Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Recommended Posts

This is my argument

The reason why people have a passion is because they believe that they can change something and that it is important. In fact, all emotions are true in such a way. Emotions are simply involuntary responses to our rational observations. A child observes what he is good at and that is how a passion develops. It is very obvious to a child. Everyone as a child had figured it out, but not many people actually followed their passion. Since all passions are rational, then if society is rational, following one’s passion will lead to prosperity. However, this is not the case with our current society. If I want to become a philosopher in North Korea, my prospects are very low or I will not make enough money to survive. This would never happen in a free society because passions are always valuable. However, state intervention prevents the pursuit of an individual’s rational self-interests. It subdues free will. There was a man who did a major in philosophy but who after regretted it because he hadn’t been able to make money from it. It as at this point that people break with their passions. He concluded that passions are not necessarily good and he implicitly accepted nihilism rather than recognising that evil was done unto him. It makes it hard for him to recognise it since sophism is state sponsored in philosophy departments. The majority of people share a similar story. Whether it is coercion from the state, or their parents, or their peers, an adult or child is in some way rejected for following their passions and the adult or child concludes that he cannot trust his emotions. This is the very essence of evil. It is why people did not trust the invisible hand of the free market for tens of thousands of years. Essentially, their self-esteem was so destroyed that they did not trust their own rational faculty. It is the greatest contradiction that ever existed.

 

A virtuous man would find a work-around. He knows that his life is meaningless without passion. He knows that if he were to look back at his life without following his passion, he would regret it and wonder what could have been. There is no alternative for him. Every action we make is motivated by emotion. A person cannot simply think and do. They must think until they feel that they can do. An artificial line has been created between emotions and thoughts. Emotions simply are an expression of our deepest and truest thoughts that we may not even be conscious of. It is analogous to the arbitrary distinction between qualia and meaning. We see red because we associate it with everything else that is red. A person void of passion then, is a robot without free will, following the instructions of others without even being consciously aware of it. So, the virtuous man has no rational choice other than to find alternatives to the best of his ability. This does not mean that the virtuous man will be unsatisfied. The passion arises only from what can be done. If man finds that his passion is unreachable, his passion will naturally change. So, the virtuous man is a force that cannot be stopped by anyone or anything. It is as clear as sunlight what his objective is. A rock cannot turn into a tree, nor can man change his neurological predispositions, particularly once he becomes aware of them. Even if a man is destroyed for following his passions, he will never be the same. He will always be at ease, because he knows what must be done so he will inevitably build himself back up. He is the man who works. But if a man does not immerse into his passions, he will always live a shallow life not knowing what he could have been.

 “Nothing is softer or more flexible than water, yet nothing can resist it” – Lao Tzu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Emotions are simply involuntary responses to our rational observations."

If you believe this, you will never be a philosopher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, eschiedler said:

"Emotions are simply involuntary responses to our rational observations."

If you believe this, you will never be a philosopher.

If free will is valid, they must be. If emotions are arbitrary, then given enough time we could theoretically become monks completely at peace or train ourselves into become mass murderers without any regret and that would negate free will. There is such a thing as false self emotions. These aren't emotions per se. They are either us misinterpreting our emotions or pretending that emotions exist that aren't really there. That way of thinking comes from being subject to propaganda, like having these viruses in your head that order you around. The true self isn't the same as the virus. What I'm saying is not new. Stefan has said the same thing, and this proposition serves as the basis of psychoanalysis as far as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great news. 

I still remember your thread like it was yesterday.

 

Back then I thought to myself that I cannot think of an endeavor that would be more meaningful to you than "figuring the world out" through the power of philosophy. I am very similar.

 

I think that your main challenge was your episodes of self-doubt which is acutely demoralizing to someone who wishes to become a philosopher since his strength relies on him being able to gain certainty through rational thought.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mole said:

If free will is valid, they must be. If emotions are arbitrary, then given enough time we could theoretically become monks completely at peace or train ourselves into become mass murderers without any regret and that would negate free will. There is such a thing as false self emotions. These aren't emotions per se. They are either us misinterpreting our emotions or pretending that emotions exist that aren't really there. That way of thinking comes from being subject to propaganda, like having these viruses in your head that order you around. The true self isn't the same as the virus. What I'm saying is not new. Stefan has said the same thing, and this proposition serves as the basis of psychoanalysis as far as I understand it.

You haven't defined the difference between a rational observation and an irrational observation. The idea of viruses in your head that are separate from your true self is something you have not demonstrated in the slightest.

In your OP, you seemed sure of your reasoning and didn't demonstrate any sense of awareness that you might have a thinking error. To you, I recommend that you get married as soon as possible. It doesn't matter which woman, they are all the same I can assure you. Work yourself so hard that you only have rational observations and positive emotions. If some disturbing emotions arise, keep saying whatever you have to say to yourself until the emotions are happiness and passion. Then you will know that you are back on the right track, as these "involuntary responses" were positive and therefore must be proof of your rational observations. If you should get divorced, just marry another woman as soon as possible. The world is full of material resources at the moment you should have plenty after the divorce if you keep working hard to afford another wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jot said:

This is great news. 

I still remember your thread like it was yesterday.

 

Back then I thought to myself that I cannot think of an endeavor that would be more meaningful to you than "figuring the world out" through the power of philosophy. I am very similar.

 

I think that your main challenge was your episodes of self-doubt which is acutely demoralizing to someone who wishes to become a philosopher since his strength relies on him being able to gain certainty through rational thought.

 

 

 

Ahh yes. You will notice my views have only become more sophisticated but haven't fundamentally changed. Now that I look back, I don't think FDR was wrecking my development. I was just still at an immature stage of intellectual development. Other people probably get things more intuitively than I do (e.g., empathy) but they don't understand things intellectually. I think intellect is my most important tool for guiding my life and so it was not fair for me to compare myself to others who probably have more empathy than I do and didn't have the same experiences that I had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, eschiedler said:

You haven't defined the difference between a rational observation and an irrational observation. The idea of viruses in your head that are separate from your true self is something you have not demonstrated in the slightest.

In your OP, you seemed sure of your reasoning and didn't demonstrate any sense of awareness that you might have a thinking error. To you, I recommend that you get married as soon as possible. It doesn't matter which woman, they are all the same I can assure you. Work yourself so hard that you only have rational observations and positive emotions. If some disturbing emotions arise, keep saying whatever you have to say to yourself until the emotions are happiness and passion. Then you will know that you are back on the right track, as these "involuntary responses" were positive and therefore must be proof of your rational observations. If you should get divorced, just marry another woman as soon as possible. The world is full of material resources at the moment you should have plenty after the divorce if you keep working hard to afford another wife.

A rational observation is psycho-epistemologically distinct from irrational observations because assuming free will exists, there must be some underlying personality that is empirical and that therefore knows that religion is invalid, the state is invalid, etc. If this underlying personality did not exist, free will would be impossible because there would be no objective standard to compare our actions to. If someone believed that murder was moral in their heart of hearts, then that person could never have had a choice to act differently and therefore did not have free will. Likewise, there must also be a personality that is irrational (the false self), but emotions cannot be created in this personality because you cannot perceive something that does not exist. But the false self only believes those things that do not exist. Think of it this way, a blind man can convince himself that he knows what red looks like. This would be his false self, and the 'red' that he thinks he sees is a false qualia (just like a false emotion). The reason he consciously believes that is because something had impeded his empirical true self at some point in his life; mythologies and falsehoods. But unconsciously, his true self knows that he has never seen red. It is very obvious to his true self for good reason. It is only once he actually has seen red that his belief becomes a rational observation, and it is exactly at that time that he can experience what red actually is. This is exactly how thoughts and emotions work together. How can a person know what guilt means unless they had empirically first understood justice? The very fact that animals (which aren't capable of rationality) don't have these complicated emotions further supports my argument that emotions are involuntary responses to rational observations.

Your example of reductio ad absurdum is an example that I would use to support my argument?? I even said that if emotions were arbitrary (not objective rational observations) then someone could 'work' themselves into a positive state. But I precisely said that it's not possible. As I said, if a person could work themselves into a state of mind, we all ought to become meditating monks which is not too far off from the example of the serial husband that you gave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conan:
The riddle... of steel.

Thulsa Doom:
Yes! You know what it is don't you boy. Shall I tell you? It's the least I can do. Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger! Look around you. There, on the rocks; that beautiful girl. Come to me my child... That is strength boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste. Contemplate this on the tree of woe. Crucify him!

 

It's not enough to be rationally told or follow philosophy, you have to embody ideas/philosophy into the fibre of your being.

Was actually watching a STTNG Episode (The Ensigns of Command) today on Zone Horror, the episode was actually exploring the theme of rationality, communication & "Kantian Goodwill". 

One of the downsides of rationality as I think @eschiedler was alluding to, is that it can in a way cause a person to act in a way that things become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also seeing that there's been an undercurrent of environmenatlism in many recent posts, anyone ever see the film Prophecy(1979)? Kind of thought I'd throw that in there.

The trick being to perhaps not act irrationally, but arrationally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Emotions are simply involuntary responses to our rational observations.

How do you know that? Current findings disagree with your thesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ofd said:

How do you know that? Current findings disagree with your thesis.

 

2 hours ago, Mole said:

If free will is valid, they must be. If emotions are arbitrary, then given enough time we could theoretically become monks completely at peace or train ourselves into become mass murderers without any regret and that would negate free will. There is such a thing as false self emotions. These aren't emotions per se. They are either us misinterpreting our emotions or pretending that emotions exist that aren't really there. That way of thinking comes from being subject to propaganda, like having these viruses in your head that order you around. The true self isn't the same as the virus. What I'm saying is not new. Stefan has said the same thing, and this proposition serves as the basis of psychoanalysis as far as I understand it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If free will is valid, they must be.

That's a big if.
 

Quote

If emotions are arbitrary

That's a false dichotomy. Emotions are not under your rational control. Sure, you can force yourself to feel differently, but that takes a lot of energy and eventually, it will fail. 

 

Quote

The true self isn't the same as the virus.

The self itself is under heavy dispute, especially among those who study the mind. Either via scientific approaches or on a subjective level using meditation.

 

Quote

this proposition serves as the basis of psychoanalysis as far as I understand it.

Psychoanalysis has failed both on the theoretical level and more importantly on the practical level of actually helping or curing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ofd said:

Psychoanalysis has failed both on the theoretical level and more importantly on the practical level of actually helping or curing people.

How did it fail? More importantly what has succeeded? by what standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ofd said:

That's a big if.

The question that any person faces in life is, what should I be doing with my time? I think this is a sufficient proof of free will because it asks man to be rational and to have objective ideals. If emotions are arbitrary, then there are no objective ideals because the purpose of life is happiness but happiness is just positive emotions.

 

45 minutes ago, ofd said:

That's a false dichotomy. Emotions are not under your rational control. Sure, you can force yourself to feel differently, but that takes a lot of energy and eventually, it will fail. 

To say that it's a false dichotomy sounds like saying that rationality and irrationality is a false dichotomy. I can understand that emotions might be inaccurate some of the time, e.g., it's just a prank bro. I'm not saying that emotions are always accurate, but I am saying that they are always rational and that just means empirical. And given that our emotions such as guilt are so complex, this must be the case. That's because in order for us to even be able to feel guilt, we must have built a conceptual chain leading to guilt that includes other concepts such as justice, and that can only be done by a robust, empirical mind. But if we are able to do that, it doesn't make sense that we make a 'cognitive error' of thinking that we ought to be guilty for things we didn't do wrong. That cannot be the case, because if we feel guilt then we very well know what justice is, but if we know justice, then we know that what we have done isn't wrong. If emotions such as guilt don't really exist or are much more primitive than we make them to be, then I don't understand how a person can find meaning in such a complex world. I think it is most likely that we evolved to have complex emotions as we concurrently came to understand the world and society.

 

45 minutes ago, ofd said:

The self itself is under heavy dispute, especially among those who study the mind. Either via scientific approaches or on a subjective level using meditation.

I would definitely say that the true self consists of sub-personalities which can even contradict one another.  However, a conceptual net can be caste around these sub-personalities that are more or less not merely self-defense mechanisms. The sub-personalities of the false self are simply reacting to the sub-personalities of the true self. To give a very concrete example, obviously there is a part of you that knows your dog didn't eat your homework. However, there is another part of you that doesn't want other people to know that you know that. Without the first part, the second part cannot exist. This is how we differentiate the true and false self. Perhaps this is where the idea of shoulder angels originated from.

 

45 minutes ago, ofd said:

Psychoanalysis has failed both on the theoretical level and more importantly on the practical level of actually helping or curing people.

Psychoanalysis or rather psycho-dynamics has been shown to be as effective as CBT in the long-term. However, many psychologists argue that there is a common variable that explains this. And they say that this common variable is the empathy of the counsellor/therapist. Given these results, I think the debate is not nearly settled. Anyway, I'm not even sure whether it is fair to compare psycho-dynamics to other psychotherapies, just like it is unfair to compare weight loss and liposuction. Also, it should be noted that almost every FDR call-in show contains a great chunk of psycho-dynamics. It is very hard to argue that self-defense mechanisms don't exist or that there aren't unconscious drives or motives which we only discover later in life. Cognitivism might claim to be able to explain these things, but it goes nowhere near into detail as psycho-dynamics has.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Mole

I guess that's you changing your mind about/discarding military internship... right?

If so, good on you! Make it work!

Barnsley

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mole said:

The question that any person faces in life is, what should I be doing with my time? I think this is a sufficient proof of free will because it asks man to be rational and to have objective ideals. If emotions are arbitrary, then there are no objective ideals because the purpose of life is happiness but happiness is just positive emotions.

 

To say that it's a false dichotomy sounds like saying that rationality and irrationality is a false dichotomy. I can understand that emotions might be inaccurate some of the time, e.g., it's just a prank bro. I'm not saying that emotions are always accurate, but I am saying that they are always rational and that just means empirical. And given that our emotions such as guilt are so complex, this must be the case. That's because in order for us to even be able to feel guilt, we must have built a conceptual chain leading to guilt that includes other concepts such as justice, and that can only be done by a robust, empirical mind. But if we are able to do that, it doesn't make sense that we make a 'cognitive error' of thinking that we ought to be guilty for things we didn't do wrong. That cannot be the case, because if we feel guilt then we very well know what justice is, but if we know justice, then we know that what we have done isn't wrong. If emotions such as guilt don't really exist or are much more primitive than we make them to be, then I don't understand how a person can find meaning in such a complex world. I think it is most likely that we evolved to have complex emotions as we concurrently came to understand the world and society.

 

I would definitely say that the true self consists of sub-personalities which can even contradict one another.  However, a conceptual net can be caste around these sub-personalities that are more or less not merely self-defense mechanisms. The sub-personalities of the false self are simply reacting to the sub-personalities of the true self. To give a very concrete example, obviously there is a part of you that knows your dog didn't eat your homework. However, there is another part of you that doesn't want other people to know that you know that. Without the first part, the second part cannot exist. This is how we differentiate the true and false self. Perhaps this is where the idea of shoulder angels originated from.

 

Psychoanalysis or rather psycho-dynamics has been shown to be as effective as CBT in the long-term. However, many psychologists argue that there is a common variable that explains this. And they say that this common variable is the empathy of the counsellor/therapist. Given these results, I think the debate is not nearly settled. Anyway, I'm not even sure whether it is fair to compare psycho-dynamics to other psychotherapies, just like it is unfair to compare weight loss and liposuction. Also, it should be noted that almost every FDR call-in show contains a great chunk of psycho-dynamics. It is very hard to argue that self-defense mechanisms don't exist or that there aren't unconscious drives or motives which we only discover later in life. Cognitivism might claim to be able to explain these things, but it goes nowhere near into detail as psycho-dynamics has.

I was going to comment here that imo people can't really decide to be philosophers it's something that happens after they have experienced the fire of life but this post impressed me a great deal so I will eat my words!

I seriously wish you luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe people have an objective life path, something they were put here to do. For me I believe a big part of that, perhaps the biggest part, is music. Whenever it comes to academic work I have always struggled against my own tendency to put my points in as brief a words as possible. As though I was writing song lyrics! It interests me that you don't experience things the same way and properly explain things!

Drop some personal info now or later so we can follow you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How did it fail?

To take a prominent example: Freud actually never cured a patient. More importantly, psychoanalysis can explain everything within its framework. This may be seen as an advantage, however it's a weakness. If psychoanalysis doesn't work it's because of resentment or some complexes deep in the past. This failure validates the theory and serves as immunisation against the critics. As Popper pointed out, psychoanalysis makes no predictions that can be tested. It's a bunch of just so ad hoc theories.

Quote

I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behaviour: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and in Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation.

According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child).

I could not think of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact — that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed — which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.


 

Quote

More importantly what has succeeded?

Cognitive approaches that test their theories against reality. The third generation approaches (ACT, Mindfulness Based CBT, Coherence Therapy) propose a model of the mind that is in line with our understanding of how the mind works.
 

Quote

I think this is a sufficient proof of free will because it asks man to be rational and to have objective ideals.

The null hypothesis is that there are no objective ideals. Presupposing them to proofing free will is begging the question. Jonathan Haidt and Daniel Kahneman have done some groundbreaking work that shows how and when our rationality breaks down and how it is a rider that controls an elephant.
 

Quote

but I am saying that they are always rational and that just means empirical.

There is a simple example that proves this wrong. Emotions are designed to give you more false positives rather than an accurate description of the enviroment. They do that, to make it more likelier that you will pass your genes on. If you hear something rustle behind you, you will turn around and the fight / flight / freeze reaction sets in. In 99% of the cases it was a false alarm. But in the one case where it was say a snake, that emotional reaction may have saved your life.
 

Quote

That's because in order for us to even be able to feel guilt, we must have built a conceptual chain leading to guilt that includes other concepts such as justice, and that can only be done by a robust, empirical mind.

There is a much simpler explanation that can be tested easily. Feeling guilty lets you adjust to a society which makes it easier to pass on your genes. The area of the brain where this calculations take place has been located (Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex) and interestingly enough, it is the part of the brain that is the last to be fully formed. From a biological sense, this makes sense. It helps you adjust to society and their intricate rules. Some societies have arcane restrictions to eating or mating, hence learning about them and internalizing them makes it easier for you to have offspring.

 

Quote

guilt that includes other concepts such as justice

There are more concepts, like shame, disgust and so on that are not rational. If you grew up in a society that thinks eating pig is forbidden you will feel a visceral reaction to those animals that can't be found in societies where eating them is considered normal. The same is true for other food and sexual practices.

 

Quote

I would definitely say that the true self consists of sub-personalities which can even contradict one another. 

How can you show that they are there at all?

 

Quote

Cognitivism might claim to be able to explain these things, but it goes nowhere near into detail as psycho-dynamics has.

Details don't matter when you can't show that what you claim can be tested and be found repeatedly. If you can explain everything, you can't explain anything. Furthermore you immunize your theory against scrutiny. A theory that makes specific predictions that can be tested is preferable over one that has only a big theory of everything, making no predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ofd said:

To take a prominent example: Freud actually never cured a patient. More importantly, psychoanalysis can explain everything within its framework. This may be seen as an advantage, however it's a weakness. If psychoanalysis doesn't work it's because of resentment or some complexes deep in the past. This failure validates the theory and serves as immunisation against the critics. As Popper pointed out, psychoanalysis makes no predictions that can be tested. It's a bunch of just so ad hoc theories.

This is a really interesting point. I knew a feminist psychotherapy woman who used to do this. Everything everyone did that displeased her was down to their own sex drive which they could not accept.

Murky territory indeed, getting lost in one's own mind/ madness!

I often find 'therapy culture' people elitest. I find that in meet up groups specifically. 

Although there are other very cool legitimate therapists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/02/2018 at 9:28 AM, ofd said:

To take a prominent example: Freud actually never cured a patient. More importantly, psychoanalysis can explain everything within its framework. This may be seen as an advantage, however it's a weakness. If psychoanalysis doesn't work it's because of resentment or some complexes deep in the past. This failure validates the theory and serves as immunisation against the critics. As Popper pointed out, psychoanalysis makes no predictions that can be tested. It's a bunch of just so ad hoc theories.

Maybe though it might be possible to infer things about people through word association or previous actions and then look at a selection of people and see if it is the case, come up with a theory to try and explain why that might be the case. In the realm of mysticism, but to perhaps some extent religion, mythology, alchemy and mysticism were precursors to science. Might it be possible through inductive reasoning to try and figure out what's going on. You might not know with certainty what something is, but to have a structure even if it is wrong or not even wrong, but untestable, some kind of filler Luminiferous aether. 

There are 2 different principles at work though right? Maybe though it could be some form of combination, or something else entirely. OR The ulitmate principle Determinism or Freewill :laugh:.

Adlerian Power Principle. Standing in society or it's perversion in unhealthy individuals. 

Freudian Pleasure Principle. So it feels good in someway? relative to a complex and it's resolution.

Though both seem to ignore the issue of morality and Ethics, would those be delusions in psychoanalysis? Out of the 2 the Freudian seems more plausible to me, but also more deterministic.

On 26/02/2018 at 9:28 AM, ofd said:

Cognitive approaches that test their theories against reality. The third generation approaches (ACT, Mindfulness Based CBT, Coherence Therapy) propose a model of the mind that is in line with our understanding of how the mind works.

ACT - So become one with your thoughts and it will work out for the best? Sounds like Absurdism(An Actual Philosophy!!!), what if the person has violent thoughts? 

Mindfulness Based CBT - To observe your thoughts, but not attach meaning to them or react to them. Sounds like Stoicism. "I pardon you, that's what the Emperor said". Interestingly the Emperor was Christian, Justinian, I think the quote was also mentioned by either Duke Pesta or Vox Day. 

Coherency Therapy - Looking at ways of resolving complexes so attention can be directed elsewhere? Quietism?

What model has been proposed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What model has been proposed?

Essentially the ABC-model introduced by Albert, where A stands for an input, C is the reaction and B being the irrational ideas. What makes those approaches different from REBT or CBT is that they try to change B at the core, not disputing it with more rational ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause.

-- Ayn Rand (never going to be a philosopher)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ofd said:

Essentially the ABC-model introduced by Albert, where A stands for an input, C is the reaction and B being the irrational ideas. What makes those approaches different from REBT or CBT is that they try to change B at the core, not disputing it with more rational ideas.

That sounds sensible. "An idea someone has not been reasoned into, can not be reasoned out of." Stefan Molyneux / Johnathan Swift.(Author of Gulliver's Travels)

I wonder though if therapy done poorly could create some real monsters though and that maybe Aristotlian Philosophy might be a better option. Taking the steroids over a more balanced workout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ofdAnother thing I was thinking of is I remember J Peterson mentioning when refering to various therapists Rogers, Albert Elis etc "One thing they all agree on, is that you can't change someone who doesn't want to change."

So perhaps in order for a person to change or to integrate them into a social unit, would be to engage their "system 2" functioning (frontal cortex effortful thinking, Daniel Kahneman) "show us your war face!" The region of the brain where perhaps the Ego functions. Perhaps one of the reasons Stefan often tries to engage the callers on an emotional level, "coming together". 

My thoughts on the matter is what if the mind also works a different way. You can engage the prefrontal cortex and try and be more conscientious and integrated into society, but what if it was possible to try and use the more primitive areas of the brain in a productive function. Use system 1 associative functioning to transform a personality. Perceive of existence anew unstructered by the Ego. Personally I see of how a system 2 more aristotlian approach can be successful. But what if a more Platonic allegory of the caves approach is also possible? (had the story come up after looking for the word aeon) Heard J Peterson mention a book called Aion by C.GJung, called it "terrifying". Anyway going along the lines of mysticism, but I wonder given the Universe that is the brain/nervous system, if it could be capable of so much more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

but what if it was possible to try and use the more primitive areas of the brain in a productive function.

This is what the third generation cogntitiv approach tries to do. One problem CBT practicioners encountered was that irrationale ideas are coupled with strong emotions. If you de-couple them, you can become more rational in a shorter period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 4:44 PM, Mole said:

This is my argument

The reason why people have a passion is because they believe that they can change something and that it is important. In fact, all emotions are true in such a way. Emotions are simply involuntary responses to our rational observations. A child observes what he is good at and that is how a passion develops. It is very obvious to a child. Everyone as a child had figured it out, but not many people actually followed their passion. Since all passions are rational, then if society is rational, following one’s passion will lead to prosperity. However, this is not the case with our current society. If I want to become a philosopher in North Korea, my prospects are very low or I will not make enough money to survive. This would never happen in a free society because passions are always valuable. However, state intervention prevents the pursuit of an individual’s rational self-interests. It subdues free will. There was a man who did a major in philosophy but who after regretted it because he hadn’t been able to make money from it. It as at this point that people break with their passions. He concluded that passions are not necessarily good and he implicitly accepted nihilism rather than recognising that evil was done unto him. It makes it hard for him to recognise it since sophism is state sponsored in philosophy departments. The majority of people share a similar story. Whether it is coercion from the state, or their parents, or their peers, an adult or child is in some way rejected for following their passions and the adult or child concludes that he cannot trust his emotions. This is the very essence of evil. It is why people did not trust the invisible hand of the free market for tens of thousands of years. Essentially, their self-esteem was so destroyed that they did not trust their own rational faculty. It is the greatest contradiction that ever existed.

 

A virtuous man would find a work-around. He knows that his life is meaningless without passion. He knows that if he were to look back at his life without following his passion, he would regret it and wonder what could have been. There is no alternative for him. Every action we make is motivated by emotion. A person cannot simply think and do. They must think until they feel that they can do. An artificial line has been created between emotions and thoughts. Emotions simply are an expression of our deepest and truest thoughts that we may not even be conscious of. It is analogous to the arbitrary distinction between qualia and meaning. We see red because we associate it with everything else that is red. A person void of passion then, is a robot without free will, following the instructions of others without even being consciously aware of it. So, the virtuous man has no rational choice other than to find alternatives to the best of his ability. This does not mean that the virtuous man will be unsatisfied. The passion arises only from what can be done. If man finds that his passion is unreachable, his passion will naturally change. So, the virtuous man is a force that cannot be stopped by anyone or anything. It is as clear as sunlight what his objective is. A rock cannot turn into a tree, nor can man change his neurological predispositions, particularly once he becomes aware of them. Even if a man is destroyed for following his passions, he will never be the same. He will always be at ease, because he knows what must be done so he will inevitably build himself back up. He is the man who works. But if a man does not immerse into his passions, he will always live a shallow life not knowing what he could have been.

 “Nothing is softer or more flexible than water, yet nothing can resist it” – Lao Tzu.

The first thing I'd ask you regarding this idea is "Why talk in such absolutes?" because you aren't actually explaining most of them. You are making a LOT of truth claims without substantiating them. "Emotions are simple involuntary responses to our rational observations". Do you think the Left has been responding very rationally to Trump getting elected? Is the passion furies have to fuck animals a good passion from rationality? How are all passions rational? If your passion is drinking a lot of alcohol, you aren't going to get rich off of that. None of what you are saying is making any sense whatsoever.

 

It's a word salad, not an argument. There's no objective basis for anything you're claiming in your story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Freedom4the

The essential quality of a philosopher is trust. Just as the essential quality of a Christian is faith. It is the spirit that matters, and not the content. Why so much focus and action on peaceful parenting and education?

Not that audio books aren't a help, in furthering understanding. Henry David Thoreau, David Hume, & Bram Stroker. Helped to crystallise the idea of trust to me being a quality of a philosopher. Which is why Nietzsche is a Philologist & Psychologist, but not a philosopher, he does not trust. Is to trust more exhausting, than not to?

How many lecturers and professors trust to speak publicly and openly about things they know to be true and important to civilization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2018 at 11:39 AM, Freedom4the said:

How do you determine if a passion is rational? What do you mean as rational? Is a pedophile’s desire to sexually molest an infant considered a rational desire? If it is what does it matter anyway. Dedicating your life to Philosophy is hard work. I have a 130+ IQ and I prefer to do something else because of all the reading it requires. I never was big into books but I can be content listening to audio my whole life— which is why I like Stefan’s show so much. I just hope you have a knack for reading if you don’t read at least a book a week you won’t be able to compete with most Philosophers, they’ll just out-info you. I’ve learned this from trying to do something similar to what Stefan does. It’s really exhausting, not for the faint of heart or someone who is unsure about themselves by a long shot.

Hold on. Did Stefan read a book a week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2018 at 9:17 AM, Freedom4the said:

I’ve been watching Stefan since October 2009. He regularly has guests on his show almost weekly where he reads their books, sometimes several, before having them on. He also talks about listening to audio books, as well as reading really thick books and of corse writing his own books. I’d say it’s safe to say, especially with his verbal IQ and how much he talks about his love and purpose of reading, he definitely reads at least a book a week on average. Maybe it’s less, maybe it’s more. Maybe a lot of his wit is learned through conversation, but he’s obviously well read. My point isn’t to argue over the technicalities of numbers that I said// maybe he reads 3/4 of a book a week, but really the underlying elemental premise. He’s certainly well read and being well read has its own time sinkhole. Certainly all the articles and research digging he does. Just saying, prepare to work hard. I used to think it was easy. Don’t believe me? Start your own Philosophy show and see who actually pays you any time in listening. We aren’t talking about the people who will tell you what you want to hear, but people who will actually donate to you or pay for your content. You have to separate yourself from the Harvard graduates and others people are submitting themselves too. Competition is fierce when it comes to the internet and free market systems for making a living. If you got a good idea, most people will steal t and resell it. I’ve learned this by self-publishing my own book. Even gf you have something great to say, most people won’t listen, and you better hope some of them that do have money or you’re a homeless Philosopher surrounded by ceackheads. This is why it’s not for me as much as it is for others. I’ll keep trying but the road ahead is long and challenging. Maybe you can do better. This is my experience

Thanks for your perspective. I'll definitely consider what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fantastic, Mole. I like the way you think as well. I wish you the best of happiness.

 

If you ever want someone to bounce ideas off on any topic, just send me a message. I'm very tolerant of all types of perspectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 6:34 PM, ofd said:

 

 Sure, you can force yourself to feel differently, but that takes a lot of energy and eventually, it will fail. 
 

You cant even force yourself to feel differently. Emotions are involuntary responses to thoughts and events. I suppose you could recognise what thoughts were linked to the emotions, and then whenever that thought came up, think a happy thought, but you are still experiencing the negative thought, and the emotion linked with it. You also dont get to choose what thoughts come up, so that likely wont work anyway.

 

If what you said was the case, then it would follow that depressed/anxious/negative people were choosing to be that way, or at least not choosing to change to being positive. I suppose thats possible, but not very likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You cant even force yourself to feel differently.

Good catch, I was wrong with that. You can initiate actions that change your feelings by exposing yourself to situations you are afraid of (say being around a spider) and thus changing your response to them by noticing they are not that threatening.
 

Quote

I suppose you could recognise what thoughts were linked to the emotions, and then whenever that thought came up, think a happy thought, but you are still experiencing the negative thought, and the emotion linked with it.

The approach you describe is the core insight third generation Cognitive Therapies have, by decoupling negative emotions from dysfunctional ideas. ACT or Coherence Therapy claim that they can get rid off dysfunctional by using mechanisms that are inherent to our brain.

 

Quote

If what you said was the case, then it would follow that depressed/anxious/negative people were choosing to be that way, or at least not choosing to change to being positive.

Indeed. Many cases of depressions, anxiety or nervousness are adaptation to an enviroment. Even if the enviroment changes they are kept as learned behaviour. You need an intervention to adapt to the new enviroment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 12:08 PM, neeeel said:

You cant even force yourself to feel differently. Emotions are involuntary responses to thoughts and events. I suppose you could recognise what thoughts were linked to the emotions, and then whenever that thought came up, think a happy thought, but you are still experiencing the negative thought, and the emotion linked with it. You also dont get to choose what thoughts come up, so that likely wont work anyway.

If what you said was the case, then it would follow that depressed/anxious/negative people were choosing to be that way, or at least not choosing to change to being positive. I suppose thats possible, but not very likely.

On 9/9/2018 at 3:05 PM, ofd said:

Good catch, I was wrong with that. You can initiate actions that change your feelings by exposing yourself to situations you are afraid of (say being around a spider) and thus changing your response to them by noticing they are not that threatening.

I wouldn't say emotions are involuntary responses. Feelings though, can't argue with. I remember one of the intro's to one of Stefan's books mentioning him saying to his mother something like "I feel you aren't listening to me." and the response being "of cause I listen to you."

A wasp can be pissed off/agitated, but is it right to say that it's feeling or acting on the emotion of disgust or anger.

From reading listening to Spinoza's "The Ethics", there is a section on emotional management towards the end of the book, he takes a purely deterministic viewpoint, with the idea of being able to conceive of Absolute infinity man's greatest cognitive faculty. Anyway he say's to the extent one feels, they are hated, they in turn hate. It's funny in a way because towards the end of the books he's advocating for a welfare state, and outright terror to maintain it. Maybe he helped partially to inspire(?) the "Reign of Terror in France". Past, Present & Presumably future.

Freud in comparison to Spinoza, takes a Compatibilist Authoritarian view, he still argues for a welfare state, but essentially has a form of enlightened dictatorship, using fear as a deterent. As "he has empirical proved an unconscious mind", it maybe possible to become conscious of some of those impulses and thereby transcend them to some extent. Spinoza in contrast says, 'as we can not be sure where are impulses come from" reason alone is sufficient and deterministic, which will help guide us to the appropriate emotional response.

I think Spinoza's "The Ethics" is a much better book than "Civilization and it's discontents".

I think Spinoza falls prey to double think, however, there might be some major advantages to such a condition, using the unconscious, to choose what particular stimulus to value in order to avoid "pain" or cognitive dissonance. Bit like in 1984 where "in order to function in this society, you have to believe 2+2=4 & 2+2=5 and genuinely believe it." Wether this could be implemented in someway in Spinoza Modal Logic, maybe.

Is ACT or CBT something you can do on yourself or something if you wanted to do, would have to kind of forget about setting it up, magic mirror on the wall not being effective. For example, kind of like sending yourself a telegram, which you set to a future date to surprise yourself. So you forget the original reason why you did it.

It's more than a feeling....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 12:08 PM, neeeel said:

You cant even force yourself to feel differently. Emotions are involuntary responses to thoughts and events. I suppose you could recognise what thoughts were linked to the emotions, and then whenever that thought came up, think a happy thought, but you are still experiencing the negative thought, and the emotion linked with it. You also dont get to choose what thoughts come up, so that likely wont work anyway.

 

If what you said was the case, then it would follow that depressed/anxious/negative people were choosing to be that way, or at least not choosing to change to being positive. I suppose thats possible, but not very likely.

You can teach yourself to feel differently. That is the essence of being a conscious spiritual Being. 

And yes, you can choose your thoughts. And you're right that is one of the main methods to effecting/affecting yourself positively in general. It is all a matter of constant concerted determination. An Enlightened individual is constantly vigilant about everything they do, both internally and externally. He or she only indulges himself or relaxes his defenses such that it makes for overall spiritual growth. Everything else is recklessness and dissipation. It is precisely a matter of paying close attention one's feeling/emotional state. This feeling is our deepest and most RATIONAL impulse, a succinct summary of all our intelligence put together that, because it is so very rich and densely packed, can only manifest as a general FEELING, rather than individual, isolated thoughts which can cognitively, intellectually only be processed one at a time in much more detail than is compatible within the general but highly attuned summary of emotion.

Over weeks and months, if one keeps up this diligent and vigilant attitude of self-carrying, self-discipline, one's sense of consciousness and emotional fulfillment will vastly improve. Instead of feeling guilty for one's constant dissipation and bad decisions, one will experience a sense of euphoria of easy and graceful self-mastery, with a genuine learning from every day occurrences taking place and superior adaptation to and mastery of one's environment. Eventually, a far more positive attitude to life will manifest itself and the limiting factors which you used to curse and bewail will fade into insignificance as you accept your lot in life with equanimity and gratitude. And, ironically, once you achieve that, the sky is very nearly the limit. But, at the same time, you will have recognized the vanity of all outward signs of success and with it the true reality, infinite majesty and self-sustaining quality of the Spirit. The terrors cease to terrorize you and even the pains become less painful and much more in between. The only remaining task is to pass this onto others and take everything else none too seriously, basking in what glories fall one's way but NEVER lamenting, sighing and least of all, gnashing one's teeth over their absence.

That is the wondrous journey that awaits you.



***



(And that's just the beginning...)

https://madnessaformoflove.blogspot.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did pretty much the same without ever consciously deciding it. Philosophy, deep thinking and pattern observation is simply what I always find myself doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.