https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-3.88&soc=-4.92

Though I generally despise details which are supposed to say something about someone, if these assessments would be mandatory in everyone's profile picture, a lot of the communication here would become more efficient.

It takes clear ideology, along with strong solidarity, to successfully challenge the dominant paradigm. Do it alone and you will be kicked out the door. Do it together with vague understanding and you'll find all of your wages docked. — Bitter Crank

Maybe it's the same doctrine I'm (we?) criticizing but: "No risk, no reward".
If you were to sum up the ideology behind any revolution....

...I do get kicked out of the door at the times, I'm self employed though ...so I suffer for it.

And that's exactly why I equate the difference between dependency and slavery with our perceived notions of choice / awareness.

I'm currently reading a book by a Dutch author (https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Universal-Borders-Workweek/dp/9082520303/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) and it has some interesting notes.

I already knew it was a form of indoctrination (with which I'm indoctrinated to some degree also) but the book is making some nice observations on "deserving poor" vs. "undeserving poor" where the undeserving bit seems to follow the prejudiced notion most have of conservative doctrine: "every one is an individual responsible agent", "you can make it if you try hard", you create your own success", "losers lack attitude", etc.

I was somewhat stunned to hear it was Nixon not so long who came close to providing the whole of the US with a basic income scheme. (article from the author of the book: https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-president-nixon-and-his-basic-income-bill/173117835-c34d6145).

It also has some interesting titbits about how Harrah's Cherokee casino does wonders for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and other stuff which appears to make a good case against the doctrine most of us are familiar with. Not to mention the well known concerns about the future where more and more jobs will become automatized.

Though I have some doubts still, there's a correlation to be drawn with our "age of reason" in which everything needs to be quantified for people to be (mistakenly) assured they have a handle on it. If the common doctrine is that people will become bums if they don't have the incentive we're all familiar with (wage slavery) and there's little means to quantify what actually will happen if people are left to their devices and also very little historic precedent.... it comes down to trust in humanity...

It's also worth noting that, what you might consider wage slavery, is utopia for many, many people around the globe and there are also a lot of people who are still very, very ideological, whereas a lot of people in secular "advanced" societies might be suffering from a distinct lack in ideology. (Where I would consider myself a cynical humanist when it comes to ideology).

I think the beginning of it starts with a sense of being forced to comply and this depends a lot on our awareness of our environment. In the more well off societies the compensation we get for labour can be seen as a trade off for freedom (doing something against ones own volition with the idea of reaping a benefit at a later time in being able to provide for a family / self actualisation etc.

I feel most can see some sort of logic / rationale behind a judicial system and can also notice that there's usually a majority view on having certain laws which make it such a force it's not regarded as something forcing someone to comply but more like the weather. The way basic needs like food, shelter, health are seen as a right or as needs which need to be met on a daily basis makes a lot of difference in what people will tolerate and this also depends on the environment. A tribe somewhere in a pristine jungle would not see it as self evident that they'll be fed if hungry, someone living among people who are all considerably wealthy might.

Religion also plays a big role, the way the caste system works in India gives people an excuse to comply. I've read theories that the way Christianity was eventually implemented in Europe served as an excuse to have a few "chosen ones" be able to pass their wealth along generations without too much repercussions from the "serfs" paving the way for feudalism.

I think I'm quite fortunate to be somewhat unaware how the immediate threat of violence comes into play in all this.

(And if you could consider awareness playing a big part in the degree to which people feel forced to comply, this article might be of interest: http://harvardmagazine.com/2015/05/the-science-of-scarcity)

I probably misinterpreted things a bit, things appeared to move toward some form of self flagellation to me, apologies.

Public awareness is very low though. As is awareness of our slave trading history. — Benkei

I would not agree with this, probably the only thing where my environment is somewhat representative is in public opinion (I work in construction and meet a lot of different average Joe's) The slave trading is actually something some people boast about in combination with the "VOC mentality" (seems more of an ego thing to state something like that in a boasting manner for most though, I don't think they actually mean it). The awareness considering Indonesia seems a bit less but when it's present people don't get it in their heads to make any detracting statements on it, far from it. They're not topics which get discussed daily though.

I've read that the Dutch aren't forthcoming about the history of their treatment of native peoples, and have taken legal action against those who have published accounts related to their rule in Indonesia. There have been articles in the English press about it. Those articles seem to take some pleasure in noting that the Dutch, though quick to condemn the violation of human rights by other nations, try to silence those who refer to their own conduct in that area. Perhaps the English are exaggerating. — Ciceronianus the White

As a native Dutchman I am not very keenly aware of explicit efforts to try and negate what happened there, though this tendency could have been more relevant before my time. I can envision government having tried to put a lid on their conscious involvement seeing the timing just after WO II makes it even more atrocious. Though I can't recall my exact history lessons, I feel it's safe to say it's considered a black page in Dutch history by most of my contemporaries. There 'is' a national consciousness about the ordeal and it does not favour Dutch nationality.

That being said, is this turn of the thread supposed to to invigorate "white saviour complex / white guilt" or something? The Indonesian mass killings in 1965-66 weren't exactly pretty, as was the Rwandese genocide. The role of the UN in the latter can be debated, as can the role of the Dutch in Screbrenica ..."damned if you do, damned if you don't".

I would not want to make the latter imply as if I'm making an excuse for the Indonesian atrocities, but it does shine a nice light on "moral relativism". And yes, questions can (and should be!) posed towards the previous interference of western nations in non-western continents which might have laid the groundwork for these atrocities to happen but then?

Should we blame ourselves for acts carried out half a century ago, should we learn from our mistakes, should we face the facts in that most countries who want to be taken seriously should have a nuclear arsenal ...if not to defend from getting raped for resources? And how does globalized capitalism play a role in all this?

Maybe we should ask NASA (if there aren't conspiracy theories around negating their overall work) to see how we best handle when we explore other planets / realms and try to minimize our impact on foreign environments because we wouldn't want to disturb such a pristine environment.

Just today I read an article from an Amnesty International representative about wearing a Hijab, it went along the lines of: "We Muslim woman don't wear it because we try to avoid unwanted "erotic" exchanges, we wear it show our subservience to Allah / God".

So where's the line in not messing with a pristine environment and thinking: "wtf, grow up already!"

I politely point out how those practices were not Islamic and were actually introduced by European colonialists centuries ago — swstephe

So you indoctrinate others with your firm grasp on absolute truth.

So I believe I've actually helped those victims. — swstephe

And yourself, even though you claim you have no right to on how others are supposed to think ...unless it's your "truth" off course.

She was actually a bit of a feminist and thought it helped avoid the "male gaze" of objectifying women. — swstephe

Yes, "naturally" all males should feel ashamed they can get physically attracted to woman.

I thought it was funny, because to follow that law to the letter, it would mean I would have to walk around without pants! — swstephe

Yes, that 'and' the concept that it helps to keep cool in hot climates is enough to show that it's without any rational reason to outlaw the niqab, a better reason might be to keep warm in certain cold climates, but I digress.

That reminded me that I really have no say over how someone else is supposed to think, and no right to think I have some kind of moral obligation to force people to change their minds. — swstephe

...which you still do, yet one difference in opinion is enough to make you realize "it's all relative".

So if we locally ban the practice of tying boys under the age of ten around their ankles with vines to make them jump from height with the aim of getting as close to the ground as they can, we're suffering "white saviour complex"? Surely those young boys are mistreated because they now aren't able to prove their manhood as they're supposed to.

The only thing you are rightfully pointing out is that we should be careful when "we" interfere and that we shouldn't go out to other countries and violently impose our morals onto a local population, the rest sounds as if you would be terrible in raising kids.

However, given that people have insatiable wants and desires, I find it doubtful that people will ever attain a lasting and enduring sense of high self-esteem. Meaning that 'self-esteem' is a rabbit one can chase after; but, never really attain it. — Question

I'm usually not inclined to quote spiritual slogans but how about: "A willingness to fail well" ?

If self esteem is related to competence, is there still a willingness to test that competence with the risk of finding the limit and failing? Failure can provide valuable learning opportunity yet it can also wreak havoc on self-esteem. From what I've gathered it's unavoidable to judge one's own status physically (we are constantly updated about the status of our bodies and if there's anything amiss we're bound to respond and try and move toward homoeostasis) and I would not suppose there's no mental equivalent of such a mechanism (including a need to "feed" to keep things working).

Though homoeostasis can be seen as something which has a form of permeance, it requires effort to keep it up. Why would you assume a certain level of self-esteem can be attained after which there's nothing to accomplish? That implicitly suggests a desire for complete mastery, I would not see such a desire as unhealthy yet assuming there can be some sort of 100% accomplishment where a failure to attain it affects self-esteem in a negative way 'might' be unhealthy / unreasonable.

So whereas I would agree with "confidence in competence", I'm inclined to add a desire for increasing competence. It's usually not so much failure which can wreak havoc with our self-esteem (we'd get depressed just learning something new) but rather a self observed lack of upwards potential.

I'm not familiar with Daniel Pipes, yet it's somewhat noticeable there are lots of people trying to polarize most any debate, it's an effective strategy to keep people occupied it seems. Like swstephe mentions, it could be a "white savior complex", it could be that there's a possibility for bloodshed and probably a bunch of other reasons. Maybe it's just energy efficient to have a nice and manageable duality, "my position is right because clearly (enter some reductio ad absurdum) so they are wrong, bla bla". Humans organising in groups and acting against other groups is well, human nature. In a globalized world where a lot of people appear to act as individuals you kinda need a strongly defined ideology to get people to organize, back and empower such ideology. Rallying against a specific ideology is also an ideology.

The problem with hypocrisy I've seen is that our brains can't handle the cognitive dissonance for long. It seems that people will eventually settle on an extreme side of the issue, while seeing the other side as a fantasy. — swstephe

There's that (very much so!) and, like people organizing in groups, there are probably a bunch of other innate tendencies which make it easy / pragmatic for people to take on a specific stance. Engaging in dialogue can, at times, be hard work and it's often to no avail. What bugs me about a lot of discourse I find myself in is that it resembles a battle of opinions instead of an exchange of idea's. In the area's on this planet where people are fairly well off a lot of energy is spent on satisfying direct emotions, feeling "good", having fun, things like that. Moral relativism can lead to hedonistic nihilism and such a stance would make it absurd to expend energy on thinking about things which aren't immediately pleasurable. Maybe it's here where we can take care of "the mote in our own eyes".

In my opinion it's also kinda futile to engage in dialogue with someone who's already convinced there's an absolute truth and it's written down in some book.

That's not a straw man I'm afraid. I highlighted an example. Or do you insist that every argument is conclusive and concise to the point where I'd have to take 5 days to write an essay. If your point was, Eqypt isn't the only majority muslim country in the region that practise FGM, then say so. Instead you go "straw man", when it really wasn't. That made it a stupid conversation. — Benkei

There's more issues surrounding this, because most people do not receive and practice customs based on textual evidence but on the actions and expectation of their surroundings. Much the same that most Westerners aren't Christian any more but do believe in, for instance, the Christian work ethic. Or arbitration and impartiality as a requirement for fair judgments (also an ecclesiastical invention). So when people practice FGM, it isn't because they've done an extensive study of the Qu'ran and hadith and wonder whether it's the "islamic" thing to do. They basically do it because everybody around them does it and expects them to do it too. — Benkei

Also, speaking of straw men, I said she claimed FGM was a Muslim problem and took issue with that, which is different than claiming there are links between FGM and Islam as you state it (still incorrect, but closer to the mark). — Benkei

I would not expect you to write an essay, in the context of your message you set her up and swiftly dealt with her on the basis of an argument which I find weak. You did not state you took issue with her equating Islam with FMG and, though FGM isn't something that automatically goes with Islam, her personal experience, and that of many more, perceive it to be the case. I am keenly aware that it's easy ammunition for the right to purport Islam to be equal to FGM (I would consider doing so a form of a straw man argument) yet if making any connection is deemed to be wrong in advance, we lose the ability to use said religions to aid in combatting FMG.

I was going to act as a legal advisor to her at one point, because I felt strongly about FGM as well and thought it was great someone from her background would take up this cause. She had a habit to propose things that were legally unfeasible and I was supposed to help her formulate steps that fit in the existing legal system. Unfortunately, she turned out to be more interested in being shocking (and polarising the debate) than actually implementing effective policies. She made a conscious choice at some point to chose form over function and that's where I exited stage left. — Benkei

Even though this could be wholly false (not trying to antagonize you here), such personal experience does way more to inform me then attacking here on one of her statements where "I" would grant her some credibility due to her personal experience.

Where you are opposed to prohibition against maidenhood restoration and I would be for it, based on the knowledge that the hymen doesn't exist as it's often purported 'and' the idea that the myths around virginity should be expelled, we were talking about an ethical decision from the Swedish government. I did use your less nuanced argument to refute the idea of a "fascist" government deciding what we can or cannot do by stating it's not considered fascist if governments penalize murder. it was a bad example, there's a lot of difference between deciding on individual freedom and deciding on those who blatantly violate others' rights, my apologies. Concerning the nikab,I would be for prohibiting it, call me xenophobic but I would like to be able to see other people their faces. Also, it could evoke unjustified claims of discrimination, someone with a full face tattoo would probably get turned down when applying for a representative function, I feel doing so is a right and although it can be considered discrimination, I feel such discrimination is justified.

Where your assessment concerning my preconceived notions is correct is in that I see Islam as a monolithic culture when it comes to woman's rights (and in a clear divide between church and state). This is indeed where my sense of moral superiority comes in and where I am of the opinion that's it wholly justified to condemn Islam and equate it with an inherent regressive attitude. I feel it's morally wrong to claim we're better off giving people the freedom to emancipate on their own then attempt to change what is governing their idea's at the current moment.

Then you are unaware of the historical developments in this area. There was a time that Islamic women could divorce and receive part of the estate, when us Westerners treated women as a thing to be owned. The thin veneer of respectibility we shroud ourselves with to feel superior is easily lost. 2 world wars in the "enlightened world" is proof enough. Human beings are animals if we do not continually make the effort to be more than just animals and it's only too easy not to make the effort, when we perceive it not costing us anything (except our humanity).

The point being, these things are in flux and I don't think the human race has progressed morally in any way as compared to 4000 years ago. — Benkei

I do think we've progressed morally, yet mainly because we've gained material wealth (be it through carrying out atrocious acts). If people are incapable of seeing how this works, we have indeed gained nothing and would easily revert back to animals in the case of any material setback. I'm not so much right wing as you might think, I am of the conviction that if we're convinced we actually have gained any morality we should apply it (long story).

The main thing which made me reply adversely to your reaction was the way in which I perceived you to claim moral high ground. In the Netherlands I feel the disdain / contempt which appears to go hand in hand with the left when they criticize the right does as little for actual development as does the populist attitude of the right.

You claimed her statement on genital mutilation being linked to Islam to be false; you did so based on the origins of this practice and purport Egypt to be the only Islamic country (in Africa!) where it's prevalent. Though we might be able to look from the outside in and observe that the tradition is not necessarily linked towards religious practice, this does not mean that from the inside the practice has gained a religious narrative in many cases. I find that a misrepresentation and a lowly way of attacking her as a caricature, especially considering the many things you could have used (and have used later) to generate a more nuanced opinion on her.

Though I don't know that much about Hirshi Ali, you would be mistaken to think I am in favour of her views on the whole or that I feel she can be regarded as an objective authority on matters of Islam. I actually do not care that much, I do start to care if people feel they need to attack her and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I won't blame her for being selfish and making up stories about her immigration and I have doubts to what extent she felt the need to (indeed) become somewhat of a caricature due to being met with criticism from the left. (Haven't followed her much when she was politically active).

It's the way in which criticism is generated which bugs me, all the time (both on the left and on the right) you see people set up a caricature of their opponents and attacking them on that basis. It's odd that those who tend to claim moral superiority are so often inclined to judge everyone who doesn't share their opinion while not realising that they place their own values onto those who are unable to do anything with these values.

"Stupid conversation", "fascist government", "charlatans spouting nonsense", claiming my convictions are clear, you give away a lot when it concerns how you feel about your own opinion.

It predates Islam, Chirstianity and Judaism. It's prohibited in Indonesia. It isn't a Muslim problem as it spans regions that are majority Christian as well. And Hirshi Ali's words aren't to be taken on face value for a lot of reasons but I think lying about a topic you got famous about is a pretty big one. That's not just "not blindly taking things on face value" that's reason to discard her writings to the thrash heap. — Benkei

I'll concede that it's not helpful to see Hirshi Ali as an academic scholar, yet you've far from proven that there's no link between Islam and female genital mutilation, just because Islam didn't invent it and Egyptian imam's speak out publicly against it does not mean there is no correlation whatsoever. Furthermore, Hirshi's own report on it being interpreted as a religious exercise counts for something to me, where I would not see such a report as academic scholarship. She rose to prominence due to her political engagement 'and 'her background. In my view she's not wrong about FMG, and especially considering her own personal experience I find it overly harsh to use this specific example as a straw man to negate anything she has said. (You've done a way better job in you more recent assessment).

Also, both Machteld and Ayaan had an agenda and set out to find data to confirm that agenda — Benkei

Concerning Machteld, I've learned upon some reading that the book she wrote is not the thesis which gave her her doctorate, the thesis was called: "Choosing Sharia? Multiculturalism, Islamic Fundamentalism and Sharia Councils in the United Kingdom". As I mentioned I haven't read her book but I do have some trust in the panel which granted her a doctorate based on her thesis, more so then your opinion on her "poor academic scholarship".

It's fascist in the sense that the "government knows best" — Benkei

Here you apply moral relativism and use it to condemn ethical behaviour, I would not for instance call it fascist for governments to penalize murder. There can be debate on this specific issue (and there should be!), if this was the case I would state my opinion in that I personally feel Islam, as a monolithic culture, hampers female rights overall and it's morally wrong to give everyone the full freedom to emancipate. We have a past which we can use to observe the violent nature of reformation and also considering choice supportive bias, I feel it's justified to condemn a religion which 'generally' puts woman in a position which makes it hard for them to bring about change from the inside. Religious indoctrination plays a role here also, whereas it might seem like fascism to impose our morals onto others, I am of the personal opinion there are sufficient grounds for doing so.

Conflating maidenhood restoration with male circumcision is a bad idea, maidenhood restoration, aside from the actual existence of such a thing as maidenhood is generally done "voluntarily" at an age round about the age of consent and the bulk of this wish stems from what, mostly religious believes, is expected from woman (virginity). There's lots to say about male circumcision, the main thing I'd like to say on the subject is that males are fortunate it generally doesn't hamper physical functionality.

Maybe you shouldn't be using Google translate because the article doesn't state this. It states it has created a schism in feminism. — Benkei

I'm Dutch. I have not misread anything, the article starts with an accusation of creating a schism and ends doing the same thing. It's a pure difference of opinion on both sides which both contribute to this schism (and here you are justified to accuse me of having preconceived idea's which make me lean towards the former).

I gave you information but you don't care about it and just accuse me of straw man arguments, which I haven't. I've accused Ayaan of lying which is quite well established and handed you the facts and accused both of bad methodologies — Benkei

No you started with straw man arguments and this accusation made you elaborate.

Apologies if my lack of patience then comes across as condescending but I'll remind you that you started accusing me of straw man arguments where there were none, which is pretty much the academics equivalent of plugging your ears with your fingers and screaming "lalalala" at the top of your lungs. — Benkei

You did use straw man arguments and I'm still here replying to your elaborations (which I appreciate). You made it seem as if Hirshi Ali was an academic scholar (where I'll admit this has been in large part due to my bias, yet you have not notified me about my misrepresentation and I take that as a justification which confirms my biased suspicions). And you have also failed in notifying me about about the actual scholarship of Machteld while you did use 'your' opinion to accuse her of poor academic work.

I made a post in this thread stating my interest in this topic, you did in fact used straw man arguments to purport a certain stance to be "the right one" and this only justifies my hunches that there's something going on with leftist ideals defending Islam.

Antidiscrimination law was never changed and not even attempted and the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. It was subsequently forced to do so as a consequence of a court case brought by private individuals that demanded prosecution. Court decided in their favour. — Benkei

The laws for the legislation you mention were put forward in parliament and would make it so that Wilders could 'not' be prosecuted, they didn't get support and the PVV is now trying again to legislate an addition to these laws. It's completely the other way round then you purport and yes it says a lot about the factual nature which Hirshi Ali considers to be truth. Also, are you mixing up the two separate prosecutions against Wilders? (one case for his film "Fitna" and the other for his discriminating speech).

Again, I wouldn't see Hirshi Ali as an academic scholar, the way she lied to get granted asylum could tell us something about how people distort truth to get what they want and how that may be relevant in certain current debates, I don't however feel that anything she says is necessarily without merit.

On another note, the "right" equivalent of what I purported to be leftist academic might be found in the University of Leiden where there are some professors of law and their students who appear to comprise a right wing academic establishment. (Paul Cliteur, Thierry Baudet, Afshin Ellian). These "right-wing" academic positions do not seem to hallmarked by being created to facilitate a certain view though, contrary to some "leftist" positions.

Sigh. Genital mutilation isn't a Muslim problem, which she knew but lied about because she has issues. Whether she suffered it, is neither here nor there. — Benkei

I said "aside from the what's what concerning Hirshi Ali", you use one example to purport her words aren't to be taken on face value. You can probably find a bunch more and this just shows that one should always be critical and not blindly take things on face value.

And if I look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country there are certainly strong links between female genital mutilation, look at Indonesia and Malaysia for example.

So you have no way of assessing the merits of those articles but just feel they're not appropriate because they don't agree with your preconceived political notions. Notions so well established you'll defend someone who you don't even know. Fantastic. Very well-examined. — Benkei

Yes I have, I can read. The Volkskrant is implicitly mentioning Machteld and the (opinion!) article goes on saying that it's wrong to assume in advance that woman in Islamic cultures (Islam mentioned implicitly) do not necessarily suffer from unequal rights but might very well choose their position... so we shouldn't judge cultures with unequal rights... or something. Then they use the example about how woman aren't able to get a maidenhead restoration operation in Zweden and how we should respect woman's wishes more. They mention that in the Netherlands, 48% of such operations are applied for due to sexual abuse yet it's common knowledge here many woman use that as an excuse to get it done because there is a critical policy in the Netherlands. The essence of the article is basically saying we should show solidarity and don't judge the cultures which expect females to be virgin when they get married. "Why criticise the cultures which are hampering equal rights, who are we to tell woman how to emancipate?".

The NRC article starts of with saying that it's a bad thing to polarize debate by stating that Islam and feminism can't go together and ends with stating that these "racist, patriarchal, extreme right nationalist ideologies are irreconcilable with feminism".

So you have no way of assessing the merits of those articles but just feel they're not appropriate because they don't agree with your preconceived political notions. Notions so well established you'll defend someone who you don't even know. Fantastic. Very well-examined. — Benkei

Unlike you with your condescending tone, I also specifically mention that I'm not being sarcastic when I ask for information concerning right wing positions, I would gladly be more informed instead of "judging everything by my preconceived political notions".

Seeing you mainly try to set up straw man arguments so that you're better able to use an ad hominem in your discourse, I won't count on you providing such enlightening information.

Aside from that, I don't quite understand everything in your comment, but I suppose I get the gist of it. — Terrapin Station

I was mainly trying to show how a difference / discrepancy between 'is' an 'ought' might show. Basically there are laws for the ought and there's peer pressure for the is. If there's a complete lack of understanding of any ought or there are many petty patronizing laws needed to make people act civil I think there's something wrong and I feel it's of no use to make "understanding" a legal obligation.

And concerning immigration laws, I live in the Netherlands, it's a small social welfare state with a pension fund based on solidarity (all employees are obliged to contribute to a pension fund and it works with a reserve as well as those working now paying for those retiring now, most European pension funds work without a reserve). If anyone would be able to come and get a free lunch (labour participation among immigrants is generally a lot lower then native inhabitants) there wouldn't be much left of the country quite fast.

and to add:

"Professorship of socio-political aspects of the welfare state and the exchange economy" , "Professor in gender and equality", "Professor in citizenship and moral diversity", "Professor in art, culture and diversity", "Special professor in gender based violence".

I am a complete nitwit concerning academic culture but these are a few of the academic positions available in the Netherlands, they're all held by females (I don't know what that's supposed to mean) and some of these positions have been created specifically for those holding the position.

Again I'm a nitwit when it concerns academia but I am unaware of much explicitly right wing academic positions in reputable universities (the above mentioned are very much leftist positions). Am I totally wrong in asserting that there might be a strong leftist current in the local academic culture or is it just that the right is wrong on many of the subjects ...they would in principle not get any doctorate in?

I'm not being sarcastic here, I would really like to become aware of the right counterpart of this, preferably concerning the Netherlands.

I think they are "attacked" by other academics because those others take their work seriously and don't need these charlatans to spout nonsense under the veneer of sensibility that working for a university grants. Call it professional pride. — Benkei

Not even no.

If you knew Hirsi personally and read Machteld (which I haven't) I assume you know Dutch. I've linked to the articles you purport to be people "taking their job seriously" and these two articles are written by 6 females with an academic function. It's these articles which are spouting nonsense, it's plain and clear for everyone to see: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/37918

As I said I haven't read Machteld Zee's work yet but she published the thesis which earned her a doctorate as a book, anyone who wishes can read it and come to their own conclusions.

Aside from what's what concerning Hirshi Ali, you put up a straw man with attacking her on her stance of female genital mutilation (which she has suffered) and you do the same with the work of Machteld Zee (where you accuse 'her' of making a straw man argument) and you do this to defend ...really poor leftist academic work while, again (!) making a straw man argument when you sarcastically mention:

because universities are leftist fortresses reinforcing the leftist agenda — Benkei

What's your pride in using some logical fallacies instead of actually criticizing the subject at hand?

I'm kinda curious how such a tangent would pan out but perhaps another time.

You actually wrote very clearly, it's (again) the implications which follow out of that for me (bias).
They way you mentioned that you deal with questions about morality responsibly / like an adult is not completely obvious, would it be somewhat justified to say that you "value" morality?

What I'm trying to address sort of ties in with the "problem of absent moral agents" thread. It's also a very slippery slope to "force" idea's upon others yet it could be considered as such. People could be morally "weak" (please forgive the objectification, it only serves as an example) yet if they never break any laws there's little means to do anything about it aside from possible peer pressure "forcing" preferred behaviour (through social exclusion for example).

I do feel there can be some objective moral values and I would rather see them tied to the capacity of people to understand concepts then them being written down and put into practice as law. They way peer pressure works now is the mechanism how such moral values would come about but it's hard to expect people to "understand" what they're talking about instead of claiming moral superiority in advance.

I'm not trying to push my political agenda here but an example could be immigration of some Islamist people into secular states. Secular states have a clear divide between church and state while followers of Islam can be of the (strong) opinion that Sharia law is the only law that's supposed to count. Even if they move to a secular state not out of necessity but for a preference of the wealth, that's not amoral, we all have our self interests in mind. Freedom of religion is one thing but fundamentally disagreeing with the way the state in which they were given such rights is governed and having the freedom to espouse this view onto others... there's something not quite right there. Also if they have their self interest in mind, who are we to judge if they'd use democratic means to try and accomplish a means of governance which is opposed to a lot of the rights they're given to even undertake such an effort?

One could also criticize the way our monetary systems have forced a form of governance unto people who never had any say in the matter and, even though we might claim such a means of gaining material wealth will benefit everyone in the end, there's little (to my mind) ethical debate on this but individual morals are more and more starting to wonder if they agree with the moral / ethical repercussions of capitalism and it is the individual understanding and agreement which would be most potent in having an influence on the way capitalism applies itself globally.

There's a mechanism at work here where we appear to detract from the potency of this mechanism. (peer pressure combined with the human capacity for understanding ...or something like that...)
Not acknowledging how (un)conscious consent works in enabling things to grow out of hand (capitalism) or enabling a regress of moral values (religion). Failing to recognize this detracts from our human capacities in this point in time in my opinion, I feel it's more relevant to make people see this for themselves then discuss it meta-ethically. (Where meta-ethics could help a lot in clarifying what I'm saying).

Somewhere I take issue with this view, as humans we have the capacity to empathise with others and we can understand each other to some extent. I find it detracts from our capacities if we only imply ethical guidelines in a behaviourist way. The idea of a morally autistic person bugs me.

I feel he rather advocates for an environment which we can agree on, makes most people thrive. It might be easier to see where there is a lack of such an environment (because people are suffering for instance) then necessarily stating in advance how the future needs to look like.

Well, following the example you mention I'd guess we'd get some super psychopath or something so yeah, I would call it a road to mental illness.

Yet there can be the contemplation that, let's say, an altruistic person could be doing good for others or could be doing so for feeling good himself when he / she does good for others. I think a strong either / or isn't healthy. Also there's the question if doing certain things is wrong if someone isn't aware why they're doing so (we don't blame babies for crying when they want food yet at some later point we tell kids to stop whining if they don't get what they want).

And, isn't our economy based on the idea that most people act out of self interest where the common ground comes from having a mutual self interest?

I think it becomes a clear mental illness when someone is always consciously manipulating others for their own gain.

Please don't conflate your conversation with Terrapin fully with my conversation, these threads can branch of to some extent. If anything it could show why it's so difficult in coming towards a clearly defined consensus when it comes to values, morality, meaning, etc. The subjectivity which is inherent in most all humans might make things appear more paradoxical then they actually are.

That's nice to hear from someone who I'd considered a nihilist and expected to "hide" behind moral relativism. (where I 'was' always aware there's only so much you can read into people from observing their replies on an internet forum).

The general feeling I get from the interactions I have in my environment (which are skewed and mostly comprise the "lower" and middle social ranks of society in a very well developed part of the world) is that most people are either very adamant that there's something wrong objectively and we should all be working to negate that, claiming that things basically don't matter and you're supposed to do what makes you feel happy (rather sooner then later) or assuming they're the pinnacle of human development and others should head their opinion.

I'm biased in assuming most of these people are very well capable of coming towards a more nuanced view on many matters and am generally inclined to actively try and pursue a more nuanced view. (Where I feel it's adequate to mention that most of the people I might criticize are fairly morally praiseworthy when they are put into practice.)

Thanks for negating my preconceptions about you, I guess certain views have more nuance then I would give them credit for at first glance.

Though he is not advocating an absolutely objective truth, to me he does make a good case why we could accept an "ought" as an "is". The example of how our consciousness can be equated to suffering, how people are able to see others (living entities) suffer (empathize), show that, although still relative, there's some common ground there.

It's a hard topic, where Maximus mentioned earlier in this thread about "incepting" the "right" ideas into certain societies; I'm inclined to think that you can have all the right ideas yet if the material abundance isn't there, it's to no avail. Similarly, kids can grow up into arrogant nitwits at times if they've been spoiled too much. So sharing material abundance more equally could be morally upright, it could be morally wrong because people might not learn how to use such abundance, who are we to decide on such a question? and could the planet cope if anyone would be able to bask in material abundance?

I for one find it morally wrong to use moral relativism to refrain from ever contemplating such issues thoroughly or negate them. I find it hampers moral progress objectively if we don't treat our own capacity to envision such moral issues responsibly ...but that's just me.

I see your point, I could argue mine but I feel Sam Harris does it more eloquently.
If you wish:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww&t=1194s

Seeing you wouldn't buy into the idea of objective moral values I was rephrasing things to see if you're against the idea in principle. (Idea being that certain things are 'always' wrong).

(edit: I'm not framing you into a catch 22 situation here)

It's that we're recognizing that what that intuition is is simply the way we feel about rape. — Terrapin Station

The warning at the end CS Lewis gives is that we have to be careful explaining these intuitions away like the intuition that some things (for instance rape) are just wrong no matter what — Maximus

@ Terrapin, I guess for you an 'objective' moral value would have to be an empirical fact outside of human experience? Seeing that is unlikely to happen, how about a lower boundary on which preferences we tolerate from each other then?

Do you recognize two approaches to one's own value judgements? First, we could automatically start acting on the values, we'd be constantly working on how to achieve things. In this way, everything appears as a means to the end, because we never even think about the values (ends) themselves, we are constantly engaged in procuring the means. If it gets to the point where one loses contact with one's own values, just constantly acting to procure the means, without even having a clue as to for the sake of what, this could be mental illness. Second, we could question our values. Is this value reasonable? Should I hold this value? Why do I hold this value? But again, if one takes this to the extreme, being afraid to act for fear of doing the wrong thing, this could also be mental illness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well it's only in humans we expect people to be able to refrain from automatically acting on their values (where some are still ingrained, like going a long time without food might make one do crazy things). And take for instance a mid-life crisis, isn't that usually where people take stock in what they have achieved thus far with blindly following values and never thinking about those values? And if I envision a person who's been shamed a lot when young for not "acting right" (by parents, peers, etc.) I could easily see them having such low self esteem it could be considered a mental illness.

So the second approach I described, questioning one's values, could lead to this hijacking you refer to. The hijacking itself is not mental illness because it is supported by reason. The question then becomes, is the reason truly logical, or is it more like rationalizing. If the latter, then again we may be facing mental illness. — Metaphysician Undercover

As humans, we are able to use a "logical" reasons to refrain from instantly giving in to our own values / desires, etc, usually with the help of another (or maybe even the same) value, which we then try to reach on a longer term. (Simply not doing what one might want to do right now to save up money to do what they want later). The way rationalisation comes into play here also functions as a means to increase our self esteem or at least refrain from distracting from it. There are al sorts of coping mechanisms / biases which aid in our self image and a healthy self image isn't necessarily a bad thing. Is it a mental illness for a criminal to make up some sort of favourable alibi when accused of committing a crime while he knows he's guilty?

This "functionality" you refer to, is I believe, what I call questioning one values. The idea of "pure rational thought", might cause one to suppress all values, under the idea that pure rational thought is the only true value, an other values might need to be suppressed to allow rational thought to be pure. But this might be a mental illness as well. And the opposite extreme is like the first approach mentioned above, when we just continue to act on our values, we concentrate on carrying out the acts themselves, loosing track of what our values actually are. — Metaphysician Undercover

If a solipsist gets himself into a depression because of solipsist idea's and is thinking about suicide, I would say the embodiment of thought is negated to an extreme extent and it could be deemed a mental illness. The opposite extreme, in my opinion, hangs on people being capable (aware) enough to reflect upon their own values. We can take IQ tests, EQ, tests, etc, yet there seems to be little test for actual wisdom and we also don't always seem to expect a degree of wisdom from each other. Wisdom here would be applying our meta cognition or might be similar to Kahneman's "thinking slow" (haven't read the book but I'm guessing this is what he means).

This as well might be a mental illness, valuing the manipulation of others. If it comes to the point where an individual would have to obscure one's own behaviour, to prevent oneself from becoming too predictable, because what is valued is the capacity to manipulate others, doesn't this seem like mental illness to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, it's beneficial for humans to be able to manipulate their environment to some extent, in our case this includes other humans ...which we depend upon also. I can wonder if, when we learn as children that we can't always get what we want, do we then just become morally upright or do we become more cleverer in getting what we want? Also, in the recent past, it would be highly beneficial to manipulate others into thinking you're a strict religious person because heathens were burned at the stakes. Like certain psychopaths, extreme egotistical behaviour is seen as a mental illness but a lot of what I would call "petty" behaviour isn't. And even though I find it petty, if I'm working with someone who is continuously mentioning what a great job he has and what a wonderful day it is, how good his job going on this specific day, etc. there's a point where it's not just a positive attitude any more but starts to resemble a rationalisation for doing something they might not be very fond of. I wouldn't call this a mental illness ...yet.

In other words, we all tend to be relativists. Maybe we should just admit we are relativists, like our own values better than theirs, we're right, they're wrong, fuck them, and be done with it. — Bitter Crank

It might sound like circular reasoning but in my opinion, admitting to this would do more for creating common values then claiming moral high ground by considering each value to be equal.

Thanks for engaging, I would see "valuing" as the bit where our thought / mental abstractions / future projections get an emotional response. I would not know to what degree it facilitates our thought process (where it might be observed that our consciousness enables us to negate our value judgements / emotions to a degree which separates us from other animals) but our thoughts are crucial in coming to terms with the way we 'might' automatically respond to our own value judgements / emotions.

The difficulty lies in being able to articulate (think "rationally") about what's actually governing our behaviour, which appears to rely on a degree of self awareness / consciousness. There are values which are commonly shared (procreation, survival ...usually) and which have a very obvious physical base, yet when abstract thought comes into play, these values can be "hijacked" to some degree, a degree which (in my mind) does not necessarily correlate to easily defined physical or common values (like valuing knowledge to such an extent it might be detrimental to our physicality).

Just as we are having conversation now, if I were to have a goal in mind which I'd value (obtaining knowledge) which is wreaking havoc on my physical well-being and you were to ask me why I was not looking after myself, I could respond with articulating why my individual value judgement made me do so. You could then respond in numerous ways, using both common values and individual values. If you yourself would value common values a lot and would not be able to envision my "ordeal" you'd probably be inclined to say something like: "No exam is worth losing so much sleep over". If you could envision my value judgement yet wouldn't care much about my well-being you could be like: "Whatever floats your boat" (where you would not necessarily see me as mentally ill) and, if you'd care and you'd trust in my own judgement you could be like: "Just make sure that, when this exam is done, you take care of yourself".

The main thing I'm saying is that "valuing" is indeed innate yet it starts to take on more / other functionality as our self / awareness increases. If we negate this (like in asserting there's such a thing as pure rational thought) or don't make an effort to report how our own value judgements influence our rationality to others ("Oh, I was just playing") we actually succumb to being mere pawns of our own value judgements / emotions.

(I feel what I'm addressing is mainly difficult because it's not common knowledge and that the fact it isn't common knowledge is due to people valuing to manipulate others highly and try to prevent becoming too predictable... where a lack of common knowledge in this regard creates an environment where people might be inclined to follow their value judgements blindly while thinking they're behaving rationally... because everyone else seems to be doing it.)

These thoughts are brand new to me after wanting to respond to arguments made by Sam Harris (and many others) on morality and free will. I wanted to take him seriously and find a way out of his line of thinking. I don't think misery and well being define morality. I don't think free will is entirely an illusion.

Any thoughts on where I may have gone wrong here? — Maximus

I've watched Sam Harris his Ted talk on morality and I would laud it, I'm all for gaining some more objectivity to negate moral relativism. His lecture on free will though.... couldn't get through it.

What appears to be bothering you (and me to some degree) is the degree in which our social environment counts as information which we can use to inform our decision making. In your case this appears to come out as seeing merely having "wrong" intentions already suffices to be accused of low morality. This does not seem like a worthwhile approach seeing this "moral righteousness" could be defined as being your specific idea of well being which negates your intuitive objections towards his train of thought in the moral sense (where I could agree with Sam Harris, based on what I've learned so far).

Would your objections be better articulated if I were to state that, what we have become familiar with in our socio cultural upbringing counts as information which is intelligible enough to use as the information we base our decisions on?

I would agree in free will not existing absolutely in the sense of direct agency yet a lot of proponents for this view make some weird leap to come to something which still includes morality and these weird leaps are what bug me personally. Daniel Dennett comes to "the free will worth having" without ever hinting at emotional engagement and Sam Harris appears to leap to physical well being as the main criteria for being morally responsible (I couldn't take his lecture any more). Both seem to forsake the idea that our emotional inclinations respond to an environment which is not (obviously) physically present (while still using this observation as being relevant to become able to respond favourably towards moral inclinations). Sam Harris acknowledges our consciousness / self awareness as the ability to suffer and states that we should try and prevent needless suffering, which I agree with.

A big part of our consciousness consists of being able to see our environment in an abstract way and respond to it as such, there is no physical theory (yet) how this works exactly but it's detrimental to our capacities to pretend we are only responding to a physical environment. As such, we can be aware of causes which are only conceivable to ourselves yet still count as 'valuable' information. Assuming this layer does not exist and does not inform the choices we appear to make does not necessarily lead to fatalism, but it does negate a large part of the experience we are most intimately familiar with.

In my view it's childish to use this conscious experience on the one hand to prove we're capable of realising the harm we might do to other (conscious?) entities while on the other hand negate our capacity to use such abstract information to make decisions, it makes no sense whatsoever to my mind.

To quote the Sam Harris in his lecture where I feel he makes a wrong turn in assessing where the line is between holding people responsible and where not: "These are differences that relate to the global properties of the mind and what's reasonable to expect of those minds in the future"

Though psychology and emotion appear to be a bit too vague at times to discuss properly in philosophical discourse, I cannot help but observe their relevance towards most everything we undertake. Also, consciousness is not always deemed to actually exist or, if it does, gets more credence then is justified. I'd guess the somatic marker hypothesis from Antonio Damasio provides the most relevant "proof" for the following but thinking (conceptualizing) gets it's value due to an emotional response. I could go further and enter the realm of pure speculation (though it seems to apply to my own life) where I'd assert that, what we value has to do with development / purpose. Not insinuating there's necessarily a clearly defined pre-set goal to achieve, but rather that most people value (positively) developing in some way (Gaining material wealth, procreating, belonging to a group, being intellectually challenged, levelling up in Call of Duty, stubbornly persisting in finding "truth", etc.)

One of the exemplar cases used by Damasio is that of a male suffering brain trauma which does not seem to hamper his behaviour at first glance, yet a lack of emotional response towards his own conceptions (thoughts, projections of the future) made him make decisions which were detrimental to his well-being, a bit similar to Phineas Gage. Seeing there was little emotional inclination to respond to rational thought, the person from the modern example could follow the logic of where he made "wrong" choices, he was just unable to care much for doing so.

Even though this was a clear case of severe physiological trauma, the resulting mental illness was very hard to diagnose.

So this was a case where physiological trauma affected the ability to value but (for example!) a very intelligent mind in a very dumb environment could be affected by a lack of valuing, mainly because the common goals of the environment do not suffice and there is a lack of information in which value could be found. Such a circumstance could very well lead to mental illness without any physiological predisposition while, vica versa, certain autistic people or people with Asperger syndrome can gain valuable functionality if giving the right environmental outlet (like in the often mentioned examples of maths geniuses, etc). Here, a physiological "defect" isn't really a mental illness any more. Also, psychopathy could be summarized by a strong thinking process and strong value judgements (mainly extreme egotistical ones) yet a clear lack of value judgements 'shared' by the environment is what makes most of us see psychopathy as a mental illness.

Then we can look at, for example, down syndrome where people might be lacking somewhat in strong thinking processes yet are able to value things adequately and, with a little attention from the environment, can function prosperously.

Also (what I've tried to show by my own example), if a value judgement shifts (in my case from valuing my own personal mental development very high where a lack of development in this regard has made / is making me value my societal role more) there can suddenly be despair where there was "mental strength" before. (I'm hoping it won't lead to mental illness, but I can envision how it could). I have a hunch our value judgements are more important then our thinking processes seeing a sudden trauma which would hamper my thinking process could only be detrimental if I would be keenly aware of a sudden lack and how this lack hampers my ability to achieve my previously cherished values. Similarly, if someone is suffering from a psychotic episode due to "delusions", could these "delusions" possibly be articulated and "handled" if the thought process was strong enough and the information was provided with which it could be seen which value judgement is running haywire?

It's all quite complex... to me anyway. I do feel that "value" can be linked to progressive development (yet this can be realised in so many ways it's almost a futile handle), where a lack of progressive development combined with a keen awareness of such a lack can lead to great despair and, especially if this mechanism is not understood whatsoever, to mental illness.

What do people mean when they say: "what is the meaning of life?" or "life has no meaning." — Emptyheady

I think they're showing they've reached a level of abstract understanding where the mind is so prominently present that "mere" physical stimuli alone do not suffice in keeping occupied enough to refrain from using the mind to wonder if it's somehow disconnected from everything, or if it's possible to disconnect from a body which cannot be fully governed by the conscious mind.

I see the ability to pose such questions and being able to be really bothered / rejoiced by (a lack of) answers as a form of mental maturity, which I find quite meaningful seeing it hints at a progressive development.

This allows that mental illness might be determined as a specific type of privation of mental strength — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that doing so would appear useless but might have "some" merit, mainly by virtue of there being a consensus about the role of individual value judgements. 'I' would not, for instance, regard psychopathy as a mental strength yet seeing they appear to make great captains of industry, what do I know? I also wouldn't agree on mental illness being a lack of mental strength, but the hole Agustino seems to have dug himself into here might stem from a continuous shifting between societal value judgements, mere physical well-being and individual value judgements.

I've tried to make this point earlier: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/37905

It take it to be impossible to come to a clear definition of what constitutes mental strength but laying out a mechanism with which individual cases could be viewed might be a step along the way.

See, your idea of mental illness refers specifically to the individual, "one". Now when it has been explained to you that the person with mental strength will actually demonstrate actions of putting the well-being of others as priority over the well-being of oneself, your definitions may be completely reversed. Or at best, they are just plain wrong. You're completely lost, you have no grounds for diagnosing mental illness, and no bearing for determining mental strength. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, an inability to reconcile individual goals with societal goals says something about what 'we' are capable of at this point, just because it might not be a simple either / or does not mean the starting point is completely baseless.

We will what we will, even if we don't consciously and rationally choose to do so--which is why Freud said "We are not masters of our own house". — Bitter Crank

What most parents would know and what studies show to be present at the age of about 6, is that we become capable of negating our desires to a degree. At a latter age we tend to develop a knack for wisdom whereby we appear to learn to rationally analyse our motivations. We're able to use meta cognition to negate our own direct desires, I wouldn't know what it means when we have a desire to not only negate, but generate our own desires. Increasing mental self-awareness could be seen as a desire to become a master of our own house.

In a similar vain I would say that a happy slave is a slave who doesn't know he's a slave. (provided physical conditions aren't overly detrimental).

I wouldn't see psychopathy as a mental strength, it would seem easier to single mindedly go after one's own goals if there's a complete disregard for the environment then there would be if there is a genuine care for the environment. And (again) at a certain point (don't ask me where), if there's no reciprocity at all between the goals of the overall environment and the individuals' goal, I would see that as objectively dysfunctional. (Ideology usually plays a big role in the many atrocities mankind is capable of).

It's an interesting subject, recently a Dutch scholar published a book (thesis) about the role of multiculturalism and it's effects https://www.amazon.co.uk/Choosing-Sharia-Machteld-Zee/dp/9462366349

She earned her doctorate and is considered to be a proper modern feminist, yet suffered some backlash from left-wing feminist who appear to be pro-multicultural / pro-Islam.

(You'd have to run them through Google translate, they're Dutch)
http://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/schrijf-vrouwen-niet-voor-hoe-zij-emanciperen~a4405451/
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/10/24/een-echte-feminist-komt-juist-op-voor-moslimas-4960632-a1528197

I found it somewhat disturbing that both those articles were written by three females together, from post docs in the Humanities, professors of culture, professors of gender based violence, etc.

An English article with a similar gist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabby-aossey/muslims-are-the-true-feminists_b_9877692.html

I am unaware of the left vs.right divide in our universities but a bunch of self proclaimed left wing feminists ganging up to try and influence public opinion through reputable newspapers makes me doubt their function as teachers for our population; especially when, upon dissecting their articles, what they write is full of fallacies and appeals to emotion.

Not implying they shouldn't be teaching, just doubts towards the role of their ideological baggage and how such ideological baggage might turn into political idea's being peached.

Though I might not fully agree with the term mental illness as used by Agustino, I'm assuming he's talking about something which should not be defined (easily) based on obvious behaviours but involves a self-report of mental and emotional states, including a need to make such a report.

Seeing it's usually not a very good idea to let someone judge their own mental states completely and "understanding" one's own mental states involves a degree of articulation ("Because it felt good" might appear to be a self-report involving sufficient reason but I guess we can agree it generally does not suffice as a good enough explanation and we're expected to have a degree of self control), would we get farther if we let individuals articulate a self-report? And, if so, how can we know that we ourselves are capable of judging such a self-report?

We give adults a degree of freedom whereby certain behaviours are not tolerated, most of these behaviours are judged according to the respect with which others' freedom is respected. People have a large degree of freedom to harm themselves (it's not forbidden to become an alcoholic to my knowledge) and we cannot force people to really care about someone who is suffering from loneliness.

Social engagement, common sense / knowledge and a good handle on our own biases could aid in making the large grey area between, let's say, having an occasional drink and full blown alcoholism smaller. Common knowledge would be important here because nowadays actual care could easily be seen as "intrusive meddling".

In a similar vein, what about the many nihilistic / solipsist threads on this forum? We're unable to judge behaviour but there's a difference between someone having a decent fulfilling life where spare time is used occasionally to let natural curiosity rein free and inquire into matters of meaning and knowledge vs. someone who suffers an existential crisis, has become unable to keep a job and sees life as something unfulfilling / futile.

It is my own personal judgement that a large degree of nihilism / solipsism is usually not very beneficial for someone but it might be beneficial for those who are actually trying to negate life's experiences somewhat (depersonalisation light?). There can also be those who really don't care for anything else but forcing a good answer to certain difficult questions and this could be regarded as "mental strength", in some cases brilliance and persistence have not always been equal to a healthy physical existence. There's also a degree of egotistical arrogance: "Refute this motherf#ckers, Ha!", But (and I would really like to get some feedback on this one) it could also be a justification for having a point of view which is wreaking havoc on one's experience. Using the mind to rationalize bodily feelings can be a coping mechanism in some cases. If we see someone living in an obvious detrimental way and we ask for a self-report, a rationally articulated (irrefutable) report can be given and, if there's no familiarity with the concept I'm trying to elaborate on here, any help could be judged to be intrusive meddling".

Would a nihilist be trying to gain an identity, would he / she rather find actual meaning, is he / she just butthurt in not being able to know the future, is a solipsist an ego on high octane fuel, distraught in not being able to generate their own thoughts, comforted in having found an impossible to refute metaphysical position, etc?

A lot of what I'm talking about I would not consider a mental illness, far from it, yet some of it could very well lead to a mental illness. It is my opinion that mental strength 'could' be regarded as being in control of emotions yet I feel that, at least in "civilized" societies, there's little need to be over protective concerning our own identities / emotions; I wouldn't see being emotionally "touchy feely" as a mental strength yet an honest self-report would qualify. Justifications and strong convictions can, to my mind, be regarded as a hint that there's something to report on (mental stress?), it's usually far from obvious though.

We should try to make them understand. — Agustino

I sincerely agree and it is a value judgement which I use to judge myself and my environment.