It depends on how you define both fields, I guess.

In my opinion, there's a big problem in defining Philosophy. No matter what, you can't really get much further than "what tries to bring Wisdom", the reason being that in your search of truth, you are comforted by the feeling of improving you wisdom. This is how the Philosopher navigates knowledge. Think of Descarte and his Cogito: you could very well be tricked, unless deep down some truth emerges from within.

Psychology suffers from the opposite foundation. As a science, it is often put back against the wall in the search for experimentation, data, and clear unambiguous formulation (which isn't possible for the "truth that emerges from within" of Philosophy).

Then, on the way to find wisdom, there's a lot of issues that arise. A big one is the status of knowledge, both in a practical and theoretical way. Freud resolves this issue by subtracting knowledge as a whole from his patients. What a patient needs is to talk to a "scholar", and that is enough for the patient to navigate his way out of his issues. In that regard, Freud adopts a position held by most religious system. To quote Buddha:

>If a fool be associated with a wise man even all his life, he will perceive the truth as little as a spoon perceives the taste of soup.
If an intelligent man be associated for one minute only with a wise man, he will soon perceive the truth, as the tongue perceives the taste of soup.

But again, it is problematic in the field of Science to hold such a view. How do you prove your theory in between scientists?... Some of them must remain ignorant, and only tell their experience to the others? And what about the ideology of Science?.. How can it hold, if some part of it refuses it's nature out-right?

Talking about Philosophy and Psychology being "sisters" is an abomination to me, because one of them is millennium years old, and the other barely more than a hundred. Even the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages acknowledged the primacy of Philosophy over any other knowledge, even on theology... I agree that nowadays this view makes people laugh, because people gave Science its letter of nobility, but for me there's a lot more to prove for Science than what it did. And Psychology, it is on another level than Philosophy and Science, unfortunately. Picking the goal of one and the tool of the other has only been reductive so far, and as far as I know it only proved useful in some Machiavellian-type manipulative theories... But for its announced goal, to help the common man, it didn't delivered so far. Marketing teams and electoral managers have been the most rewarded by your studies, and they also dab into dumbing themselves down ad nauseum.

In the meantime, the clinical psychology evolved in the direction of the CBT and other "technical" solution. I thinks it's incredibly poor, and I know by experience that you are simply asked to hide under the rug what doesn't fit the little tools you are given. Psychology is very nihilistic, from where I stand... And paired with Knowledge and Authority, it became very cruel quickly. I doubt many people will want to work that field in the future, and then what? No more support for Man? Just "do sport and eat healthy"?

I'm gonna stop here. I would have had a lot to say about how much Nietzsche provided solutions to this very issues that he identified already 150 years ago. Psychologists are good and capable people, and I think they will pull out of this bad moment. Everything feels out of his place right now, so maybe it's for the best. Anyway, thanks for the people that read me that far already.