On the principles and method of a practical science of mind : a reply to a criticism / by Thomas Laycock.

  • Laycock, Thomas, 1812-1876.
Date:
1862
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On the principles and method of a practical science of mind : a reply to a criticism / by Thomas Laycock. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    11/28 (page 9)
    science of fundamental importance, not only for what it comprises but for what it excludes. While, without it, no system whatever can be practical, it excludes all those dekisive or unj)ractical specula- tions, which deal with the Divinity, angels, innnaterial principles. Egos, souls, spirits, and spiritual agencies in general, in entire neglect of organic forces and laws. On the contrary, it insists that _ man's mental states must be examined in relation to his vital states; and it maintains that all those circumstances which exalt, conlirm, or subvert the appetites, desires, moral sentiments, and judgment, are not found to arise exclusiveli/ from external things, or the relations of man to external things, (as in ordinary m(>tnphysics) but that they are resolved ultimately into changes in his vital states. Now it is an accurate knowledge of these latter changes in their relations to morbid changes in the consciousness of whatever kind, that can constitute the only solid foundation for jmictice in mental pathology, therapeutics and hygiene, to those who believe that the two classes of changes are in insejKU'able relation to each other in all mental states, or even in any group or groujis of faculties, desires, appetites, or emotions. Dr. Bushnan may say that this is physiological psychology, or mental physiology, and if the ((uestion raised, w^as as to the classification of the departments into which mental science may be divided, I shoidd not diJler with him as to the name; but if he excludes it because of the name, altogether from mental science or practical metaphysics, then I object that he thereby evades his own definition and adopts the old scholastic system. That system has had a trial in one shape or another, for many ages, and the results of the trial have proved to the entire satisfaction of practical men, that the practical objects we have ah-eady marked out as the objects of a true science of mind are not attainable by it. I think I may safely assert that no superin- tendent of an asylum coidd deduce the practical principles of mental pathology, therapeutics, and hygiene, and establish rules for the prevention or cure of mental disorder by the most careful study of Plato, Locke, Kant, Reid, Hamilton, or even the Mills. I need hardly say that if we agree in the meaning of the word circumstance this capability of a practical apphcation to mental patliology and therapeutics, is a sufficient test of a profess(>dly practical system of mental science or metaphysics, whatever may be its foundation. Mv second proposition is, that the object of a practical mental science is living man in all states of concioitsness whatever. And this is founded upon the fundamental principle of the science, that consciousness is one, whatever the conscious state may be, or how- ever caused.^ I do not admit, with Dr. Bushnan, that there is one kind of consciousness of dreaming and another of waking, one of childhood and another of manhood, one of healthy mental action * Address, op. cit.