Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Scholars
If it is difficult to explain the sudden emergence and rise of psychology in Greece, it is almost as difficult to explain the hibernation that overwhelmed it after Aristotle, a long sleep that lasted two thousand years.It was not until after the seventeenth century that the problems of psychology once again excited and stimulated the interest of some thinkers as they did during the short-lived prosperity of Greek culture.
However, "hibernation" and "sleep" are misleading terms that imply a lack of understanding of the situation, which is far from the case.In all the splendor of the Greek High Age, in the goddess Romana, in the transformation of society by Christianity, in the disintegration of the Roman Empire, the emergence of feudalism on the ruins of the Roman Empire, and the renewal of Renaissance learning, psychological Learning is neither dying nor forgotten.Throughout these long centuries and social transformations, some intellectuals continued to ask the same questions that the Greek philosophers had asked, and to formulate some answers.In doing so, however, they do it from the standpoint of academic critics, laboring again on work already done, rather than working as explorers and inventors.Not one of them has ever produced a new important idea that would have led to a major advance in psychological knowledge.
Perhaps, by the end of Aristotle's time, psychology had advanced as far as speculation and reflection could go.After his time, those interested in psychological understanding continued to rely on this method, but the science could not have progressed without observation, measurement, sampling, testing, experimentation, and other empirical processes.
Yet there is another, larger explanation for this long sleep: none of the social and religious approaches that have dominated Western civilization for 2,000 years have inspired exploration into the uncharted territory of psychology.For different reasons, Greek society, Roman society, and Christianity prompted those thinking about psychology to do little more than look at their predecessors to see if there was anything they could modify to suit their own belief systems.
However, something that these scholars, editors, and revisers did still deserves our attention for two reasons.One is that, in the history of any science, there is a long period when its practitioners work on minor revisions of accepted theories to accommodate facts that are difficult to control.During such periods, science, like a chrysalis in a cocoon, has to do a lot of preparatory work in order to re-emerge in a new guise.What happens during this period of hibernation may have less dramatic impact than the appearance of the transformed animal, but it is not necessarily insignificant to the advancement of knowledge.
Another reason is that, in the late period of psychological hibernation, Christian scholars selected and revised Greek psychological teachings, and added some non-scientific assumptions about the nature of human beings to the theological basis. It has been passed down to this day.Seeing how and when these assumptions developed will help us understand some of the modern debates, such as whether consciousness can exist in minds that are separate from the body (such as in some minds during out-of-body experiences or resurrection experiences) ), or whether it is simply a concatenation of physical and chemical events taking place in the living brain.
When Aristotle left Athens due to political turmoil in 323 BC, he appointed his long-time friend and colleague Theophrastus as director of the academy, and he later sent his books and all his works to The manuscript was bequeathed to him.It is clear that Aristotle took him very seriously.
Theophrastus (c. 372-286 BC) was indeed an outstanding teacher and scholar.He presided over the successful operation of the school for many years, and was a very fluent speaker. At one time, 2,000 people came to listen to his speech.He was also extremely diligent, writing 227—some say 400—in his lifetime works on religion, politics, education, rhetoric, mathematics, astronomy, logic, biology, and a number of other subjects, including psychology. study.
However, Aristotle, in spite of his judgment, did not foresee that hardly anyone would remember or read any of Theophrastus's works except the most trivial of them, the Character.This is a series of brief sketches of satirical archetypes such as the slanderer, the rapper, and the fool—the first samples of a literary style that became very popular later.These sketches are works of psychology in a broad sense, since they report some phenomena in behavior, but they do not contribute to our understanding of the origin or development of character traits or patterns.
Other works of Theophrastus have long been properly forgotten.In these works he restates, edits, comments on what has already been said by his predecessors, without adding anything.Especially in his psychological treatise "On Sensation".He said a lot of insightful things, but these are just comments or nitpicking on previous works.The following are typical:
(Democritus) reduced sensation, pleasure, and thought to breath and the mixing of air and blood.However, there are many animals that either have no blood or do not breathe at all.If breath must penetrate all parts of the body rather than some particular parts—(the concept)...he introduced it for the sake of part of his theory—then nothing prevents all parts of the body from being to carry out memory and thought activities.Intellect, however, does not have a place in all our organs—our legs and feet, for example—but only in special places through which we can exercise our intelligence at the right age. Memory and thoughts (Theophrastus says elsewhere that thoughts arise in the brain).
Theophrastus' work on psychology is the best we can find among the philosophers of the post-Aristotelian period in Greek times, after the death of Alexander and the division of the empire by his three generals. Classic example.These comments did not break any new ground, but they began to collect some of the flaws in Greek psychological thought, which, after 2000, caused some inquisitive minds to devise new hypotheses and for the first time began to use the scientific method to test them.
What actually happened in the psychology of the Greek age is also a true picture of other intellectual activities.The editing and critique of the ideas of thinkers of previous centuries flourished with the proliferation of libraries, especially at Alexandria, where King Puttolemy I of Egypt built the largest library of antiquity.New ideas arose in only a few sciences: geometry, which was greatly developed by Euclid; hydrostatics, the science in which Archimedes made the epoch-making discovery that an A body loses as much weight as the liquid it displaces; and the astronomer, Eratosthenes, greatly advanced the science by calculating the circumference of the earth, and his calculations almost coincided with the actual data. Same. (He first measured the shadow of an obelisk in Alexandria at noon when the sun fell directly into a deep well in Aswan, and then geometrically determined the curvature of the Earth that made the shadow inconsistent.)
These sciences, and others that have advanced, have been partly emancipated from philosophy; their practitioners leave metaphysical questions alone and seek only empirical knowledge rather than philosophical speculation. (Mathematics is not a positive science, but Euclid's approach to mathematics was at least divorced from the mysticism of the geometers of Pythagoras' time.) Meanwhile, psychology, which did not conceive of any positive method at the time, remained a philosophy a branch of .
But it is in decline.Intermittent wars raged throughout Macedonia and the Near East, and the social order of the former Greek city-states gradually declined, and people gradually grew disgusted and pessimistic.Philosophers seek not supreme truth, but comfort.They turned to astronomy, Near Eastern religions and a mystical twist on Platonism.They also turned philosophy into a narrow system of ethics that could teach them how to be wise in a turbulent time.
In such a case, psychology ceased to interest philosophers.Platonists and Aristotelians are just there to ruminate and refine the assumptions of the masters.The disciples of the then three emerging schools of thought, Epicureanism, Skepticism, and Stoicism, limited their own psychological discussions to Democritus's epistemology (that is, we only know that the senses tell our doctrines from which we extract concepts and meanings through the use of reason), they patch up any mistakes they notice, and add concepts as their ethics require.
Epicurus (341-270 BC) based his survival ethic on such a simplistic teaching: "Pleasure is the beginning and end of divine life." This is not to say that he was a sensual pursuit The man of enjoyment, or a libertine, is a frail and chronically ill man who seeks and advocates only calm and moderate pleasures, and lectures against such extreme pleasures as gluttony, cheering in public places, Machiavellian and fucked.Regarding the last, he said: "No one is superior to others by indulging in sexual intercourse, and he is not too bad." Sexual pleasure is relatively harmless without falling in love.
Ethics was Epicurus' main interest, and he paid very little attention to psychology, except for Democritus' intellectual sophistry, as it suited his pragmatic and secular philosophy.However, if he had pursued the psychological significance of his own teachings, he might have been a great figure in the psychological story.According to Friar Diogenes Leo, "(the Epicureans) say that there are two passions, pleasure and pain, which affect anything that lives. One is natural, while the other It is something outside our nature, on which we judge all that needs to be chosen or discarded."This clearly informs what we today call the reward principle, which modern psychologists consider to be the fundamental mechanism of learning.However, Epicurus and his disciples only developed the metaphysical part of this dichotomy, without developing the psychological implications.
Founded by Enoch of Sidiham (335-263 BC), Stoicism was a system of ethics based on a psychological concept long familiar to Greek thought, namely, that people Peace of mind can be found through control of emotions.Zeno believes that the good life is such that people's thoughts will be completely controlled, so that a person can feel as few emotions as possible, so that he will not be tortured by pain.Even lust and pleasure should be avoided, because they make us lose our resistance.
His disciples emphasized that such emotional control required the practice of the will, and they echoed Plato's view that the will carried out the dictates of the intellect while suppressing the impulses of desire.However, this raises a problem for the Stoics.They believed in Democritus' teaching that the universe was made of atoms and would function according to inviolable laws of nature, a concept that didn't seem to leave any room for free will.To resolve, or at least circumvent, this difficulty, they argued, God could not be bound by the laws of nature, nor could free will; since every human soul is a part of God, it must also be capable of free action.This hypothesis is obviously neither verifiable nor disprovable, and thus leaves one of the most difficult problems in psychology.
When the Eastern Mediterranean world fell into decline and lethargy, Rome became more and more vital and enterprising.However, although the Romans conquered the Eastern Mediterranean, it was itself conquered by Greek culture.The Romans were good empire builders but not very good innovators, good administrators but not thinkers, they adopted Greek styles of literature, architecture, sculpture, religion and philosophy.Between the second century B.C. and the second century A.D., the Romans "occupied, according to Gibbons, one of the finest regions of the earth, with the most civilized part of the human race," but, throughout this period, it remained Greek cultural parasites.Robert Russell said in his (History of Western Philosophy): "The Romans invented no art form, established no original philosophical system, and made no scientific discoveries. They built roads, formulated systematic law codes, and would command the army effectively, and for the rest they had to look to the Greeks."
Philosophically, however, they copied the Greeks selectively.They were only concerned with military conquest, administration of subject lands, control of slaves and proletarians, and other practical matters, and they were of no use to the higher flight of Greek philosophical fantasies.For example, all they borrowed from Aristotle was logic.They generally believed that the proper scope of philosophy should be the promulgation of laws, so that people can protect themselves wisely in the unstable life.
Thus, Epicureanism had considerable appeal to some Romans.Friar Lucretius, a contemporary of Julius Caesar, elaborated on Epicurus's teachings in a long poem in his collection of scientific treatises called On the Nature of Things.The rationality and negative ethics he preached here did not appeal to the greedy and aggressive rulers of the republic, but to most Roman nobles who wished to stay away from the violence of war and politics, because they A philosophy is needed that can help them live a peaceful life amidst social turmoil.
Friar Lucretius did not make any meaningful contribution to psychology in On the Nature of Things, he merely restated Epicurus and Democritus in a sort of schoolteacher tone, adding some Comments aimed at patching up the flaws of both.His worldview and his sources are limited.For example, he said, since we experience fear and joy "in the middle of the breast," that is where the mind or understanding resides, and that mind and soul (which he believed to be connected) are both formed by Made of very small, fast-moving atoms.However, in other places, he is very insightful and very realistic.For example, here's an example of Brother Lucretius at his best:
The essence of the mind and soul is corporeal... (and is) alive and dead.If the soul is immortal, and can enter our body at birth, why should we not be able to remember distant times, and to retain traces of previous actions?If the power of thought is completely altered, and all memory of the past is lost, then I think it is indistinguishable from death.Therefore, you have to admit that the soul that existed before has disappeared, and the soul that exists now has formed.
Though we may have to praise the common sense of the ancient poet, in him psychology ceased.We don't have to stop here any longer.
Seneca
Stoicism was more to the taste of the enterprising ruling class of Roman society.From the first century AD, this preaching has been popular among Roman politicians and military leaders. They lived a totalitarian life of luxury, but they knew that any minute could lose everything, including their lives.For them, a stoic banishment of passions and a calm attitude in the face of personal tragedy is an ideal.
This teaching is epitomized in the behavior of the philosopher Seneca the Younger (5-65 BC) in the face of death.The poet, dramatist, politician, and Stoic philosopher was rumored, perhaps mistakenly, to be plotting the overthrow of Nero.When King Nero heard the rumor, he sent a centurion to Seneca's hometown to tell him that King Nero wanted him dead.After hearing this, Seneca calmly asked people to take wax tablets to write their last wishes.The centurion would not allow him to complete this lengthy task, so Seneca said to the weeping friends around him: "I cannot repay you for my service, but I have to leave you the best I can leave you. You—my way of life." He calmly cut his own blood vessels, lay in the hot pool, and while dying, dictated a letter to the Roman people to the secretaries.
Epictetus (c. 55-c. 130) was the most famous Stoic philosopher in Rome. He was a Greek slave in his early days. not interested. "Whether all that exists is made of atoms . Find a way to endure life.His only attention to psychology is to offer a quasi-Platonic rationalization of how to "bear and let go":
Never say something like "I've lost it" but just say, "I've given it back." Is your child dead?It has been sent back.Is your wife dead?She's returned... I've got to wander; can anyone stop me from going off with a smile and peace? "I'm going to put you in a cell." What you're imprisoning is only my body.I must die: must I therefore die resentful? … These are the lessons that philosophy should rehearse, should be written down every day, and practiced.
Equally noble but uninspiring sentimentality is found in the famous Meditations of the second-century philosopher and king Marcus Aurelius.
The only real Roman contributions to psychology were made by a Greek and Egyptian.
The Greek Galen (c. 130-201) was the most famous physician and anatomist of his day, and was the personal physician of Marcus Aurelius and his successors.The title of one of Galen's handbooks sounded promising—The Diagnosis and Treatment of the Passions of the Heart—but it contained only the old-fashioned Stoic and Platonic concepts of emotional control through reason .Elsewhere, however, he develops in some detail the classification of emotions that Plato briefly mentioned in Satisfaction that comes from satisfying desires for various pleasures and physical needs.Almost all modern psychologists who have categorized emotions have made similar distinctions.
Galen's main influence on psychology, as mentioned earlier, was his theory of character based on the four humors of Hippocrates.This is a negative contribution because for centuries it has misled doctors and others into thinking it is the cause of personality patterns and mental illness.He did, however, admit and correctly describe a physical symptom caused by emotions.One day he noticed that a female patient's pulse quickened when someone happened to mention the name of a male dancer.Galen arranged for someone to come into the room the next time she was there and talk about another male dancer's performance, and to do the same experiment on another day, just with another dancer's name.In both cases the patient's pulse did not quicken.On the fourth day, someone mentioned the first dancer's name again, and her pulse quickened again, and Galen confidently diagnosed her as lovesickness, adding that some doctors seemed to Failure to realize how physical health can be affected by spiritual suffering.Unfortunately, he never developed this idea again, and it was not explored again until the mind-body medicine of our century.
The Egyptian Plotinus (205-270) made quite a different contribution to psychology.By his time, Roman civilization was declining, decaying, and violent.In that environment, many people in trouble were attracted to Plotinus' Neoplatonism because it combined Stoic ethics with the mystical and secular parts of Plato's beliefs, including his own least scientific The psychology of sexuality and spirituality is integrated within.
After studying Greek philosophy at Alexandria, Plotinus came to Rome in 244, where he lived as a Christian saint.Although he doesn't believe in Christianity, he doesn't envy the luxurious life in the city.He considered the body to be the prison of the soul—his biographer and disciple Porferi says that Plotinus was even ashamed that his soul should have a body—and he cared little for his body, caring much for clothing and hygiene. He doesn't care about anything like that, eats the simplest food, avoids sexual activity, and refuses to sit down for his portrait to be painted.He feels that his body is the least important part of him.Despite his ascetic life, he was a popular orator, and many of the wealthy Romans came to him for advice on all kinds of matters.
He respected Plato enough to simply say "he" when referring to him.Like Plato, he considers the evidence of sense to be inferior to that of reason.He believed that the highest wisdom, the final passage to truth, comes when the soul temporarily leaves the body in a trance state, and then perceives the other side of the world.He wrote that he himself had had this experience several times.
It happened many times.Rising from the body into myself; detached from all things, into one; beholding a marvelous beauty; then, more surely than ever, connected with the highest order; attaining unity with divinity, Dwell in it (God or the good or the highest) through this activity; balanced on all things in the intellect, is still a little inferior to the highest: but then comes the moment of descent from intellect to reasoning Yes, and, after this deep divine sojourn, I asked myself, how could I be so low now?How does the soul enter my body?The soul showed me while still in the body that it is the highest thing.
To put it mildly, it's hard to understand.What Plotinus says here and elsewhere means that a triple reality exists above the physical and the physical.It is composed of the one (it); of the spirit or intellect or thought, a retrospective or image of the one; and of the soul which can look upward to the spiritual or downward to the world of nature and the senses.
What does this have to do with psychology?It doesn't matter, and it matters too much.
It doesn't matter, because Plotinus was not interested in the study of mental functions, he said nothing about psychology, but only objected to the psychology of Democritus and the other atomists.
So relevant, because this neoplatonist view of the relationship between body and soul, and soul and mind, would become part of Christian teaching, and would shape and constrain psychological inquiry until fourteen centuries after the scientific until the regeneration.
Moreover, Plotinus's acquisition of the concept of the soul, of thought and its manner, became the model for similar explorations by anyone interested in mental processes before the advent of scientific psychology.Part of his search for truth was through meditation.However, since such experiences are relatively infrequent—in the six years that Porferi worked with and observed him, he had only four—his search for understanding the soul, the mind, and its ways has been largely contemplative Meditative reasoning.In other words, he tried very hard to conceive a supernatural structure that, in his view, would explain the relationship between the physical and spiritual worlds.Of course, he didn't test his hypothesis, the test belongs to the physical world, not the spiritual world.
Between the 1st and 4th centuries AD, the Roman Empire reached its zenith and then began to disintegrate.Christianity became the dominant religion.In the ensuing metamorphosis of Western culture, non-religious philosophers were gradually reinstated as thought leaders by a very different kind, the godfathers, or church fathers.
Here are the leading bishops and other prominent Christian teachers who, in endless and bitter disputes with each other, sought to resolve many of the controversial issues of the new faith.Their names are familiar to anyone familiar with the history of this period, among them Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Gregory Taumategus, Arnobias, Friar Lectan, Gregory of Nice, and of course St. Augustine.
Although pagan philosophy has declined, its psychology has survived in selected and modified form in the "apologues" of the church fathers, or in some of the sermons and writings that defended the Christian faith.These Fathers were philosophical theologians whose main interest, though the central question of faith, whether Christ was God or man, necessarily involved the nature of the soul, its relation to mind and body, and Debate over such psychological issues as the origin of ideas and concepts.
Almost all the godfathers of the early centuries of the Christian era were middle- or upper-class Roman citizens, born and raised in the Mediterranean cities of the Roman Empire, and receiving an education typical of men of their class.They thus became acquainted with pagan philosophy, and in their apologetics they vehemently attacked those philosophical views which were incompatible with Christian teaching, but also accepted and transformed those which supported Christian teaching.They reject and condemn almost all things that are scientific in pagan philosophy but conflict with Christian teachings. For example, they believe that God can directly intervene in human life, that the earth is at the center of the universe, and that holy miracles are real.A vast swath of scientific knowledge was forgotten, and, says historian Daniel Postin, "academic amnesia struck the entire continent, from AD 300 to at least 1300."
Psychology, however, was not entirely forgotten, some of which were picked and adapted by the godfathers to support their religious beliefs.Anything in it that was a naturalistic view, such as the idea that mental processes are caused by the motion of atoms in the brain or the heart, they held either incomplete or heretical.Whatever supported the Christian belief in the sublime and transcendent realities of the soul, such as Plato's conception, they welcomed and adapted it to Christian teaching.
A major psychological question that troubled them was whether the soul, a part of God, was born with knowledge when it came to the body, as Plato believed.Christian teachings say otherwise: every soul is recreated at birth, and the newborn's mind is therefore blank.Many of the church fathers accordingly attacked the dogma of innate thought, but they accepted most of the ideas of Plato's teaching.
Another difficult question is how the soul is combined with the mind and the body, and whether the soul needs a body to perceive and receive sensations, as Aristotle said.But, according to the teaching, after the death of a sinner or an unbelievers, his soul is burned in hell; how can it feel pain unless it can still perceive after being separated from the senses?Most of the godfathers said that the ego, the soul, does not need the senses to perceive.
These are the problems—and there are many like them—on which the Church Fathers expended much energy, attacking one another, in order to adjust psychology to the new faith.Psychology survives in this form.
Although the Pre-Niche Fathers—who lived and wrote before the Church of Niche in 325—conflicted greatly with each other, the work of Tertullian, the greatest of them all, can give us An example of how pagan psychological concepts fed into the early writings of the Church Fathers.Tertullian (c. 160-220) was the son of a Roman centurion. He was brought up in Carthage, where he received a first-class education. He then studied law and came to Rome, where he became a A famous jurist.In his thirties, for unknown reasons, he converted to Christianity and abandoned pagan pleasures.He married a fellow believer, took a monastic order (monks were not celibate at the time), and returned to Carthage, where he spent the rest of his life writing a steady stream of intense apologetics and condemnation of sin.He was the first person among the church fathers to write in Latin instead of Greek. It is said that Western Christian literature began to develop from the mature Tertullian.
He had always been an angry man, angry all his life at the pleasures of the pagan Romans and their cruelty to Christians.It was he who uttered the famous saying "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church".He relished the pain that the heathen would suffer after death:
Judgment Day (will come,) when all this old world and its generations will be destroyed in a single fire.What a spectacle that day will be!How I would marvel, laugh, cheer and delight!To see those who thought they were going to heaven groaning in the depths of darkness!And those judges who have persecuted the name of Christ, melted in a fire more blazing than those set against Christians! —and the saints and philosophers, who face their disciples with shame when they themselves are in a rage!
Tertullian, though married, had as bad a view of the material side of marriage as St. Paul, who was the source of his ideas.When he was in his forties, he wrote a letter to his wife about marriage and widowhood—the letter was also intended to teach other women—in which he expressed his deep respect for himself and his wife. The contempt of her materialistic desires.Although this letter is not a psychological article, it represents the attitude towards sexuality in many church fathers' writings. It had a profound impact on the understanding of sexuality and emotion among believers in the 18th century. The nature and nature of these influences The scope would eventually be revealed when Freud began his psychoanalytic studies.
In the letter, Tertullian called his wife "my best, dear, common servant of God, and he asked his wife not to remarry if he died before her. He said that a second marriage is tantamount to adultery. She should put Widowhood is seen as a call from God to forbid sex because God sees sex only in a married state. Nor should she grieve over the death of her husband because it just ends them being a filthy habit A state of servitude, a habit which, in every sense of the word, they must give up before they can enter Paradise.
For Christians, after their death, there is no guarantee of remarriage when Easter comes, and they will be transformed into an angelic state and sanctification - on that day, between the two of us because of luxury The disgrace caused by the lives of the people will not be restored.Such frivolity, such spots, God will not make any guarantees to His believers.
History has no record of how his wife answered.
Such hell-fire and brimstone punishments for wicked people were everywhere in the psychology of that time.He retained quite a few of them in his own writings, in the form of attacks on psychological doctrines that conflicted with his religious beliefs.Another form is to transform what supports them.For example, in Genesis, the account of God's creation of Adam was enough reason for Tertullian to reject Plato's theory that a man's soul existed before he was born:
When we admit that the soul is born from the breath of God, we may also be thought to attribute to it a beginning.Plato would not attribute this to it, he would make the soul unborn and unable to create.And yet we teach, from the fact that it did have a beginning, and from the fact that nature arose from it, that it was both born and created—a view of the philosopher overruled by the authority of prophecy.
However, although he believes that the soul survives death, he sees no reason to object to these philosophers saying that the soul is somehow corporeal and has some alliances with bodily functions:
The soul, of course, has something in common with the body, and it also suffers when it is hurt.The body also suffers with the soul, and suffers anxiety in the soul.压抑或者爱的时候与灵魂联结在一起，通过它自己面红耳赤来证明其羞耻和恐惧。因此，从这个相互的感受性方面来说，灵魂证明是有形体的。
跟希腊的一些哲学家一样，他把思维定义为灵魂进行思考的那一部分，可是，作为一名基督徒，他不同意德谟克利特的想法，即灵魂和思维是同一个东西：
思维，或者叫animus，即希腊人叫做nous的东西，在我们看来是灵魂里面固有的某种功能或者作用，在这个地方，它会起作用，会询求知识，并且能够产生自发的动作……锻炼感官就是使其从属于情绪，因为从属就是去感觉。在同样的方式下，取得知识就是锻炼感官，而且体会情绪也就是锻炼感官；这一切都是一种状态的从属。可是，我们知道，除非思维也受到类似的影响，否则，灵魂就什么也体会不到……可是，德谟克利特消弥了灵魂和思维之间所有的区别，然而，这两个东西怎么可能是同一个东西呢？除非我们把两者混为一团，或者消灭掉其中一个。可是，我们强调，思维与灵魂结合起来，不是说它在物质形式上有所区别，而只是其自然的功能和作用。
而在教理立场上，他改造了柏拉图关于理性和非理性的观点，因为他不能够把后者看作上帝的手工：
柏拉图把灵魂分成两部分——理性和非理性的部分。对于这一点，我们不持异议，可是，我们不能够把这种两重的区别归因于灵魂的本质……（因为）如果我们把非理性的因素归因于我们从上帝那里得来的灵魂的本质，那么，非理性的因素将会是从上帝那里得来……（可是）追求罪恶的动机是从恶魔处得来的。然而，所有的罪恶都是非理性的：因此，非理性是从恶魔得来的，与上帝无关，对于上帝来说，非理性是一个外来的原则。
尼契教会之后，基督教教理越来越标准化，基督教本身也成了帝国的正教。已经处于停滞状态的心理学被缩减到正教能够接受的程度。前尼契时代的教父们在许多心理学问题上的观点也变成了异端邪说。（奥利金去逝后，他因为多种异端邪说而遭惩罚，其中就是柏拉图教导他的灵魂预先存在的信仰。）心理学在很大程度上能够从4世纪以衰减的形式保存到12世纪，是得益于圣奥古斯丁这位“基督教时代的亚里士多德”，他是圣托马斯·阿奎那之前教会的主要权威。
圣奥古斯丁（354-430）出生在罗马努米底亚省（现在的阿尔及利亚）的塔加斯特城，他的母亲圣莫妮卡（后来被封为圣者）是位基督徒，他的法官父亲帕特里西亚是位异教徒。奥古斯丁周围的世界仍然属于罗马式的奢华生活，可它正在迅速的没落之中。在他的青年时代，野蛮人正在进攻帝国的边陲，到他中年的时候，罗马本身已落入哥特人之手，在他的老年，整个西方世界都处在崩溃的边缘。
作为迦太基城一名16 岁的少年学生，圣奥古斯丁的行为是一种典型的罗马酒色之徒。“我全身心投入通奸活动中，”他后来在著名的中说到了这段时间的生活。可是，在接下来的一些年头里，他因为母亲灌输给他的负疚感而放弃了乱交，娶了一个小妾，并与她厮守了15年多的时间，对她很忠心。
他是位敏捷而热切的学生，对柏拉图极为敬仰，称他为“半神半人”，后来还把很多柏拉图思想溶入了基督教教义。完成学业后，他成为迦太基城的修辞学教授，后来还去了罗马和米兰。他广泛阅读了异教哲学家的作品和基督教圣经作品，并成了基督教东部异端分枝的摩尼教教徒。可是，他越来越受到柏拉图和普罗提诺的影响，他的苦行和神秘的新柏拉图主义深深地影响了他。他对自己的生活方式产生了更深的负疚感，也因为他那个世界的颓废而难过：匈奴人在践踏巴尔干半岛，哥特人把思雷斯国踏为平地，日尔曼人冲过了莱茵河，而在意大利，腐败正日益肆虐，苛税如猛虎，人们更沉迷于斗剑术和马戏。
32 岁的时候，圣奥古斯丁屈服于他母亲的乞求而准备结婚。他把心爱的小妾送走，等着他的情人长大成人。有一天，他感到“灵魂难受，倍受煎熬”（他在中说）。他正在米兰的花园里与朋友一起坐着，突然被一阵想大哭一场的冲动笼罩住了，他逃往花园的一角，却在那里听到了一阵孩子般的声音在说，“拿起来读吧，拿起来读吧。”他拿起一直在读的圣保罗著作，随便翻开了一页，就看到了下面的话：“不是在放纵和醉酒中，不是在自我幽闭和麻木不仁中，不是在争斗和嫉妒中：汝须置身于基督之上，不得为一己的肉欲和色心装备齐当。”顿时，他感到灵魂的创痛消失了，他感到欣慰不已，心中一片宁静。他放弃了结婚的打算，献身于研究，准备转教，387年复活节，他母亲骄傲地站在他身边，由安布洛兹主教（后来亦是圣徒）替他施了洗。
他回到了非洲，把自己的财产都给了穷人，并在塔加斯特成立了一家修道院。他甘于贫困，在那里度过了好几年满意的独身研修生活。然后，他响应附近的希波小镇的主教华勒里安的邀请，去帮他做教区的工作。圣奥古斯丁进入了僧侣生活，几年之后，年迈的华勒里安主教退休了，他勉强接替了希波主教的工作。他一直呆在这里，直到34年后去世为止，那时候，罗马已经被哥特人所劫掠，汪达尔人也到了希波的门前，离整个帝国西部的完全沦陷已不过50年之遥了。
作为希波主教，圣奥古斯丁仍然过着僧侣的生活。尽管个子很小，身体脆弱，而且长期受慢性肺病的困扰，可是，他仍然积极参与宗教议论和辩驳，以及与异端的斗争，而且还想办法写作了卷帙浩繁的信件、布道辞和大量的著作，包括他著名的《忏悔剥》，甚至花费了13年的时间完成了他的杰作《上帝之城》。他在这些著作中的主要目的，是想使理智与教会的教理调合起来，可是，每当它们产生冲突的时候，他都由自己的感觉来决定，“不是为了相信而理解，而是为了理解而相信。”
圣奥古斯丁成了天主教有关教理事务方面最有权威的人，几个世纪以来一直如此。他的裁判权延伸至他所说的有关心理学的任何话，尽管他本人从没有系统地处理过这个问题。他对心理学的观点，如同对所有科学的观点一样，都混合着真知灼见和模糊不清之语，因为他认为心理学跟其它任何科学一样，在它们为宗教目的服务时都是好的，否则就是坏的。除了《圣经》里面的话以外，所有的知识要么就是邪恶的，要么就是冗余的：“不管人从其它来源学到了什么东西，那都是有害的，它就在那里受到诅咒（即在《圣经》里），如果它是有用的，一定早就已经在里面了。”可是，在他的著作里，有一大批心理学材料被保存下来，因而也就为学者和黑暗时代以及中世纪早期的“教会医生”们所了解。
比如，圣奥古斯丁之后的加伦就是其中一个，他重复过圣奥古斯丁的话，认为，灵魂或者意识会受到身体状况的影响，反过来，灵魂或者意识也可以影响身体状况。圣奥古斯丁举例说，太多的胆汗，会使一个人很容易动肝火，可是，一个容易因为外界的事件动肝火的人也会引起他的身体产生过多的胆汁。
圣奥古斯丁利用早期的教父们引用过的异教哲学家们来解释意识的结构，即记忆、理智和意愿这三重功能。可是，有时候，他所说的有关这三重功能的话会变得非常神秘，比如，他用心理学来解释这个三重体怎样也可以变成一体：
由于这三重的记忆、理智和意志并非三条生命而是一条，亦不是三种意识而只是一种，因此，它们不是三种物质而是一种物质……这三种东西之所以是一种，其原因是它们是一个生命体，一种意识，一种存在。可是，它们之所以是三种，是因为我记得我有记忆和理解力以及意志。我知道我理解，我有意志，我会记忆，而且我希望我有意愿，有记忆，有理解力……因此，虽然每个作为一个整体的人与一个整体的人相等，每个作为整体的人与所有作为一个整体的人是一样的，这三种东西也就是一种，一种生命，一种意识，一种存在。
圣奥古斯丁认为在活体的人中，意识与灵魂是等同的，可是，他说，灵魂是非物质的，不可摧毁的，而且，人死后它会离开身体而变得永生不死。他是怎么知道这个的呢？他的理论是这样的：灵魂，或者意识，可以设想永恒，这个概念是它不可能从感官得到的。正如思想即存在一样，设想更高层次的存在亦是存在的一部分。
可是，他也经常以更为自然主义的术语来描述精神生活。他以自己特有的尊贵口吻，重述了早期对感官和记忆的机制非常有兴趣的异教哲学家们的一些观点：“我进入了记忆的旷野和小房间，这里有无数从感官得来的各种事物的图像之宝。”在这样的情绪之下，他感到万分惊叹，图像怎么会通过感官沉淀在记忆里，记忆为什么不仅仅容纳了图像，而且还有概念，发生在意识里面的东西为什么有时候是一些自然感觉到的记忆的系列，为什么有时候又是有意寻找的结果。
然而，跟很多的异教哲学家们一样，圣奥古斯丁认为从感官得来的知识是不确定和不值得信任的，因为我们不能够肯定我们的感官是不是客观现实的正确反映。而确定的东西，超越了任何疑惑的东西，是自我意识的原初体验，因为产生疑问即是思想，思想即是存在；疑惑的存在这个事实本身即可以确定，我们都是活着的，我们都能思想。他就以这样的办法辩驳了怀疑论者，并确立了柏拉图的知识学说，他比柏拉图更多地依赖于作为知识和真理通道的内省。弗兰茨·亚历山大和谢尔登· 塞内斯尼克两位博士在《精神病学史》一书中说：“圣奥古斯丁不仅是胡塞尔现象学的先锋和存在主义的最早开拓者，而且也是心理分析学的远祖。”
的确，这种内省法的使用远远超过了柏拉图的方法。中令人惊叹的自我启示乃是文学上的首例，从圣奥古斯丁这里到卢梭，再到弗洛伊德，这个直系的关系是非常明显的。可是，这是从内省导向自觉，而圣奥古斯丁的目标远非仅止于此。在《上帝之城》和其它的神学著作里，我们可以找到对内省如何可以显示更高真理的解释。他说，通过理智，我们可以上升到比感官局限更高的地方来获取类似“数”和“智慧”等的概念，可是，我们获取最高理解力的层次却只能通过内省性的、对上帝的注视才能达到。跟柏拉图一样，圣奥古斯丁用一阵狂文书写自己感到的彻悟，通过这些沉思，他感到自己“一级一级地上升到创造了我的生命的他的高度”，而且接近了人可以找到的最高的真理。
对于圣奥古斯丁来说，最为重要的意识功能是意志，因为它提供了如何解决邪恶存在这个神学问题的答案。如果上帝是全能的，睿智无比和善的，他就不会创造邪恶，也不会不知道它将会存在，也不可能有另外一个与这位创造了邪恶的神同样威力巨大的邪恶存在。那么，怎样解释这一点呢？圣奥古斯丁推理说，因为人类是善的，他们就应该有能力来选择善的，而不是恶的（上帝并没有创造邪恶，邪恶只是善的缺失）；因此，上帝给了人以自由意志。可是，人类有可能会失去行善的意愿，甚至有可能去行不义之举，这就是邪恶之所以存在的原因。
圣奥古斯丁本人亲历过失败，他自己的意愿曾不想选择善的，他曾与小妾沉溺于声色之中。他在原罪的遗传中找到了对邪恶的解释，它给了色欲以很大的力量，超过了我们的力量，使我们情愿去作恶而非行善。一个人有时候不愿意看到自己玉树临风，可当他自己已为肉欲所征服时，他也无法仅凭意愿使自己玉柱倾倒，形颏自消。性快乐实际上会使镇定自若的思想瘫痪掉，而肉体也会统治人，在他藐视上帝的意愿时也会否决他的意愿。
可是，圣奥古斯丁说：“真正的善人，如果可能的话，是希望不需要经历此等情事而生养后代的。”如果亚当没有犯罪，他和夏娃——以及他们所有的子嗣——可能在没有快感的情况繁殖子孙而不犯罪。why?这就很难想象了，他自己也承认，可是，他并没有在这个难题面前退缩，他在这些问题上的想法是一些超级混合物，既有深刻的心理学观察，亦有苦行僧的狂想：
在天堂里，生殖的种子会由大夫来播撒，而妻子将会去孕育它……是有意的选择，而非出自不可控制的色欲。毕竟，我们凭意志来移动的，不仅仅是一些由关节和骨头组成的手和手指，脚和脚趾，我们还可以控制肌肉及神经的放松和张紧……（有些人）可以使自己的耳朵移动，一次一只，或者两只同时动……（另一些人）可以从身体的后面弄出一些音乐曲调来，你还以为他们是在唱孔……人体器官，在没有肉欲的激发时，可以为了为人之父的目的而尊从人的意愿……当没有无法控制的色欲来激发生殖器官时，当所需要的一切是由有意的选择来进行时，精液的流动可以尽量少地刺破处女膜而进入子宫，而且就像时下的情况一样可经由同一个阴户管道进入；反过来，则会在行经时进行。
人类在心理学的头8个世纪里学到的有关人类意识的知识，圣奥古斯丁就是这样选择和改造的；这也就是得到了他的权威的准许印行令的一些主要概念，在接下来的8个世纪里，它们成为惟一可接受的心理学。
圣奥古斯丁死后的几个世纪里，很少有人对这些问题再发过任何议论。势力强大的罗马遭到了反复的劫掠和扫荡；它的人民潜移至乡村小镇和有城堡的村庄，直到6 世纪，只有5万人生活在曾经辉煌一世但现在已是烧毁殆尽的废墟上。它和其它城市的图书馆散布各处而且大半焚毁；过去的科学知识以及其卫生习惯、风度和艺术都不见了。西欧社会的大部分都慢慢变成了原始的村庄、简陋的采邑和小王国，其好战的首领们不是经常彼此袭击和围攻，就是组成联军对抗入侵的诺曼人、诺斯人、马札儿人、撒克逊人、法兰克人、哥特人和摩尔人。
最后，战乱让位于封建制度稳定下来的秩序，可是，封建地主们对于学习没有任何兴趣，他们沉醉于侠义的马上枪术比赛、战争、东征、阴谋诡计、魔法和谦恭的求爱仪式。在一个其生活龌龊不堪、残酷而且短暂地世界里，心理学作为一种人造文化物品跟欧几里得的几何和索福克勒斯的戏剧一样被人遗忘而且与生活毫不相干。
从6 世纪到8世纪，西欧惟一有一些机会去学习心理学知识的人就只有牧师了，他们在少数一些修道院里得以读到有限的一些教父们的著作。可是，这些论题很少引起大部分牧师的兴趣，因为他们的时间和精力早就因为信仰问题和僵硬的封建生活而消耗一空了。只有少数几位其名字不为我们今天的人所知的人慢慢熟悉了已经写下的一切，而且他们自己也写了一些论灵魂和意识的书。这些作品没有哪一部不是一些布道材料，特别是圣奥古斯丁的著作的重编和反复。
可是，变革还是缓缓地超过了封建秩序。十字军东征使成群结队的半原始西欧人与穆斯林商业与工业接触；贸易一直进发到十字军所到之处；意大利商船和商业舰队从北欧的海湾驶出，开始把东方的香料、丝绸、食物和挂毯运到欧洲港口，随之还带来了书籍和思想。随着海上运输商业开始复苏，内陆运输也繁荣起来。粗俗的乡镇变成了城市，有些城市，最早是波罗拿和巴黎，还建起了大学，哲学又以经院哲学的形式出现了，它主要是花费巨大的精力来解决有关信仰的一些大问题的逻辑论证工作。首先，经院哲学家们（或者叫烦琐哲学家）都因为《圣经》的权威和纲领中载明的教理，以及圣奥古斯丁及其他教父们的著作无可置疑的敬畏而大受局限。这些烦锁派的哲学家们检验哲学和宗教问题的方法是，先提出一个命题，再取一个负面的立场，引用圣经和教父们的著作来为这个观点辩护，然后用确定的命题来辩驳它，再用《圣经》中其它的引语和教父们的语录来为这个观点辩护。然而，随着时间的推移，他们慢慢意识到还有其它一些更为刺激的知识来源。有一部分是从中东的作品中得知的，因为那里的求知活动从来都没有间断过，更大一部分是从西班牙和康斯坦丁那布尔的阿拉伯和犹太学者，尤其是阿维塞纳、阿佛尔罗和莫西·梅蒙里兹，他们重新发现了希腊哲学和心理学，尤其是亚里士多德。
对许多的烦琐哲学家来说，他严密的逻辑、广博的知识和相对现实的世界观是从教父们枯燥无聊和来世的空想中的解放。亚里士多德，而不是柏拉图或者圣奥古斯丁成了他们心目中最高的权威。可是，在许多年里，烦琐哲学家们分成了两大阵营：神秘柏拉图派（大部分是圣芳济会的修道士）和知识型亚里士多德派（大部分是多明我派）。神秘柏拉图派认为亚里士多德的自然主义和逻辑是对信仰的威胁；而亚里士多德派，其中有阿伯拉尔、彼德·隆巴尔德、阿尔伯塔斯·马格那斯和托马斯·阿奎那，却认为这是对基督教教义真理的支持和证实这道真理的途径。激烈争执几十年后，亚里士多德派争赢了：阿奎那的哲学和解了亚里士多德主义和基督教，并利用理智来证明了教义的真理，并从此至今成为天主教的正式哲学。
阿奎那的崇拜者称他为天使博士，可他是何等样一个人呢？算不得一个引人注目的人：默不出声、圆鼓隆冬的一大堆裹在僧人的黑袍里，通常迷恋于自己的思想中，其虔诚和勤奋的一生几乎没有任何戏剧可言，一介书生而已。
阿奎那的父亲阿奎诺伯爵的城堡在罗马和那布里斯的中间，他是日尔曼的贵族，其母亲是西西里的诺尔曼王子的后裔。托马斯出生于1225年，长大成人后一脸条顿人的相貌：身材高大、厚重，面容方阔，一头漂亮头发——也像条顿人一样很迟钝。有人说，他一生只生了两次气，他在同学中的浑名是“西西里的大木牛”。
他5 岁的时候被父亲送入几英里外蒙特卡罗的本尼迪克丁修道院住读。他在那里度过的童年很难说是欢乐和无拘无束的，等他14岁离开的时候，已经成了一位禁锢的学者和苦行僧。在那布里斯大学又学习5年之后，他做了多明我僧人，令他的家人大为失望，因为他们曾希望他最终成为声望甚高的蒙特卡罗修道院的院长，而不是一名生活在贫穷之中的托钵僧。在他母亲的唆使下——他的父亲已经去世——阿奎那的兄弟们绑架了他，并在自家城堡里关押了他一年，希望他会改变主意。他没有，反而用圣者的平静接受了自己的命运，他在囚室里继续自己的研习活动。
然而，他的确发过脾气，因为他的兄弟为了引诱他脱离苦行生活，曾把一名妖艳的美妇悄悄塞入囚室。阿奎那一看到她就惊慌失措地捡起一根燃烧的火根满屋追着她打，并把房门上的十字架都烧着了。他的兄弟们再也不给他送美妇来了。最终，阿奎那的虔诚感动了他的母亲，她帮他逃脱出去。1245年，他作为巴黎的一位多明我会神甫恢复了生活，并师从亚里士多德的拥护者阿尔伯塔斯·马格那斯学习神学。
他是位了不起的学生，31 岁的时候，经教皇特准被授予神学博士头衔，比允许授予该学位的规定提早了3年。他有非凡的集中思想的能力，能够在极为烦扰的情况下追想一系列复杂的问题。有一次，在国王路易九世的宫庭宴会上，阿奎那在深思如何辩驳摩尼教邪说的办法，对周围的盛况、珠宝、大人物和机巧的谈话全然不知。突然间，他拍案而起，一声猛喝，吓得周遭一圈人大惊失色：“这下可就搞定摩尼人了！”
这可并不是说他就是个难以亲近的人，他说话慢条斯理，轻言细语，谈锋甚健，而且乐观达人，可是，他的头脑里面总想着高深的思想，也有太多的事情要做。从醒来到睡觉，他的每一天都填塞着研究、写作、教学和礼拜。他参加所有时间的祈祷，每天要么望一次弥撒，或者听两次弥撒，讲课或者坐下写作前都要做祈祷。
他有这么多的祈祷活动要做，可奇怪的是，1274年他在49岁去世前竟干了那么多的事情。在不到20年的时间里，他一边在巴黎大学和意大利的一些大学里讲课，一边还写作了为数众多的布道辞、宗教小册子、赞歌和祈祷辞，还有对早期哲学家著作的大量冗长的评论以及卷秩浩繁的劝教著作。
这些作品旨在劝说不信教的哲学家们，因为他们的理性论阻挡了他们的信仰。阿奎那想办法用完全不同于圣奥古斯丁狂热的神秘主义的途径来引导他们走入信仰：他给他们提供了旨在全凭理智来引导信仰的严密的逻辑哲学辩论。他在一份小册子中对一群反对者写道：“请注意，我们会纠正（你们的）错误。它不以信仰的公文为基础，而是建立在哲学家们自己的推理和声明上的。”
还有专门对神学学生的说教，详细解释并为整个天主教教义进行了辩护。共有38 份讲述不同主题的专题论文，包括纯粹哲学、伦理学、法律和心理学。其中一本书里包括了解情况631个“问题”或者主题，约代表对这些问题的一万多种反对意见或者答复。阿奎那利用辩证法通过一步一步的推理检查每一个问题。结果是，这比逻辑教科书热闹不到那里去，但作为严密的逻辑推理，它是无与伦比的。
也许是操劳过度的原因，1273 年12月的一天早晨，他在望弥撒的时候突然有了奇怪的感受，从那以后，他无法再写作了。“我再也干不下去了，”他说。“我已经感到，我一生写下的这些东西几乎一钱不值，现在，我等待着自己生命的终结。”3个月后，他去世了，在不到50年的时间内被教皇约翰二十二世封为圣徒。
阿奎那的神学和纯粹哲学在这里与我们关系不太大，只是，他使心理学与神学和纯粹哲学合谐相处了。他主要是在《人类论》、《人类行为论》和《习性论》这三篇专题论文中做到这一点的。他在这三篇文章里展开的东西没有什么新颖之处，他不是一位探索者，而只是基督教教理与亚里士多德主义的调和人。他的心理学大部分是以亚里士多德为基础的（不过却埋伏在阿奎那自己艰涩深奥的术语里），还零星地夹杂着加伦、圣奥古斯丁和少数其他人的思想。他把很多明显和实在的东西、一些在早期的教父作品里丢失了的东西恢复进了心理学。可是，他把这门科学冻结在其古典的思辨和诡论中，并把基督教信仰中一些关键要素输入其中，比如肉体与灵魂或者意识的二元论，这使心理学蒙上了阴影，直到今天才云开雾散。
在他论及心理学的作品中，尽管有许多托马斯式的措辞，我们仍然可以看到许多熟悉的话题。
在论及感觉时，阿奎那讨论了早期作者们熟悉的五种外部感官，再加上“常识”感觉——这是亚里士多德的概念——通过这五种感官，我们知道，通过不同的感官同时感觉到的一些材料是从同一个物体上得来的。
他以多少带有亚里士多德风格的方式细分了心灵的各种功能，把它们分为“生长性的”（其自行调节的身体功能），“有感知力的”（感觉、胃口、运动）和“理性的”（记忆、想象和理智或者智力）。可是，他极度地夸大了“哲学家”（他经常这样称呼亚里士多德）的一个草率建议，说有两种智力。第一种智力的功能，或者“可能智力”，是理解、判断和就我们的感觉进行推理，第二种智力的功能，或者“代行智力”，是要从我们的感觉中抽取思想或者概念”，并通过信仰来了解其它的一些真理，比如不能通过推理得知的三位一体的神秘性。
阿奎那没有提供经验证据来证明两种不同的智力的存在，他的结论是以逻辑和教理合并而成。因为，不管灵魂里面是什么东西，它都会关系到身体的感觉、感知和情绪——不管是什么，只要它是灵魂－肉体在有生命的期间的一部分——它就不能够在死后仍然存在。可灵魂却会存在下去，因为教理是这么说的。它一定就是灵魂－肉体这个单元传递更高和永恒知识的那一部分，因此也是永生的，这就是代行智力。
阿奎那因此就调和亚里士多德的心理学和基督教教理，因为亚里士多德心理学不允许个人死后还有生命存在的说法，而基督教教理却坚持认为这是铁定的事情。然而，为了让容易消逝的“可能智力”成为一种我们可以通过它来创造思想的机制，他从自己的心理学中排斥走了神秘柏拉图主义关于天生思想的说教。他跟亚里士多德站在一起，认为婴儿的意识就是白板一张，它具有从经验中抽取思想的能力。天生思想的教条会在以后的一些世纪里毒害心理学，可是，它并非阿奎那所为。
可是，他的确区分了从肉欲中产生的欲望和从性情暴躁中产生的欲望，这对概念他是从加伦处学来的，而加伦又是从柏拉图那里得来的。阿奎那比先辈更细致地发展了它，通过定义、演绎和常识来组织材料。其概要如下：当肉欲是因一件好事而起时，我们会感到像爱、欲望和欢乐这样一些情绪；当它是因为一件邪恶的事情而起时，则我们会感到仇恨、厌恶和悲伤。当性情上的欲望被很难得到的好的事情唤起时，我们会感到希望或者绝望；当被一件邪恶的事情唤起时，则会有勇气、恐惧或者愤怒。
对情绪的这种分类，尽管它好像是人为的，而且在今天听起来也有点假道学的味道，可是，它确是较为系统一些，也比以前任何一位哲学家的观点要透彻一些。更为重要的是，阿奎那以近乎现代的程度强调快乐和痛苦是情绪的基本构成材料，为此，他应该得到荣誉。
在就意志这个话题的讨论中，阿奎那按照教理的要求强调说，意志的自由确存在。可是，他说这话的前提是从亚里士多德心理学得到的。首先，他就理智的本质比意志“更为神圣和崇高”这个论断进行了深奥难懂的形而上的推理。而后，他更为直露一些地说，理智决定什么是善的，而意志却寻找满足对此物体的欲望。我们禁不住奢求欲望所需的物体，我们在决意为这些欲求做什么的时候也是自由的，可是，意志从属于智力，它会决定什么应该去追求，什么应该去避开。（如果我们决意去做邪恶的事情，那是因为没有真正的理解。）可是，有一种情况下，意志是比理智更好的一位裁判：
如果所欲求的目标比灵魂崇高一些，其本质是在里面由理智来理解的，则意志比理智崇高……爱上帝要比仅仅知道上帝好得多；反过来说，只理解有形的物体要比爱有形的东西好得多……通过爱，我们紧靠着以卓越的形式升起在灵魂之上的上帝，在这个情况下，意志比理智崇高。
这又一次证明了阿奎那在信仰和理智之间的调和。他的目标是要利用自然的理智来证明天主教信仰的真理，可是，如三位一体、化身、最后审判以及上帝的本质等的神秘性却不能通过感官或者理智的证据来演绎，而只有通过信仰来认知。因此，他就确立了一个二重的认识论：我们通过经验和理智认知一些事物，而其它的事物却只有通过启示来做到。这种自然主义心理学与基督教迷信思想的混合物会对后世的许多信仰者带来安慰，却对科学心理学的发展造成了长期的阻碍。
因此，阿奎那对心理学的影响既是积极的，也是消极的。在他把感觉和理智描述成我们籍以获取知识的途径时，他也提供了一个基础，在这个基础上，心理学有一天会获得一种实验的、科学的世界观。
可是，在他把更高级的智力作用描述成永生不死的东西，以及坚持说某些知识只能通过信仰来获取时，他就使超自然主义对心理学的控制延长了更多的时间。他的权威如此牢不可撼，至少是在天主教徒中，由20世纪——有一本甚至晚至1945年——的天主教徒所写的两本心理学史都说，阿奎那之后的心理学走入了迷途。
阿奎那于1724 年去世之后的好几个世纪中，心理学又一次陷入停滞状态。这位圣人和哲学家合并起来的权威使其石化了，而少数一些写过心理学方面的著作的牧师又几乎没有新的东西说出来。时代对知识探索也不尽适宜。14世纪的百年战争和黑死病及其它流行病使社会秩序陷入大混乱。在这样一个世界里，没有人会受到激励，竟然要去以科学和哲学的态度来探索人类的心灵。就连受过教育的那些人也在绝望中转入了占星术、迷信和魔鬼信仰的研究中。一些在稍好些的时间里有可能会写出更多有关古典著作和教父哲学的评论的牧师们，他们反过来研究并写作有关女巫的行为和方法，审判官可以用来证明被告与魔鬼结伴，为虎作伥。
恶鬼或者群魔在里面出现的错觉和幻