As @Amity has said, there is considerable therapeutic value to be found in Kierkegaard's work. Although, the determination of the who, what, when and so on of therapy is not an individual process, and according to Kierkegaard's philosophy comes through the everlasting grace of God.

His views contrive greatly with modern day postmodernist thought, I think, so there is that issue to deal with in the present day and time.

I digress.

I sense Hegel here. Is that where you're deriving your rationale here because it needs some grounding I suppose.

Imagination, willing, and subjectivity, and God... It's hopeless to try and draw out how you see any coherence between these terms used.

But, anyway, given that the set of all sets is epistemically closed off from any other set, then it is "absolute objectivity" to borrow your phrase. So, "absolute objectivity" to beat the phrase is in essence, God manifest. Yeah?

you wouldn't think so if you saw my argument, which is as simple as it is elegant. — TheGreatArcanum

You might as well say that God is the set of all sets that is epistemically closed in a solipsistic manner. I digress.

Psychoceramics...

@TheGreatArcanum, it's puzzling that you don't subscribe to Platonism and assert that the set of all sets has ontological value. Can you lay out your reasoning here?

I'm going to be the surrogate forum moderator here, and am going to be flagging ad hominems that arise.

More chimp-pig content, please.

All you will ever get here, or from a machine is coal; if you want to meet the real Santa, you have to find that other with whom you feel so safe as to be prepared to take a risk. — unenlightened

Yeah, the primary goal that doesn't get mentioned enough of what I have experienced with therapy is the formation of a relationship between the patient and some third party. I must have a deficit of oxytocin because I've always been averse towards forming new relationships.

Intentionality? Jogging my memory a bit, I read somewhere that an AI that simply repeats what the patient has said in different words or phrased differently is just about as effective as a therapist.

But, it seems to me that to boil down the issue, it's rather the humanistic touch of having someone that seemingly cares about what you have gone through, that really produces the therapeutic effects of therapy.

Shall I compare therapy to a Turing Test? — unenlightened

Compare it to Santa giving coal to naughty kids on Christmas I think. After my limited experience with dealing with some people who have gone through rather troubling experiences, they tend to (if the desire to do so at all exists) to cope with these adverse experiences by some derivative of the Stockholm syndrome. What do you make of that sort of phenomenon?

@TheGreatArcanum, perhaps essentialism, no?

Is it possible there are people who have an advanced understanding of the world but protect their secret knowledge so as to exert influence over human affairs? — Jonmel

Psychoceramics aside, it's pretty hard to develop new technology in isolation. Money on the other can be accumulated and multiplied in isolation, that's just the nature of it. Last I recall there's some 40 trillion USD held in offshore tax havens, excluding real-estate, gold, and other nonfungible assets. Just to give some perspective, Microsoft, the most valuable company in existence as of late is worth 1 Trillion dollars. Staggering isn't it? So, the Illuminati might exist, or at least there is some logic to the whole conspiracy theory.

Anyway, who cares? I live off 700 USD a month, so I'm happily squeaking along with my meager income.

What YOU don't seem to get is that the economic world we know, ever increasing efficiency, decreasing cost and all, is built on and depends on cheap plentiful oil, coal, and natural gas. — Bitter Crank

This is true to some degree. But, the basic unit of exchange in terms of manufacturing and production is predominantly heat and electricity, not coal and oil. Furthermore, it's just not true that oil is irreplaceable. Oil can be produced from coal in a non-pollutant manner (the Nazis did it during WWII), along with methane being utilized to produce oil. I'm not an expert here; but, even CO2 can be utilized to create hydrocarbons. So, let's not mix up things here. It's possible to derive oil from other sources if it is necessary to produce crayons or lubricants or other derivatives of oil from it.

There is no substitute for oil, coal, and natural gas as feed stock or fuel. Yes, electricity created by nuclear, wind, and solar is possible and is being produced, and more will be produced in the future. But solar, wind, and nuclear do not produce one drop of petroleum that can be turned into the gazillion products that fossil fuels can be turned into. — Bitter Crank

Well, as I said, it is possible to derive oil and hydrocarbons by other means. It's just that it's quite an energy-intensive process to do so and impracticable at the moment. But, assuming that we do continue to use oil and gas, then the costs will rise and make it more feasible to do so. So, the real barrier here is energy production, not the net total of oil that can be found through fracking or other sources.

Interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

Since you asked, go ahead and pick one. I'd go with the pig. Oink oink. :_)

More chimp-pig content, please.

We won't stay long in the overshoot in my view. — ssu

Yeah, pretty much. It's common knowledge in the field of economics that as technology progresses and human welfare increases, there tends to be a decrease in population growth, not an increase, paradoxically, with the newfound surplus.

But, we should keep in mind the ratio of 3'rd world countries to 1'st world ones. So, there's going to be still considerable growth in demographics due to this gap, and resulting trickle-down effect, that seems to only occur between nations and not within them.

Yeah, it would be interesting to get a comparative analysis between say somewhere like Sweden and the US where laws are diametrically opposed wrt. to child welfare.

There is no way of maintaining life as we know it now and reducing our footprint to a much smaller size. It's an either/or choice. — Bitter Crank

I suppose you mean:

There is no way of maintaining life as we know it now without reducing our collective footprint.

OK, let's take the example of the TV. They used to be heavy, bulky, cost-intensive, and inefficient. You seem to have this idea the other way around in that things are getting more expensive, less efficient, and more cost intensive, which anyone in economics would look at you with a funny eye. The simple fact of the matter is that economics deals with scarcity, and making products less cost-intensive and more efficient is the whole goal of the field. If you want to talk about the real issue here, being population growth, then that's a problem that we don't yet know how want to deal with.

I never got into macroeconomics and microeconomic theory; but, typically there's a focus on microeconomics within the field currently. So, in regards to the policy of net aggregate demand and determining long term goals and plans, which is governed by population growth, there's a lack of motivation to address these issues on a macro scale, until they start affecting microeconomic profitability and growth. I think, delineating between where microeconomics starts and where it ends, is where the issue lays in this thread, at least.

"In the long run, we're all dead." John Maynard Keynes — Bitter Crank

Yeah... that was just him saying "I can never have kids being the gay person that I am, so **** you Darwin!"

At least with trauma, the event is isolated, recognized, and in some way or another compartmentalized even if it can't be assimilated. However, with a lack of self-esteem and the resulting depression, anxiety, or some other obsessive tendency it sort of pervades one's entire being.

Humdrum conundrum.

development in terms of self-esteem — unenlightened

*grows worried*

And once you have accepted that, anyone who seems to care for you must be either playing a trick on you or just stupid. Either way, you cannot trust them. — unenlightened

Has that been your professional experience? I'm assuming this more applies to those with personalitiy disorders along with schizophrenia moreso than a depressive or anxious type

Because it seems to me that people come to your office seeking hard and concrete solutions and not qualitative results that are immesurable such as developing trust. Perhaps some convincing and Rogerian agreement is needed for both parties to reach some mutual understanding?

I'm sort of out of my depth here; but, neo-liberalism along with neo-classical (there's a lot of overlap) economic theories advocate the short-term rather than long term economic goals. Centrally planned economies tend to focus on long term goals.

Anyway, this is sort of the issue that crops up in academia about whether structural issues related to economic foresight is warranted or not. In practice, here in the US, the FED is responsible in a reflexive manner to deal with turbulence and such. In theory, automatic stabilizers are supposto deal with turbulence and economic downturns, but, nevertheless market failures do occur.

"The first principle of recovery is the empowerment of the survivor." But this is also, I'd say, the last principle. Look for someone who with open eyes will say that they trust your trust and your lack of trust. Someone who will help you fix yourself when you are ready. You are bound to be distrustful, you ought and need to be distrustful; It is no random madness. So the first step, if you will, is to trust your distrust. And that means not settling for the first person with a gift for psychobabble you come across. — unenlightened

I'm not sure it's a matter of trust with trauma. More like self-acceptance and self-love, which can only be instilled through a complex psychological transference mechanism between the career and cared for. Is this another way of stating empowerment?

:party:

Pretty much.

Do you see the similarity between what CBT is doing and the position that I've been arguing for as long as you've been aware of me? — creativesoul

How so?

However, you are very likely to do so and if you feel depressed I don't recommend adding anxiety and frustration to that. — Alan

Hmm, I guess that is a good point. Maybe, there's some fantasizing on my part about the whole thing.

Anyway, I guess there's a multitude of factors at play here in this thread, which I have delved into and addressed on my part. I'll have to analyze the situation a little more in depth on my own.

It always takes an other. That's all I'm saying my friend. Always. — creativesoul

In isolation there is no possibility of recognizing one's own mistakes in thought/belief, and/or unhealthy habits of mind, whatever they may amount to. — creativesoul

I'm not quite sure about that. I have read studies of the effectiveness of CBT in treating depression, anxiety, and other ailments individually. Have you seen them?

To those who think/believe in self-therapy??? — creativesoul

Can't be done. — creativesoul

Strange to think that some authority on the matter of one's distorted thoughts and/or beliefs cannot be assessed through self-therapy. I mean, check out the efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy just as an example.

So I watched it. I wasn't as taken with it as you were. — Bitter Crank

Well, I thought the whole documentary with pretty good packed with testimonies, facts, and a lack of ulterior agenda or policy.

So, what's preventing you from stop worrying and learn to love nuclear?

I think that the anti-nuclear power stance comes from the issue that people are simply so ignorant that they link nuclear energy to nuclear weapons. — ssu

Ignorant Germans? Sort of hard to grasp in my limited world view.

Anyway, Japan was bombed twice by nuclear bombs, yet still had to deal with that stigma along with lack of natural resources by opting for nuclear.

Is France with their 80 or so percent of electricity derived from nuclear the only sane nation with respect to nuclear?

*Scratches his head*

As I said, the UN/WHO have come to the conclusion that 4 000 people likely will die of the accident. Equivalent to 27% of Americans that die annually thanks to pollution from coal plants — ssu

From the WHO link I posted:

He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents." — Joint News Release WHO/IAEA/UNDP

Yeah, go figure.

Just take Angela Merkel's decision in 2011 (after Fukushima) to close down all German nuclear plants by 2022, which was hailed as great news by the typical idiots. — ssu

I never did figure out why nuclear was so vilified in Germany? Was this Kraftwerk's doing?

Anyway, Japan, which is more cool-headed on the issue is perhaps the only nation where "consume less" would apply following Fukushima. I heard hand washing your apparel is making a return there. Hyperbole and that kind of stuff aside, they are reopening their nuclear power plants one by one. Otherwise, they're limited to importing coal from China or some other country.

It's not 1080p; but, it might suffice for anyone interested in the facts of the matter.



If that one doesn't work, here's one with German subtitles.

There's also this report which was passed on to the UN about Chernobyl from the WHO, which I believe was quoted by ssu.

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

Have a looksie.

Get a few beers, maybe some puffs of cannabis and enjoy the documentary I posted in this thread on Friday or whenever you have your happy hours or two.

I find arguing with anti-nuclear sentimentality as futile and ultimately leads to frustration.

It's a pretty good documentary, that leaves you edified and satisfied with it.

That analogy makes sense to me. Looking forward to the part about therapies. — csalisbury

Again, what' wrong with self-improvement or self-therapeutic ventures that philosophy can be? I mean, having spent some ten to fifteen years on philosophy forums, I've noticed a tendency towards topics like "let's save the Earth" to my personal favorites of "addressing depression". I don't find any use to tell a person to 'go study psychology' or 'seek professional help', which are disingenuous to the issue that an individual may experience.

Although to be fair, I've noticed also a tendency towards treating these issues in a non-controlled manner that encourages confirmation bias and derealization of the issue that an individual may experience. Such, as delving a little too deeply into Schopenhauer or Nietzsche to the extremes of Cioran.

Just my two pennies.