THE PURPOSE OF this discussion is to determine how philosophy is related to psychology or vice versa. The reason this is the purpose is due to the fact of psychology being a form of knowledge, and knowledge itself is a focal point of philosophy. So, in order to have a well-ordered, factual and consistent psychology, this psychology must rest upon a philosophy capable of holding it in place.

Psychology, as it so happens, is comprised greatly of synthetic a priori judgments, which general metaphysics, simply put, struggles with tremendously. In other words, there does not seem to be any existing compromise of priority between epistemology and metaphysics, though both imply each other. The purpose of this discussion unfolds more: according to what philosophy could a psychology be well-based? Which epistemology? Which metaphysics? Which solution of the two's incompatability?
Personally, my own conception of psychology, which is 'a' psychology, has its philosophical roots in Nietzsche, Hegel, Kant, Sartre and other philosophers.

Nietsche, in many of his writings, presents argumentation criticizing synthetic a priori iudgments yet maintaining their undeniability. He does this, specifically, to bring awareness to the "absolutely falsest of all statements," which are, paradoxically, the truest of all statements. He means to say that these synthetic a priori judgments that constitute our knowledge of existence are, in fact, true but true not as it would relate to a strict logical formulation; the sort of knowledge that rests upon necessitated designations of what is true or false by virtue of their meanings and logical implications.

He means to say that the knowledge in the synthetic a priori mode is true by virtue of something that cannot be made completely explicable by logic or reason. The fact that a person is a narcissist, for instance, is the type of knowledge incapable of being absolutely rooted down to an analytical knowledge, as if, after the observations of a person's behavior render his intentions objectively ascertainable in their factness, capable of being assimilated into a theory of tendencies of people, which remain objective as a categorization attaining the label of knowledge. The statement, "He is a narcissist," if true, is true by virtue of it being a synthetic a priori judgment. It would be true absent of experience because his 'condition of narcissism' is not information pertaining to something that happens but is information pertaining to a condition prior to action.

It is not analytically true, because 'he' does not contain in the meaning of himself, the being of being a narcissist. Furthermore, there is no meaning of him as subject, as if there is any analysis of the meaning of himself that will designate his being as a narcissist. There is rather a subsequent determination of him being a narcissist. It is synthetic because this information of him lies elsewhere. This elsewhere does not seem to be anywhere else other than outside of the logic pertaining to what he is as an objective fact. An objective fact of himself is a narcissist. It could never be a subjective fact. And thus anything analytically true is true while being subjective. What is analytically true is said to be objective because it can be reached subjectively by anyone and everyone. But it is still a fact reached by subjective means. The fact of someone being a narcissist is a psychological fact specifically because it is synthetic a priori. And so something not logically explicable is the ground by which these synthetic a priori judgments are true, namely, in the form of plausibility... Or, in other words, probability.

Taking a detour back to another premise, Nietzsche is reponsible for an investigation into the importance of causality. Someone, who, perhaps, dismisses the importantance of causality, sees determination as part of a continuum and is not riddled by the system of logic and "snares of language." And so, a psychology designating certain definitions of people, do so truthfully not by a causal sequence of events alone, which is the part of reason and logic, but also with leaps of logic to overcome inevitable rifts between the a priori and a posteriori. These rifts are often found, and they are often, as I see them, the very fault lines that distinguish particular psychological theories.

Someone is a narcissist not a posteriori, because it is not the experience of the behavior the determines this fact, it is the act of judgment that isolates this behavior, draws an inference of intention and nihilates the being of the narcissist to be a narcissist and necessitates this fact; that is, because a narcissist is a narcissist insofar as he is not an objective fact, and is precisely a narcissist in that he is still, subjectively, nothing definable. This definition of him as a narcissist is not a subjective truth of his, but is a truth across the rift, on the other side of subjective fact, the objective side. This is why this fact of someone being a narcissist is absolutely false, because it can not be proven. But it is absolutely undeniable, because it is the necessitated outcome of the analysis that premises experience as undeniable and founded absolutely. Philosophy can never premise experience.

The rift between psychology and philosophy is now distinct. Is it? I want your thoughts. Psychology completes what philosophy cannot, which is, define the individual. Psychology objectifies the human as an objective fact. This is the greatest leap in logic. It is true, is it not? It is true that we are an objective fact... But nothing could designate this by virtue of reason or logic alone. Something else does the designation...

Intention. The intentions of philosophy is not within the confines of the intentions psychology has. The intention of a psychology has as its object something philosophy can never base.
Or can philosophy adequately base a psychology? Is there a philosophy that can firmly, for instance, characterize someone as narcissistic, depressed, anxious, etc.?

How is one to approach psychological knowledge and apprehend psychological fact?