Physiology as the antechamber to metaphysics: the young William James's hope for a philosophical psychology

In the 5 years before 1878, when his career in psychology was becoming established, William James wrote a series of notes and reviews assessing the work of many of the pioneers in the new field. Adopting a public and confident voice, even while he was privately still uncertain and searching, James criticized the dogmatism of positivist and idealist claims to the study of the human brain and mind. In his short writings of 1873-1877, James started to formulate his own middle path. His first steps on that path show that he did not reject either scientific or philosophic inquiry; instead, he viewed scientific knowledge as a way to understand philosophical questions more deeply. Saving his sharpest critiques for positivism, James endorsed scientific investigation without materialist assmptions. While his career in psychology was still only a hope, James treated science as a means toward humanist insight.     

One big idea, one ultimate concern. Sigmund Koch's critique of psychology and hope for the future

Sigmund Koch, best known for his critical analyses of psychological theory and practice, drew his pivotal insight and abiding concern from his conviction that the failure to sustain and advance human-centered inquiry and understanding (as opposed to rule-governed methodology and conclusions) is the root pathology of modern life. Inspired by the work of selected colleagues, creative artists, and disciplined connoisseurs of language (and, hence, of human sensibility), Koch held out hope for a return to human agency, both inside and outside the domains of psychological study and application.     

Holding hope and hopelessness: therapeutic engagements with the balance of hope

Hope and hopelessness are coexisting and powerful experiences in the human condition. The dynamics of hope and hopelessness within intimate relationships are complex, and individual and family experiences of hope and hopelessness are embedded within historical contexts and wider social processes. This article rests on a relational set of understandings about hope and hopelessness, and offers a dual exploration. It focuses first on the complexities of the patterns of hope and hopelessness within families, and then on the complexities of the therapist's relationship to hope and hopelessness and the family's experience. Orienting to the balance of hope in constellations of hope and hopelessness provides one compass point of therapeutic practice. Reflective practice enables the use of the therapist's involvement in the therapeutic relationship, and helps the therapist to witness the coexistence of hope and hopelessness in a way that nurtures hope and emotionally holds both hope and hopelessness.     

Understanding the role of hope in counselling: Exploring the intentional uses of hope

In this paper we look at various conceptual models of hope and research evidence for the integral role that hope plays in counselling. We recognize hope as a dynamic process during which counsellor and client interact in ways that can be mutually influencing and we review research that explores this reciprocal process. A model for the intentional use of hope in counselling that recognizes both implicit and explicit approaches is offered. Metaphors for hope-work that position and re-position both counsellor and client in ways that may foster hope are explored. Finally, we provide suggestions for initiating conversations in which hope can be an explicit therapeutic focus.     

Finding hope

Abstract

This paper defends a theory of hope according to which hopes are composed of a desire and a belief that the object of the desire is possible. Although belief plus desire theories of hope are now widely rejected, this is due to important oversights. One is a failure to recognize the relation that hope-constituting desires and beliefs must stand in to constitute a hope. A second is an oversimplification of the explanatory power of hope-constituting desires. The final portion of the paper uses an enhanced understanding of the psychology of hope to make progress on normative questions about hoping well.