpretive practice, blending empirical investigation with philosophical reasoning about human nature.

Cognitive Dissonance as a Case Study in Philosophical Interpretation

Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith’s (1959) classic cognitive dissonance experiment is often cited as a triumph of psychological science. Participants completed a boring task, then were paid either $1 or $20 to tell another participant it was enjoyable. Surprisingly, those paid only $1 later rated the task as more enjoyable than those paid $20. Festinger explained this result through the concept of cognitive dissonance-the discomfort arising from holding inconsistent cognitions.

At first glance, the experiment appears purely empirical: a testable hypothesis, quantifiable results, and replicability. However, interpretation begins immediately after data collection. The results themselves-participants’ ratings-do not mean anything until embedded in a theoretical framework.

Several interpretations coexist within dissonance research. Festinger’s original view emphasised cognitive inconsistency. The self-consistency theory (Aronson, 1968) reframed dissonance as conflict between self-concept and behaviour, while self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988) viewed it as a threat to moral integrity. Each model explains the same data differently, appealing to different philosophical understandings of the self and moral agency. None of these explanations can be empirically proven superior because they depend on competing ontologies of human motivation.

Therefore, the scientific appearance of cognitive dissonance research conceals a fundamentally interpretive enterprise. Psychologists, like philosophers, construct meaning from data by invoking conceptual models that reflect assumptions about human nature. As Tavris and Aronson (2015) later observed, cognitive dissonance theory ultimately reveals that “we are not rational beings but rationalising ones”, a moral and philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

The Limits of Replicability and the Problem of Objectivity

Empirical psychology’s claim to scientific legitimacy rests heavily on the principle of replicability. The Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) experiment, for example, can be repeated with similar results. This reproducibility, according to psychologists provides psychology’s “greatest protection from slipping into mere opinion.”

Yet, replication alone does not make psychology a natural science. Replicable behavioural patterns do not guarantee objective interpretations. The meaning of the results-why humans act or think as they do-depends on theoretical frameworks, which are philosophical constructions rather than empirical facts.

Additionally, many areas of psychology, particularly counselling and clinical practice, cannot meet the standard of replicability at all. The lived experience of a therapeutic session is unique and unrepeatable. The “data” of counselling-human stories, emotions, moral struggles-are not measurable variables but qualitative experiences that demand interpretation. As Gendlin (1996) argued, therapy deals not with facts but with “felt meanings,” which are irreducibly subjective.

Consequently, even in its most “scientific” forms, psychology relies on interpretive acts. It interprets behaviour and experience through metaphors, conceptual schemas, and moral judgments-hallmarks of philosophical inquiry.

Counselling Psychology and the Question of Subjectivity

If experimental psychology struggles with objectivity, counselling psychology largely abandons the pretence of it. Counselling occurs within a human relationship, not a laboratory. The “data” are personal narratives, emotions, and existential dilemmas-matters that cannot be standardised or replicated. The therapist’s task is not to test hypotheses but to engage in interpretive dialogue, helping clients construct meaning and coherence in their lives (Cooper, 2008).

As researchers observe, “a greater degree of subjectivity and interpretation always enters into ‘the data’ of a clinical encounter.” This is inevitable because therapy operates within a moral and philosophical domain. Questions such as What kind of person do I want to be? or How do I live authentically? belong more to ethics and existential philosophy than to empirical science.

Even counselling approaches that present themselves as “evidence-based” rely on philosophical assumptions. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), for instance, presupposes a rationalist model of the mind, where thought governs emotion and behaviour (Beck, 2011).

Humanistic therapy, by contrast, emphasises phenomenology and existentialism, focusing on authenticity and self-actualisation (Rogers, 1951). Both approaches depend on ‘normative’ assumptions about human flourishing that cannot be empirically verified.

Thus, counselling psychology functions as practical philosophy-an applied ethics of living. The therapist operates as a Socratic guide, facilitating reflection, examining values, and guiding the client toward self-understanding.

Philosophical Foundations and the Enlightenment Influence

Psychology’s identity as a field of inquiry is inseparable from its philosophical roots, particularly the influence of Enlightenment thought. Just as the Enlightenment reshaped theology, introducing historico-critical and evolutionary perspectives that challenged traditional Christian understandings (Sokolowski, 1993), it similarly reshaped psychology, particularly in personality theory (Rychlak, 1981).

Rychlak identifies two principal Enlightenment-derived models of mind that underpin modern psychology: the Lockean model and the Kantian model, with some hybrid approaches combining the two.

The Lockean model follows philosophical reductionism, treating the mind as a tabula rasa. Experience deposits information in discrete units, building complex ideas through combination. Cognition is largely passive, and reasoning is an assembly of prior impressions. This model aligns closely with the methodology of the natural sciences, emphasising measurable, objective processes (Rychlak, 1981).

The Kantian model, by contrast, views the mind as actively organising experience through innate categories of understanding. Meaning does not emerge passively but through the mind’s structuring of reality. Psychological symptoms, cognition, and behaviour are interpreted through the individual’s internal frameworks. Unlike the Lockean approach, which is materialistic and reductionist, the Kantian model introduces a teleological and idealistic dimension, emphasising responsibility, agency, and interpretation (Rychlak, 1981).

These philosophical distinctions have practical implications. A physician adopting a Lockean approach diagnoses and treats observable physical causes, focusing on external factors. A psychologist or psychiatrist operating within a Kantian framework attempts to understand the ‘patient’s’ inner categories of thought, interpreting emotional and relational patterns and engaging the patient as an active participant in their own treatment (Archer, 2006).

Both models share a fundamental Enlightenment assumption: the mind operates in a “bubble” relative to the external world, and ultimate truth is mediated through reason or observation rather than direct experience (Sokolowski, 2000). In psychology, this produces a dualism between measurable behaviour and subjective experience, reinforcing the interpretive, philosophical nature of the field.

By examining these historical and philosophical roots, it becomes evident that psychology’s methods and theories are not purely scientific. Even modern empirical psychology carries the legacy of these philosophical frameworks, shaping how researchers conceptualise the mind, interpret behaviour, and construct therapeutic interventions. Psychology is therefore best understood as an applied philosophy, translating abstract philosophical models into frameworks for understanding human experience.

Psychology as Applied or Practical Philosophy

If psychology’s theories and practices rest on interpretive, ethical, and metaphysical foundations, then it follows that psychology is applied philosophy. This characterisation has a long intellectual lineage. Before psychology became an experimental science, it was explicitly part of philosophy-concerned with the nature of mind, will, and moral life (Hatfield, 2009). Thinkers such as William James and Carl Jung emphasised the need to connect psychological inquiry with philosophical reflection.

To describe psychology as applied philosophy is not to deny its empirical component but to reframe it. Psychology’s data-gathering methods are tools for exploring philosophical questions: What does it mean to be human? How do we understand ourselves and others? How should we live?

In this light, the therapeutic encounter becomes a philosophical act. The counsellor functions like a Socratic guide, helping clients examine their beliefs and values. The experimental psychologist, meanwhile, resembles an epistemologist, testing how perception, memory, or emotion relate to claims about experience.

Philosophy provides the normative and conceptual grounding that psychology requires but often disowns. Without philosophy, psychology becomes a technocratic practice-producing data without understanding, and interventions without wisdom (Nussbaum, 1997). Reclassifying psychology as applied philosophy restores its rightful place among the human sciences: a discipline concerned not merely with behaviour but with meaning, ethics, and existence.

If psychology embraces this identity, it can move beyond its crisis of legitimacy and contribute more authentically to human understanding. Science explains; philosophy interprets. Psychology, straddling these domains, must reconcile explanation with meaning. It is, and always has been, a philosophy of the human condition-applied to life.

Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems. In R. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. McGuire, T. Newcomb, M. Rosenberg, & P. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 5–27). Rand McNally.

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31

Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive behaviour therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Cooper, M. (2008). Essential research findings in counselling and psychotherapy: The facts are friendly. SAGE Publications.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593

Gendlin, E. T. (1996). Focusing-oriented psychotherapy: A manual of the experiential method. Guilford Press.

Gergen, K. J. (2015). An invitation to social construction (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Hatfield, G. (2009). The natural and the normative: Theories of spatial perception from Kant to Helmholtz. MIT Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Harvard University Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Houghton Mifflin.

Rychlak, J.F. (1981). Introduction to personality and psychotherapy: A theory construction approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Sokolowski, R. (1993). Eucharistic presence: A study in the theology of disclosure. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.

Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4

Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2015). Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.