I am not arguing in favor of God or Satan, but it makes for a much more interesting and compelling mythology (story) if God is immensely powerful but not omnipotent, and if the Devil has a bit of ambiguity about his evil, and must labor with great effort to outwit smart people and undo the work of God.

Unless you think the Bible is inerrant, there is no reason why God has to be presented as omnipotent and the devil unambiguously evil. Satan with some regrets is a much more interesting devil that a monotonously evil, not very clever one.

I don't know quite how your idea could be implemented, but in theory it is a very good idea.

I suppose we could require gender-neutral language, a la Sweden, which is trying to replace gendered pronouns. Gender neutrality might help, but I find such practice repellent. We could use gender neutral language: refer to one's self as a person, not a man or a woman; refer to interactions of persons, rather than interactions of males and females, and so on.

But de-gendered language flies in the face of a highly impertinent reality: Humans, like all other animals, (many plants, for that matter) are gendered, and gender is a central part of a person's being. I don't believe gender can be waived by dismissing it as socially constructed. Sex, gender, erotic activity, reproductive behavior, physiognomy, language, -- our bodies our selves -- and so on are all intrinsically gendered.

As long as you can objectively assess your own behavior and label it benign, then nothing is wrong.
Right? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your probing search light piercing the shadows is always so... revealing. Damn it.

Well, we did try very hard to figure out if we were doing something offensive. We weren't, we maintained, being offensive, and I think that was correct. What we were doing, however, was behaving the way somewhat (maybe not so 'somewhat') competitive males behave: We were eager to lay out our political views before each other, and CONVINCE everyone else. Maybe many women find that sort of discussion a bit too... rough, or not collegial enough, or something. There are, though, plenty of women who engage in political debate with as much gusto as men, and they do just fine. They can pull out a vorpal sword and cut across neat theory with the best of the guys.

BC, with all due respect, what you said here sure does sound like 'it happens and it cannot be helped'. And maybe that is true SOME of the time but there are cases in which it could have been helped. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well... some of the time yes, some of the time no. In the tradition of socialist organizations, we weren't trying to reach a collegial consensus, we were engaging in "speech to persuade" or "speech to get everyone to conform to the principles of the party". I suppose there was a feeling that this kind of discussion leads one to conform to the party line, or the gulag is next. Who would not like to send Donald Trump to a gulag in the Aleutian Islands or a political reeducation camp in a Northern Minnesota Swamp or a Louisiana Swamp, for that matter--one with lots of alligators, clouds of mosquitos, and just crawling with venomous snakes?

Political parties are supposed to have specified platforms, and we did--actually humane, democratic DeLeonist socialist principles. These had been developed over a century and a half by the Socialist Labor Party and the New Union Party.

A famous poem celebrating laissez faire interaction:

I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.

(Fritz Perls, 1969)

Apologies to Fritz Perls (source long since forgotten) less laissez faire:

I did my thing and you did your thing.
I was not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you were not in this world to live up to mine.
And IF, because I was busy doing my thing
and you were equally busy doing your thing,
the world went to hell,
It could not be helped?

1. Impotent
2. Stupid
3. Omnimalevolent — TheMadFool

The devil can certainly be omnimalevolent, but were he impotent and stupid he would be unable to perform the deceits, seductions, frauds, and misrepresentations necessary to dupe even the brightest human.

This is familiar territory. I was a member of a socialist group for many years. We held face-to-face meetings and discussion groups. This was before the Internet, for the most part. Except for Lila and Jane, two senior citizen socialists who had been card carriers for a long time, we were an all male group, and we were all white. A few women and fewer blacks visited the discussion group, but rarely stayed around to become part of the group.

What were we doing wrong?

We weren't doing anything wrong.

Women and blacks didn't want to spend a lot of time in a group where they are always outnumbered by white men. Fact is, most people found us rather dull. There are some, but not very many people who are interested in socialism. One woman characterized the group as "a bunch of heady males". True enough.

Socialist groups in the US are on the fringe. All sorts of groups on the left fringe (maybe the right fringe too) have similar experiences of not being highly successful in recruiting a broad demographic. The fringe feminist groups in Minneapolis had similar experiences with women.

A more or less serious philosophy forum on the internet is also a fringe group, and only some kinds of people are going to be attracted. Most people who visit this site (male or female, gay or straight, theist or atheist, liberal or conservative) are not going to stay on and become active participants. Our deficiency here is that we are a philosophy forum, My socialist discussion group's deficiency was that we were a socialist discussion group.

Ideologically focussed women, or ideologically focussed conservative theists, are probably going to find a lack of like-minded posters disheartening. It can't be helped.

No, it wasn't you. It was somebody whose name I forget. I could look it up, but I don't care quite enough to do that. This person was rather humorless and I had been making fun of his dour humorlessness. He complained. I desisted because he was clearly too tedious to throw an amusing tantrum.

God, but the desire is still there. — Posty McPostface

Perhaps this whole thread is some rationalization to the contrary. — Posty McPostface

Perhaps.

It would almost certainly be good for you to return to college and complete a degree. I realize there are practical problems that might make this difficult. One of those practical problems is you. You have to willingly engage in college, as well as willingly incur the cost, and all the inconvenience that might arise from being a student. I believe you when you say the desire is still there. I'm not sure you are willing to engage (just based on what you have said).

If you don't go to college, you will probably become a learnéd autodidact, at which you probably will do a good job.

From the Greek autos (self) + didaskein (teach) = autodidact, self-taught.

In a way, we are all autodidacts. Nobody can learn anything for you. College students just get many more suggestions about what to learn next. They also get a list of courses they took and a degree -- which in this economy is a big deal.

If I was a young man in 2017 with 1 year of college and ambivalent feelings about the whole thing, I really don't know what I would do. I am immensely glad I did go to college, even the run of the mill state college I attended. The experience of being a student and learning all sorts of stuff, helped prepare the village idiot that I was for the wider world. Without college I would have been so totally screwed I hate to think about it.

the education system is in shambles due to focusing on fulfilling the needs of the economy — Posty McPostface

McPostface, get real.

Like I said above, the economy is everywhere in a society, including the hallowed halls of ivy. Even in the "good old days" when states subsidized the cost of education and places like the University of Wisconsin in Madison were gold plated liberal arts establishments, Milton scholars, for instance, had to think about how they would make a living after they got their PhDs. (generally in teaching at universities).

How could it be otherwise? Only the independently wealthy (inherited the family fortune) can study whatever they please without thinking of employment. Or, only the intentionally poor can afford to do that.

Going to college JUST to become learnéd, without thinking about supporting one's self is not a good idea. I didn't give enough thought to how I would support myself after I graduated. I supposed I would teach -- until I discovered that I was not cut out to be a high school teacher. Had I thought more carefully bout work, I would not have wasted all that time in Education classes.

We need to return to classical liberal arts which equips every student with critical tools with which to learn effectively anything they choose to set their mind to. — Modern Conviviality

College freshmen who lack critical judgement skills are going to have a tough curve to climb, so this really needs to begin in elementary school. (In a good school, it does.) Students should leave high school with a good set of working skills. Unfortunately, a lot of students don't. The school districts, not the colleges, are failing on this score.

But yes, once in college a classical liberal arts program is excellent preparation for a lot of jobs.

I feel that education has been corrupted to the maximization of utility for an individual via devoting one's time to working for the economy. — Posty McPostface

The crisis in education (it costs too much, one has to be practical-goal oriented, etc.) has one big root in the way state colleges are funded. When I was in college (1964-1970) in Minnesota, the State provided the bulk of funding -- maybe 60%-70%. Tuition was low; on-campus and crappy off-campus housing was quite affordable, too.

The states (pretty much across the board) have cut back on their share of college budgets, from 60%-70% down to 25%. Tuition is consequently much higher, as are all sorts of other costs -- like textbooks. The decision to major in English (or music, sociology, French, math, art, biology, library science, geology... whatever) was fairly safe. One would get a good education from a state college, and one would probably be able to leave college with minimal debt. Scholarships were fairly plentiful too -- or very low interest loans.

That's pretty much all over. Ancient History (another good major). Whatever one majors in had better pay off, because one almost certainly will be leaving college with hefty debts.

Finding a good job for which one is well suited is always somewhat difficult; kind of a crap shoot. That part hasn't changed any over the years. Luck still plays a role.

We need to return to classical liberal arts which equips every student with critical tools with which to learn effectively anything they choose — Modern Conviviality

In many ways we do that. That's why the specific college degree isn't very important. A college grad with a liberal arts degree (most university departments are in the Colleges of Liberal Arts, except Tech and Medicine, Agriculture, et al) has proved that he or she has the intelligence to take varied and sundry courses in everything from math to modern art and succeed at least reasonably well. So whether their degree was in Sociology, Math, English, or Studio Arts, they have proved that they are at least somewhat capable and flexible.

Most vocational training is on-the-job. The best jobs I had required I figured out how to do them once I was hired. Was I able? Sure. I have a major in English. We know that English majors can learn to do everything from tutoring college students to designing gritty public health programs to scrubbing floors. I've done all three. Ideal training. Major in English.

People have become in some sense shackled ... to the working of the economy. — Posty McPostface

People are not shackled to the working of the economy "in some sense". They are shackled to the economy lock, stock, and barrel (to use an expression the NRA likes). This isn't new. Economies are "totalitarian" in that they pervade the entire society. This has always been so. "Economy" per se isn't the problem.

I feel as though education has become corrupted to the dealings of the economy — Posty McPostface

Indeed it has. Since you are becoming more Marxist, try this on for size. It was provided by one of my Classics Professors at the U of Minnesota. (I am recalling and paraphrasing)

"Schools have always functioned to prepare people to operate in society. The roles that needed filling have changed over time. [jump forward to the mid and late 19th century US] In the late 19th century, early 20th century American schools prepared immigrants to fulfill their roles of workers and consumers. They needed literacy, cultural knowledge, skills, and science/math (not talking about rocket science). Late in the 20th century (this lecture was given in 1985), demographics, work, and consumption had changed significantly. Preparing workers had become less important, because a lot of jobs were being exported, and computerization and automation was simplifying work. The citizens role of consumer had become much more important than the role of producer.

Schools (especially high schools) were no longer the ideal place to teach citizens how to be consumers. Media provided 24/7 access, ocean to ocean coverage, many channels (TV, radio, film, print -- cell phones and the internet weren't here yet), and there was an advertising industry prepared to produce the necessary messages about "how to be an American, how to be a citizen, how to be (in essence) A CONSUMER."

Schools are "old school" for most people. Are there no decent schools? Yes, there are. 20% of youth (max) still need high quality education to fulfill their future managerial, entrepreneurial, technical, and creative roles. There are good schools which provide old fashioned good education for them.

What about the rest of the population? Well, they are free insofar as they obey. If they keep consuming, everything will be fine. That is the task of most people. Buy stuff to keep the economy running. (individual consumption accounts for 2/3 of the US economy, minimum).

Like this cartoon says:

You didn't define "soul". i'm not knocking any points off your OP for that failure, but at least with quarks there is a definition.

There are several words that are synonyms for "whatever it is": soul, psyche, spirit, vital force, pneuma, anima, atman, embodiment, incarnation animating principle...

Soul

• the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
• the nonphysical part of a person regarded as a person's true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation.
• the nonphysical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost.
• archaic
• a highly refined substance or fluid thought to govern vital phenomena.

If you collect all the definitions you can find for "soul", and collect all the definitions for all the synonyms of soul, you can thoroughly define "soul". Some of these definitions will turn out to be observable and testable. For instance, "emotions and character" are observable and testable. Anything that survives death, or something as vague as "a highly refined substance or fluid thought to govern vital phenomena" most likely won't be observable or testable.

Religions teach all sorts of things that are not observable or testable, but this doesn't mean that everything that religions teach is hogwash. Some of it is hogwash, of course.

A young child taught to believe that something called his soul will survive his death is like to find this comforting and (probably) true, even though he will never never never be able to observe or test out the concept. No harm done. Add Heaven and Hell as two alternate destinations for the soul, depending on whether he behaved just right or not, and you have some real leverage over the kid. Harm starts to become possible, if not probable. Add many kinds of ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, angels, and so forth, some who are capable of causing great harm if they are regularly and properly propitiated, and you have a real mess on your hands. Add "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (the title of a famous sermon by Jonathan Edwards) and you have a terrorist.

So... decide what is worth defining and what is not. There may be a kernel of truth buried under the pile of religious bullshit.

I don't understand all this stuff either -- nobody does, yet anyway. And explanations one hands out may not reflect one's own experiences. For instance, what I said about memories being changed slightly every time they are brought up... I don't experience that. That is what the psychologists and neurological researchers say. But then, there is no way I can test whether my memories have been altered either. I can't be an objective observer of my own thinking.

One would have to test out this theory in the psych lab, with observers, structured memory and recall experiments, and many repetitions on many subjects to determine that memories were changed by being recalled.

Since Déjà vu isn't something that can be induced for research purposes (at least as far as I know) it would be hard to study this in a lab.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Epilepsy and drugs are not at all necessary to experience Déjà vu. But... IF one is epileptic, OR if one uses certain drugs, THEN one might experience Déjà vu as a result. But experiencing Déjà vu is no indication whatsoever that one is either epileptic or uses certain drugs.

The trick is discernment. — MysticMonist

Indeed.

People do have moments of great insight, conversion, doubt, and so on--experiences on the road to Damascus. Not often, but sometimes. Our intuitional "bolts out of the blue" have to arise from what we already know. We owe a lot to very persistent persons and their congeries far into the night that finally led to "Eureka!" moments.

How our brains/minds process, reprocess, shuffle, reappraise... takes place at a level we can't get down to. There are way too many neurons, way too many connections, way too many processes, way too much opaque organization in the brain that just isn't observable.

One of the insights coming out of neurological studies is that memories aren't static. When you remember something, anything, trivial or important, it isn't like calling something out of "read-only- memory". Computers have read-only-memory, we don't. A memory becomes a sort of 'live experience' which after being remembered is put back into memory, (probably among the same neurons) but slightly changed.

So, one day you happen to remember sitting in English class, and the teacher was talking about... oh, let's say Emily Dickinson's poem, A narrow Fellow in the Grass. It is about a snake. Since high school English class, long ago, you have developed a little fear about snakes. The memory of the moment in English class will be colored by your more recent snake experiences, which are also memories being called up and re-stored. So now, in this moment, the memory of English class and A narrow Fellow in the Grass 15 years ago gets colored by that snake experience in the swamp two years ago.

I don't want to exaggerate here -- even though memories get called up and re-stored, and are affected by the process of recall, they still seem reasonably stable--especially when the emotional content isn't too loaded, which is most of the time.

Déjà vu is a common experience having several explanations. (One, a psychological phenomena of no great significance and two, sometimes associated with epilepsy (when epilepsy is actually present) or associated with certain drugs (when those drugs are actually being used). Having a good memory is most likely the cause of Déjà vu.

Is that God/Universal Mind/your soul directly communicating with you? — MysticMonist

Always a good idea to shave with Ockham's Razor.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

Now wash your hair with Suave Daily Clarifying Shampoo to keep your thinking sharp and clear.

Here are other "vu" you can talk about when you get tired of Déjà.

Jamais vu is a term in psychology which is used to describe any familiar situation which is not recognized by the observer. You arrive at your house, but do not recognize it.

Presque vu is the intense feeling of being on the very brink of a powerful epiphany, insight, or revelation, without actually achieving the revelation. The feeling is often therefore associated with a frustrating, tantalizing sense of incompleteness or near-completeness. Happens to me all the time.

Déjà rêvé is the feeling of having already dreamed something that you are now experiencing. Life is just a living nightmare.

Déjà entendu is the experience of feeling sure about having already heard something, even though the exact details are uncertain or were perhaps imagined. Typical.

Oh dear, complex history. On which stake would you prefer to be burnt?

I’d really like to develop some sort of middle way between atheism and theism. — MysticMonist

there will always be theists — MysticMonist

There will always be atheists — MysticMonist

In my mind, my philosophic enemy isn’t the atheist, who I’d like to ally with, but our common enemy the exclusivist religious who think they have a monopoly on God and would condemn us both to hell if they had the chance. Maybe I just want to free God :) — MysticMonist

This is familiar territory to me, a decades long internal debate, not resolved to my satisfaction. There is no 'ultimate' resolution to some questions, this side of the grave.

One avenue to approach the problem--works for me anyway--is to invert the order of creation: We created God, to whom we attributed our own creation, and whom we worship. We called God (gods) into existence. This (emphatically) isn't going to work for everybody, of course.

But it allows one to keep the scriptures, the faith, the cult, the congregation. Religion is OUR work, and what we have created in religion is useful to billions of people. The word of the prophets is as truthful as would be as when we believe that God was present before the beginning (or is as useless, depending). After all, we have not, do not, will not, can not know ANY ultimate truths of God -- if there are any. We are finite mortal creatures made of flesh, and doomed to die. God (as we have defined) is immortal, invincible, all knowing, everywhere present -- all attributes that really are beyond our ken.

Heaven and Hell are but pieces of the unknown and unknowable. Stating that God is beyond our knowing, and then saying all kinds of things about God as if they were facts clearly involves a rather big contradiction. God is unknowable, but here is what I KNOW about God -- yada, yada, yada.

If there is eternal suffering in hell, then there is no eternal bliss in heaven.

If you didn't like Surfing Bird from Minneapolis, you certainly won't like Dancing Pumpkin Man from Nebraska. This was originally done as a time-filler on a small TV station by the guy that normally does the weather. It's been a big Internet and AGT hit.

Surfin Bird: The Trashmen's biggest hit was 1963's "Surfin' Bird",[1] which reached No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the latter part of that year. The Trashmen was an early 60s band from Minneapolis. Bands like this are one of several reasons that the midwest remains "flyover land".

Here’s my theory: that since an atheist or a non-spiritual person can take a pill or snort or inject something or have a heart attack and experience a profound mystical experience, then it means mystical insight and divine illumination of our minds and hearts exists apart from belief or religion. — MysticMonist

Maybe, maybe not. Harvey Cox, a 20th century theologian (Baptist background, I think), Harvard professor, joined a group out in the SW desert for the purpose of taking hallucinogens. He had a good experience and wrote about it. I haven't read the book for decades, so I can't remember what all he said about it. The Christian mystics, like St. John of the Cross (late medieval, early renaissance) achieved remarkable results through meditation and prayer. (The Cloud of Unknowing is about that.)

The atheist, non-religious, non-spiritual, unreflective, not very thoughtful lump can't count on a short cut to depth and profundity. Neither can the religious, spiritual, reflective person. Hallucinogens will produce an experience of some kind. So will lots of other things. Maybe the Holy Spirit produces results too (though that's very hard to test).

I'm not against the careful, occasional use of hallucinogens, but one should keep one's expectations fairly low.

One day when I retire, I hope to move to a large tree surrounded by trees where I can lie next to Hanover and play with his penis. — Sapientia

Psst Hanover, he likes to play with mice till they die and then he eats the mice — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This doesn't bode well for Hanover's penis.

One of the standard and appropriate responses to announcements that one is very depressed, rageful, lonely, and fearful is to recommend that they do something about it, like making an appointment at a mental health clinic and getting a combination of talk therapy and antidepressants.

I've been depressed too, for decades, and at times have been full of rage, lonely, and suicidal (or murderous). I have taken antidepressants and received talk therapy. Do they help? Yes. Are they a full and sufficient cure? No. "Therapy means change, not adjustment" is true. In my own case, early retirement (at age 62) helped bring an end to all the sturm and drang.

It sounds like you are a young person. Many young people are finding life difficult; it isn't that they are starving and freezing in the streets, but life isn't making a lot of sense to them. Practically, I can suggest a couple of home remedies:

Be sure that you are getting at least 8 hours of normal sleep. (Adequate sleep (8 hours) is a critical component of mental health -- for everybody.)

Don't use recreational drugs or alcohol at this time. The effects of the various recreational drugs on offer are somewhat unpredictable, and they aren't a component of good mental health.

Minimize the amount of caffeine you are consuming in coffee, tea, and soft drinks. Some caffeine is ok, but you don't need to be wound up anymore than you already are.

Do exercise regularly at whatever kind of vigorous exercise you like.

Eat a healthy diet.

Find opportunities to be with other people whose company you enjoy, or at least don't find too irritating. Volunteering is one way to do this. Don't isolate yourself too much.

Practicing meditation / yoga might help, too.

Having said all that, I'll admit to suspecting that many people are not actually depressed. What they are is extremely disappointed, very lonely, and angry. If that is the case, antidepressants might calm you down, but they won't address whatever it is that is bugging you. Deal with the causes. One of the purposes of counseling is to help people deal with their issues and their causes.

Good luck.

And now that we live in a capitalist economy, it is making money that has to bring us closer together. To be close, we need to make money together - we need to be actively engaged in the economy with each other. All of life today, apart from family life and downtime - is the economy. — Agustino

This is the most depressing thing I've read on this forum. — praxis

Making money brings us closer together? In a sense, yes -- but only in a rather narrow, functional sense.

Were we yeomen in an Anglo Saxon village, 1000 AD, during a good year, working together would probably keep us, if not bring us, close. Sharing the labor of the land, sharing the joys of the meager festivals, sharing a bowl of soup and bread. Sure. Working together would bring us together. But that kind of life was obliterated by industrialism and capitalism centuries ago.

By our labor in the economy we make money, I hate to break it to you, honey, but engaging in economic activity with you isn't going to bring us together. Transactions are alienated interactions, for the most part. You may make--I may save--money in a transaction, but we aren't going to be buddies as a result.

Humans do interact economically. We have to. Unless I go catch them myself, I'll have to engage in economic exchange to get a can of sardines. There must be something better--more meaningful, more compelling, more enlightening, than making money.

I will not here recommend we all become cashless socialists in one great collective. Collectivized economy or capitalized economy is going to be pretty much the same thing. There has to be something beyond commerce, something beyond profit, something beyond meeting needs, something beyond the treadmill.

Family life and downtime? No, I think in this economic world, family life and downtime figure into the economy as much as buying that can of sardines.

Feelings are very important elements of our lives, but isn't it the case that the good or bad value of our lives comes from actions, rather than our feelings?

Having an abundance of good feelings (happiness, joy, love...) is much better than having a surfeit of wretchedness and misery. The value of our lives -- as perceived by others, certainly, and ourselves -- is a product of our works. Someone who vegetates in a state of bliss isn't doing anything for anyone else. And someone who feels like death warmed over -- but who also performs service to others -- has a more valuable life -- yes?

Personally I don't like drinking though I do go to bars sometimes to listen to music and drink some mineral water — Rich

Here's to the man who drinks dark Ale and goes to bed quite mellow;
Here's to the man who drinks dark Ale and goes to bed quite mellow;
He lives as he out to live, lives as he ought to live; he'll die a jolly old fellow.
ha ha ha

Here's to the man who drinks water pure and goes to bed quite sober;
Here's to the man who drinks water pure and goes to bed quite sober;
He'll fall as a leaf do fall, fall as a leaf do fall, he'll die before October.
ho ho ho

Three Jolly Coachmen

All of life today, apart from family life and downtime - is the economy. — Agustino

As Uncle Karl said, "Under capitalism everything is reduced to the cash nexus."

uilding on a previous thread about melancholy, I was wondering if anyone has felt some sort of alienation from practicing or doing philosophy. — Posty McPostface

The unexamined life might not be worth living, but the carefully examined life might be more troubled. One does not need to think, read, or do philosophy to live a long and successful life. Conventions, habits, routines, rules, desires, needs, and so forth will get one from the cradle to the grave just fine. Pausing to question whether the life one lives is good, can be the beginning of much trouble.

Some dig their way into alienation and others fall into it. Either way, it is a fairly common experience to feel cut off from the vitality that seems to flow through society, and through many individuals.

But alienation is surely not a desirable state. Even if the affairs of the world are a great waste of futility ("Vanity of vanities, all is vanities" it says in Ecclesiastes) it is not good to just stop in the middle of the wasteland. ("If you are walking through hell, keep moving.")

Philosophy--in one form or another--can, may, should, could provide a means to recommit, connect, affirm, engage to something. I don't know of a good antonym for "alienate". But if one can "de-alientate" it is worth doing.

Have you, by any chance, heard of or read The Anatomy of Melancholy by ROBERT BURTON (1577–1640)? Wikipedia has an article on the book, Goodreads has reviews, and you can get the book from Project Gutenberg, if you don't want to spend money on a modern annotated text (I don't think I would bother).

It was an assigned text in 17th Century Literature which I took -- God, 50 years ago. I don't remember much about it. But... it is both a discussion of what we would call clinical depression, and a book of far ranging essays.

From wiki... "I write of melancholy by being busy to avoid melancholy" Burton says.

You might, possibly, find it of interest.

Here's a link to the NEW SCIENTIST article on a 40 year old married man with a large tumor in the right orbifrontal cortex, an area having to do with judgement.

He engaged in several personally very atypical behaviors -- propositioning workers in massage parlors, having an urge to rape the landlady and pedophilia. The article didn't explain how the tumor prompted urges the man hadn't felt before, only that he had no control over the desires (because of the tumor).

A feature of our consciousness is that we can't help our emotional reactions--in this case, our sexual reactions. We are aroused by what we find arousing. Gay men find other men attractive whether they think it is normal or not, and straight people find many people attractive and fuckable even though they are happily married. It's the same for pedophiles: they have the same specificity and certainty of emotional desire as everyone else. They find children arousing whether they think it is normal or not.

We can decide to act or not act on our desires, but lots of people (gays, straights, celibate priests, and so on) have found that their control over their behavior wasn't as tight as they thought it was. The problem for pedophiles is that their greatest sexual desire is socially unacceptable and has been deemed criminal. I was born in 1946, and I can remember a time when sex between men was held to be criminal and abnormal. This knowledge didn't prevent me from seeking sexual experiences.

We have not solved the problem of pedophilia. They can't change and we do not allow any form of sexual gratification for them. Even computer generated animated pedophilic pornography is illegal. We blame pedophiles for having desires which really are beyond their control.

I don't have a solution, but I do think that our treatment of pedophiles is problematic. So do some courts. Psychopaths present a similar problem: They may not have committed any crimes yet, but we know they do not have the same behavioral controls in place that most of the population have. What to do, what to do? Again, I don't have a solution.

You don't like opiates? — Roke

Good one.

How many women does it take to change a light bulb? — Michael

One.

Peelings of laughter.

One penguin to other penguin: "You look like you are wearing a tuxedo."
Other penguin: "Who says I'm not?" [Prairie Home Companion joke show]

More peelings of laughter.

"What's black and white and red and runs through the forest?"
A burning nun. [1960s joke]

Stony silence.

"Why do Negroes carry pails to funerals?"
"They like to go black burying." [1907 joke book]

Gasps of horror.

Young folks used to swing on the porch. Now they swing in the Porsche.
A maid to order can't compare to a ready maid. [1965 joke book]

titters of laughter. Some hisses

Comedian takes out a semi-automatic with a jump stock.

Laughter dies.

I think Danes should do it for Denmark, and Japanese should do it for Japan. Indians should stop doing it for India, and the Chinese have been working on doing it only once for China. I don't have a problem with encouraging people in low birth areas to reproduce more, and people in high birth areas to reproduce less. I'd like there to be Danes, Norwegians, Russians, French, Italian, Lithuanians, Scots, Irish, Egyptians, Ugandans, and Brazilians; Chinese, Indonesians, Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Persians, et al. in the future, and not have us all turn into café au lait.

I suppose this will be deemed hopelessly racist. But if you like diversity and variety, then we need to maintain the different components of diversity and variety.

Whatever works.

In other words, Genghis wasn't afflicted by a sickly inability to use force. Maybe Lenin and Stalin were his students. Lenin once said that there was no place in the regime for that "quaker and papist nonsense about the sanctity of human life".

That's right.

If your functional disorders need a thorough profiling, it will be a psychologist who does that. If there seems to be something wrong with your brain or CNS, you'll see a neurologist. If it's behavior that is the problem, and it is severe -- then you need a psychiatrist. Or, if you need to have a long, long talk with somebody, psychologists are the best bet.

People with ordinary levels of unhappiness, anxiety, angst, chronic bad attitude, existential confusion, apostasy, run-of-the-mill wickedness, and so forth are best served by good friends and philosophy forums.

What do you mean assuming? Just read the inserts, or better yet the actual studies. — Rich

I am aware of the toxicity of these drugs -- where the therapeutic dose is close to the toxic dose -- like with lithium. A bit too much and one gets quite sick. Not quite enough and one destabilizes. And yes, over time some of these drugs take a toll on the patient that adds to their difficulties -- like tardive dyskinesia.

None the less, lithium, the major tranqs like Thorazine, and so on are better than untreated psychotic hypermania, which is an extremely harsh and dreadful experience. I took antidepressants and benzodiazepines for many years. Yes, they have definite downsides. But flying off in a rage to do god-knows-what isn't a great option either. BTW, I was able to wean myself off the benzodiazepines without any difficulty. I'm down to a low maintenance dose of Effexor. I would put up with an unpleasant withdrawal if I was sure on the other side I would still feel good.

Hmmm, we members of the National Association of English Majors can be a ruthless lot, true enough. But we prefer to not defenestrate -- we prefer to exsanguinate.