So one main theme in pessimism is that at root, in either human nature, animal nature, or the nature of existence itself, we are in a constant state of a deprivation/lack of something/ desire, etc. Satisfaction is always only temporary. — schopenhauer1

Not, necessarily so. Satisfaction can be derived from life itself, creating a virtuous circle. But, that really isn't the gist of the issue I want to bring up. Namely, that what virtue (of such supreme importance) can be found in philosophical pessimism? The negation of life itself? Normatively we know that isn't true.

Thus, we can adjust certain expectations, goals, and thought-processes to try to achieve an equanimity in a mental health issue, or anxiety about an aspect of life, but this does not necessarily get rid of the underlying, metaphysical lack that is baked into the human experience (or existence itself pace Schopenhauer). — schopenhauer1

I understand. But, I don't see where this leads to.

That is fine. Rational is kind of bandied about in too many ways to be fully useful a word, but in this case you seem to mean a sort of psychological state where a person's decisions do not get overcome by anxious thoughts, depressing thoughts, etc. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

If someone has what they consider a dysfunction and believes certain strategies to work in order to "break" a cycle of emotionally distressing thoughts, then that is what therapists try to do (if they do it well). However, no matter how "well-adjusted" someone is, they can still hold a metaphysical view that the world or that human nature has a state of dissatisfaction, that something is always lacking (whether that be in surviving, entertaining, or maintenance related goals). — schopenhauer1

But, that's inconsistent with one's identity as a being.

I don't think so. A metaphysical view and psychological techniques to cope with various perceived (or real) mental distress can be considered two different and mutually exclusive realms. One can make psychological techniques perhaps into some metaphysical view, but that is not a necessity. — schopenhauer1

Echoing Wittgenstein, Plato, and (particularly) Aristotle, and the Stoics (even Cynics), according to my understanding... I think, that both are the same.

I'm still not sure what this means. — StreetlightX

Sorry, I'll think about it and get back later. Don't want to deviate from the topic question.

Thanks!

By dealing with the initial central equivocation first, and by then constructing an honest self narrative on that basis. — Marcus de Brun

What equivocation is that?

Sorry that you have to spell it out, here...

Identity must precede the narrative; if the narrative is to have any meaning outside the 'endless loop' scenario. — Marcus de Brun

Yes, but I am depressed.

Snap into it. — Marcus de Brun

How??

:clap:

Sub stance expresses under standing. — Janus

You lost me.

Can you set out your reasoning? — StreetlightX

Epistemic closure consists in entailment. If entailment cannot be achieved by negation of totality in your previous awesome post, then epistemic closure fails?

This leaves open the question, what does substance express?

Then epistemic/ontological closure, then is a fictitious concept?

Could you explain what do you mean by "self-explanatory"? I'm not sure about their ontological status wrt. to brute facts, if that makes any sense. Meaning, that you could have P2 negated by having P1 dependant on brute facts (or appealing to brute facts in general) and still maintain consistency of being self-explanatory since brute facts are of greater ontological significance than self-explanatory facts while remaining grounded in reason?

Great. This has become a complaint thread.

This is perfect.

At the outset of this exploration into your depression, and depression in general you equivocated upon a question that strikes at the heart of human self identity. — Marcus de Brun

What if I said, that consistency in formulating one's identity (having a narrative) is of supreme importance to an individual. What do you then say to someone that is depressed? Snap out of it?

How does a patient gain insight into their own conundrum of labelling themselves as depressed, or on the other hand experiencing the symptoms of depression without having them in a self-fulfilling prophecy commit a confirmation bias about their own health?

That is not the point of pessimism. The point is the suffering of the lack that is always in the equation — schopenhauer1

Lack of what?

Good is not seen as the carrot and the stick. Rather, the process itself, is considered either absurd or based on a basis of a foundational lack. — schopenhauer1

Lack of what?

CBT is not a philosophy. — schopenhauer1

That's true; but, I believe that CBT has something to teach us apart from its psychoanalytic settings. I believe that it's something of the sort of being more rational rather than emotional or maybe both. Perhaps, this is the lack you're speaking of? Of being more rational?

They are techniques for a patient who has mental functions that are not processing at a level deemed efficient by that same patient. It doesn't provide a grand vision of life. — schopenhauer1

Well, it's one and the same, don't you think?

Are self-explanatory facts the same thing as brute facts, and if not how do they differ? Just clarifying some terminology that I'm and possibly others are accustomed to.

Ha, that's 17 Posty. — Janus

Phew, you had me scared there.

https://www.facebook.com/80sTees/videos/10154802026186969/

And I have experienced bad trips, absolutely hellish trips, in fact; although for me in my first phase (!7-20 years old) of experimentation each trip usually started out like that and then came good (very good!) later. — Janus

Holy shit, man. Tripping at 7.

Anyway, I used to be schooled by a private tutor that I've been keeping in contact with and he told me I need to try some Peyote or Ayahuasca. I've been stuck with this idea that I'm broken and schizophrenic (which is my official diagnosis). Here's what happened that changed my mind. I found an antipsychotic (Haldol) that doesn't target the 5-HT2A receptor at low enough doses, which is responsible for the psychedelia. I'm hoping I can limit the extent of the drug to induce psychosis while enjoying the experience. I can't understate how badly I want to have a good trip. I've read literature and the overabundance of online reports of amazing experiences and the long-term persistent change in personality; but, just have been somewhat apprehensive to break myself again.

Anyway, I hope this time will be different by modulating the drug as to not be able to cause psychosis, as these drugs typically tend to do that in an uncontrolled manner.

I do, and I object. — Bitter Crank

What do you object to?

Where is your complaint department located? — Bitter Crank

You're in the right place. It's right here.

Psychedelic experiences... It all depends on so many factors. The rule of thumb is to be in a healthy state of mind before going into one. — Blue Lux

True.

This is a good environment, positive outlook, etc... — Blue Lux

Yeah, set and setting comes to mind.

The psychedelic takes you on an adventure. — Blue Lux

I just like staying home, so, yeah.

Fighting it is what causes 'bad trips.' — Blue Lux

How do you avoid fighting? Could this be why I experienced a psychotic state or is it just my genes in play?

Personally the most revealing psychedelics are LSD, DMT and mushrooms (excluding amanita muscaria). — Blue Lux

I just ordered some 1P-LSD to microdose with. Hope it works out. :blush:

The squeaking wheel gets the grease. — Bitter Crank

That saying is on my second place for favourite sayings. The first is: It is what it is.

See the conflict there?

I don't count experiences engendered by psychotropics as "psychotic" — Janus

I was speaking from my sole personal experience with psilocybin. It triggered a psychotic state in me. Though the setting wasn't right. I guess it wasn't for me or my makeup.

That's all, and you already know this, right? — tim wood

Oh, yeah. I would mostly just be a roofer in regards to solar panel installation. Nothing mysterious about that aspect of the job in my mind.

I guess another way of asking the above, is that if the good is to be rational, according to Aristotle, along with a disinterested concern with the good itself, according to Plato, then why is there so much confusion about what a person should do?

But, let's grant that you are indeed right in your assertion that life is meaningless and futile, hence no reason to produce more suffering in the world would be a net positive. Again, doesn't this assertion condemn the whole world to a simple, even childish, complaint that there is no good to be derived from the world? Philosophical pessimism falls on itself, seemingly in producing more negativity than good by its very own nature.

For so long as you do not confuse (the) business with what the business does. — tim wood

Which is what exactly? I'm afraid of committing if there's something I haven't considered here.

The intraworldly approach might say it leads to antinatalism- don’t reproduce more suffering and that it leads to some basic metaphysical understanding which, if you are one to be inclined to like having that understanding, might be said to be “good” to have.

The holistic approach would find it an invalid question. The problem with question is that it implicitly asserts good to a) exist as an output and b) put production as some measuring stick. A problem in the first place is that we must produce. The idea of producing something itself is part of the problem, so why would philosophical pessimism be worried about it? It’s structurally suffering, so an intraworldly solution like X output doesn’t even make sense. — schopenhauer1

But, both these approaches are the product of a complaint. Or to put it another way, two negatives don't necessarily produce a positive in this case. The whole ideology is marred with negativity.

To borrow from CBT, there's also a gross overgeneralization being performed in that the world is completely devoid of anything good that someone can experience. Not to mention painting with a large brush, or black and white thinking.

I have experimented extensively with hallucinogens including LSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin, DMT and Sylvia divinorum, and I have had the most bizarre experiences, but never one about which nothing all could be said. — Janus

Do you think to elicit self-induced psychotic states of mind are beneficial to disidentification? Psychosis is a form of disidentification from thought altogether. And, if I may ask, what have hallucinogens taught you? Have they been a net positive or negative for you?

Best regards to you and your father, however this turns out.

The complaining comes first- the active change comes next. The second part is definitely the hardest. It's like someone who always thinks they have a great idea but can never quite manifest it in an actual business. — schopenhauer1

Complaints are typically negative in nature. There's discord or unease that arises from their performative action. So, since I like bashing philosophical pessimism, relativism, and nihilism-let me ask. Does philosophical pessimism fall on itself in never being able to escape the neverending complaining about the world or some state of affairs? In other words, what good has philosophical pessimism produced?

I bring up a lot of the negative aspects of the human experience, and the structural suffering of life. I guess this can be construed as complaining. But then, I am bringing up disapproval of a negative state of affairs. In this case, it is the negative state of affairs of life itself. It is perhaps to catalyze people to look at it for what is going on to us as a whole. — schopenhauer1

Yes, while I understand that. Complaining breeds complaining, hence the issue with the internet in general, I suppose. Instead, the logical progression, in my mind and in accord with reason, would be the utilization of constructive criticism to actually perform some change in the matter or complaint against some state of affairs.

A complaint is an expression of disapproval or disappointment regarding a state of affairs and may or may not be directed at an agent. A criticism is an expression of disapproval and/or an identification of a fault/deficit specifically directed at an agent, or a system designed and controlled by agents, or the creative work of an agent. That's the basic distinction I'd make. — Baden

So, I guess there is an overlap between the two, which is based solely on agency. That doesn't seem right; but, I digress.

Well, I only made the claim that one implied the other in the case of a complaint regarding an agent. But, examples aside, what is the specific semantic distinction you want to highlight? — Baden

Well, I think that criticism can be justified by some rules or whatever normative framework you can have. Complaints are never justified, though, under this understanding.

Complaining implies criticism when the complaint concerns an agent (rather than, for example, venting about the weather). — Baden

But, they surely aren't the same. One can imply the other, and be logically sound in such an assertion, depending on how you view things; but, both are distinct, in my opinion.

It could be, but the example I gave concerned an official complaint regarding sexual harassment. Are we agreed that that case is also a case of complaining? — Baden

Yes, I'm in agreement here.

Righting a wrong would be a case of criticism. Without going into the murky waters of intentionality, let's assume it's constructive criticism here.

Venting, ranting, and trolling would be a case or form of complaining.

I'm not sure. Are you saying you think I'm confusing "complaining" with "criticism". — Baden

Yes, I think so.

I would say if it results in or at least aims at a positive outcome and is undertaken for good reason. So, a positive or justified complaint to me would be one the motivation for which is a wrong, and the goal of which is to right that wrong. A negative complaint is one that involves simply venting with regard to a wrong (perceived or otherwise). For example, complaining to the appropriate authorities about being sexually harassed at work would generally fall in the former category while venting on the internet about how shit your life is in the latter. — Baden

I think you are performing a category error or at least it doesn't fit the definition of what you're formally describing as (constructive) "criticism" and a complaint here. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Evidently quite a bit, considering the frequency with which it is done. you should read - if you can get your hands on it, Aaron Schuster's Critique of Complaining (in his Deleuze and Psychoanalysis). — StreetlightX

Thanks. Give me a pointer and I'll see if I can bite the cost.

Edit: Just found it one Amazon. Nevermind.

It means that there's nothing inherently wrong in complaining. It's the context in which we do it that counts. — Baden

So, when is one's complaint justified?

If we didn't care we wouldn't complain. These things are complimentary, not disjunctive. The apathetic on the other hand - those who don't even care enough to complain - they are the true uncaring. — StreetlightX

Yeah; but, what good has complaining ever resulted in?

What matters with regard to maturity is whether the complaint is justified/necessary as well as how it's presented, not that it's a complaint per se. — Baden

What does that mean?