Main post
One could say that the modernist turn shifted from contemplation and living the good life to a search for the Archimedean Point, or view from above that could determine Truth and Reality (capital T and R) in Essentialist ways, along with how we can produce what we can know, the latter concern ushered in by the modern scientific revolution. Shifts in privileging empiricism and the pragmatic over theory and contemplation shifted into higher gears at this time. Do you think we arrived at an Archimedean Point, and, given your answer to this question, what difference has it made to how we do research, assessment and therapeutic care?
Claras respond to main post
Scalambrino (2018) explains various elements of the Renaissance principles and our global world in view of . For example, secularism can be considered a standard principle in relation to what is a modern scientific revolution. Secularism, as a principle, can be significant in view of reaching an Archimedean Point, where Scalambrino (2018) considers secularism for its influence in moral (theological) versus scientific matters.
Scalambrino (2018) also discusses Descartes, who understood the Cogito as the Archimedean point needed to lift science out of the jurisdiction of the Church (p. 132). The move to an ego-centric model, interestingly, can be considered in view of secular shifts as well, where matters of the can be considered to become objective mechanisms to include in relation to mechanisms of the mind.
It seems in various ways we may still be at an Archimedean Point. Differences this shift has made from theo-centric to ego-centric, for example, seen in how we do research, assessment, provide therapeutic care may align with ideas presented by Larsson (2017) such as regarding technological advances, such as considered in view of lab settings; common arenas for the conducting of research. Larsson (2017) also describes a secular world view and economic context. This seems relevant in view of an Archimedean Point, where the economic value of research, and ultimately therapeutic care seems important for the role of authority and scientific authority at institutional levels. Which also seems important to consider at the academic/university level, to include as among places where research is often produced, and where ideas can be seen as governed by what can be secular scientific authority.
References
Larsson, P. (2017). Psychological healing: Historical and philosophical foundations of professional psychology. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Scalambrino, F. (2018). Philosophical principles of the history and systems of psychology: essential distinctions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
