I'm not sure if anyone noticed; but, the real hidden gem about 'Reality Therapy' is that anyone can engage in it, without formal training, I think.

It highlights why often psychologists and psychiatrists don't achieve remission from their own method of treatment, and 'life' simply does that for the patient.

So, coming to the realization of what is under your control or not, through the realization of actual needs from 'wants' or fantasies, is quite important here.

I said philosophy was a discussion regarding the nature of the real. I did not define any "goals" to be achieved by such discussion and even if I did, your comment implies that such goals would be or are supposed to be the same for all those involved in the discussion. — Arne

Well, we would hope that to be the case, yea?

One of my primary goals is to articulate my understanding in hopes of gauging its accuracy and/or depths in terms of the responses of others engaged in the conversation. — Arne

So, that can only be done through disagreement, yes?

Whether others agree with me is not a significant matter per se. — Arne

But, it's conducive to your motive of 'gauging [your beliefs] accuracy'?

But if they articulate their disagreement in such a manner as to enable me to rethink and/or deepen my understanding, then their disagreements are quite welcome. — Arne

So, your seeking to reaffirm your beliefs or challenge them?

Neither consensus nor agreement is the equivalent of truth. Coming to consensus could mean that we are all wrong. — Arne

I don't see how this follows...

Ah, a smiley face. Here's one too: =]

What do you mean by that?

He's talking about the entheogenic use of mind altering substances. — Ying

What's that, enlighten me(?)

No really, you can go and look at his bones, he needed water but there was no water; he died. — unenlightened

So, then he had an actual need, then that was never realized? I don't see how you can frame this issue then as a fantasy.

Where I mentioned drugs and meaning, I was speaking of drug use in a ritual context where there was more than mere drug-taking going on. The drugs were intended to enhance the ritual at a particular moment. — Bitter Crank

So, the process of taking drugs themselves has a attained or undergone ritualization, which is a sort of unrealistic idealization of their use? Hence, the false lure that they have attained?

Not, the same kind of morning ritual of making coffee, taking a shower, and pumping yourself up with positive feedback or thoughts?

Of course it's legitimate, if he doesn't get water he will die. But there is no water in the desert, so he dies. The water that he needs is a fantasy - there is no water. — unenlightened

Again, solipsism.

X needs A, when X does not have A. — unenlightened

So, you say that needs are fantasies; but, still use the word need when talking about needs. Is this some category error?

One does not say, while eating a sandwich, "I need a sandwich to eat." One's need is for something that is not there, except in the mind - which is called a fantasy. — unenlightened

A man dying in the desert out of dehydration has a legitimate need for water, not a fantasy.

I said I define philosophy as a discussion regarding the the nature of the real. — Arne

So, if there's no consensus, then what are we talking about?

In that sense, it is only the subject matter that is arguably the same thing. — Arne

I'm not sure if it's the same thing if we can't agree on what the nature of the real is.

At no point did I say or reasonably imply that we would have the same understanding of any agreed upon subject. — Arne

Why not? If it's about the same thing, then why so much disagreement?

Even if someone understood my understanding, they would not be required to agree with it. — Arne

Well, yes, we do hold different beliefs about the world; but, if the goal is to understand the nature of the real, then disagreement is indicative of not sharing the same goal, or is it?

And finally and most important of all, I never insisted my definition of philosophy is correct. — Arne

So, then, what is it? Just a personal belief of sorts?

How do you define philosophy? — Arne

As consensus building, which is desperately lacking in my view.

I, on the other hand, have always defined philosophy as an ongoing discussion over the nature of the real. As such, I do not subscribe to philosophy as hermetically sealed off from the real. — Arne

So, then what's all the disagreement and misunderstanding about in philosophy if we're talking about the same thing, the real?

No, fantasies can be shared. — unenlightened

But, I don't know what your fantasy looks like unless I contrast it with reality. And, needs aren't fantasies, puh-leeze.

We use drugs for all kinds of reasons, some therapeutic, some merely for the pleasure of the experience. The main problem I see with drugs (albeit not the only problem) is the laws we have against them, and the enforcement of those laws. They seem to me to cause so much more harm than the drugs do, to the individual or to society. — Pattern-chaser

Yeah, I guess then we ought to be more pragmatic about the issue then? Why haven't we already adopted this attitude?

I have MS, and use cannabis to moderate the rather unpleasant experiences that MS can deliver. No other substance that I know of can offer the benefit I get from cannabis. And I like the feeling of being stoned; I find it enjoyable. And it helps with the pain. Win-win. — Pattern-chaser

Yeah, I used to use cannabis for treating my ADD. I can't really utilize it though due to its psychoactive effects. If you could remove the psycho-activity, then it would be the most promising ADD drug possible, due to not being able to develop tolerance to the positive effects. Other drugs like stimulants develop tolerance to some degree, or their effects are too rewarding in general.

Much of that was use was in ritual settings, meaning people used the drugs as part of a search for meaning. — Bitter Crank

It's interesting that one thinks that drugs will give them more meaning in life. It depends on the drug obviously, but I don't think this is a safe idea to profess or be lured into.

I deny the reality of needs in order to emphasise the importance of fantasy, imagination, the unreal. — unenlightened

Therefore psychological solipsism?

Sure, let's start sooner than latter. We might be able to fill each other in based on availability and some common companion we would all follow. Let me know if you have any specific companion in mind so I can premtively prepare for any questions or issues.

Thanks for offering your time and patience.

Well, you get to call the shots here so, just to be consistent with the intent of the OP, we can start the reading group and then as things go by, play it by ear.

A little story which I'm sure you will have heard in different guises but I think is apt here. A homesteader being told about Einstein commented that whilst he (the homesteader) had lived a long and happy life, working outdoors and enjoying whatever life handed him, having a loving wife and three happy children, Einstein had worked at often menial jobs, could not sustain a marriage, had little or no relationship with his children and died racked with guilt about his part in the atomic bomb. Who's the most intelligent? — Pseudonym

You can be both. I don't know if achievement is equatable with intelligence but that's the sentiment I'm getting here. Highly intelligent people are just more productive, by about 1.5x per each SD. So, there may be an issue with directionality but they might just find different things more interesting, which sustains their aura of creativity.

So, the issue seems more like one about creativity instead of ability and skill.

Also, a very deep issue in regards to understanding the Tractatus is knowing, what are facts, at least according to Wittgenstein. Since understanding the first proposition is central to all others.

I'm doing my part too. I have some files, I want to share, which you can review and decide if they're any good.

I think the session idea is good too. I think you have some grasp as to what is being covered in each one.

One or two preliminary issue(s) that I feel ought to be covered before all this starts, is the concept of the limits of philosophy, personified through the application or import of solipsism. Apart from that, a brief understanding of knowledge by acquaintance, which Wittgenstein elaborates on in great detail (which is basically a critique of Russell's descriptivism), and in some regards refutes the systematization or the ability to reduce concepts to logical simples. This is elaborated on in the Investigations about/with 'family-resemblances'.

I hope, you're getting my drift because I'm not quite ready to spell it out, as I'm still getting acquainted with these ideas.

It isn't, and you identify the difference. — Bitter Crank

How so?

Well, you know, we set limits on our desires and lusts. — Bitter Crank

No, reality sets limits on our desires and lusts. Some people sometimes get lucky and have them realized by chance or farce though.

A certain amount of desire and lust will be enjoyed, and then we'll not ask for more for a while--15 minutes, at least. Back in my salad days, I almost never stayed up all night every night screwing my brains out. I took a full helping of sex--I just didn't take everything on offer. An outing might not be repeated for 2 or 3 days, or a week, even. I like premium ice cream too, but I don't eat the whole carton at one go. I meter my decadence. — Bitter Crank

Well, yeah. I find it hard to self regulate; but, reality tells me why most of the time.

I consider suffering a given in life. It can be more, it can be less. We can make it worse, we can make it better. All our suffering will end in death. — Bitter Crank

So we must constrain our desires to suffer less. Blasphemy, I know.

Some people don't suffer a lot; they are lucky enough to be so composed that they are not intensely bothered by everything (that would not be me). Some people can calmly endure more pain for a longer period of time; others cannot. — Bitter Crank

I've learned to be that way, through Stoicism. What are your thoughts about Stoicism then if you do not agree with it?

So what? — Bitter Crank

It's a constrained situation, much like reality. We learn to adapt and change and evolve, if not biologically, then psychologically. Sometimes we regress. Technology and science serve to enhance and solidify the changes we've made in terms of knowledge. Philosophy is a form of psychoevolution in my mind or at least should be.

But, as I say in every post, organicism languishes as a well understood world view - as a metaphysics with a mathematical rigour. — apokrisis

What do you mean by this?

Mechanicalism is held in high esteem because the mathematics of that (the very dumb and simple maths) has become something drummed in from birth. What could be more tragic than those parents of newborns who rush to decorate the baby room with the alphabet and numbers? — apokrisis

Well, we do idolize the mechanization of anything because as a matter of utility, it is better to understand. I don't see how you can argue with this if you move any idealized sentiments, in regards to holism, which is forever lacking.

And this OP was tragic in celebrating a general rejection of totalising systems, just because the mechanical model is so patently dumb (if matchingly useful if you want a thoroughly mechanised life). — apokrisis

I don't quite see your point of view, I need some more information to go about on here. Thanks. :-)

So what we ought to be focused on is the organic metaphysics that has the kind of rigour that lets us make better judgements because we know what actually makes life and mind tick. — apokrisis

Yeah, I'm lost.

Straight away we ought to be able to look at pills and schools seeing why they wouldn't lead to the best outcomes because they embody a mechanical crudeness. The reason why they would disappoint would leap out at us as obvious once we had the conceptual frame which allows us to perceive that. — apokrisis

What conceptual frame is that. Emergence?

I really dislike the insult culture on this forum. — fishfry

Yeah, I've noticed it too, though I've learned to ignore it and not address such posts. People don't like having their ideas, beliefs, and assumptions challenged, so the easy way out are ad hominems and straw manning. But, that's inevitable in some sense, given the imperfect nature hereabouts.

Reality therapy - from what I've gleaned since posty's post -focuses on getting *needs* met. — csalisbury

I would go further than that, and say that the point of reality therapy is the identification of actual from perceived needs or otherwise called 'fantasy'. That seems like the logical conclusion. However, this thread tends to present fantasies and ideas as apparent and real to both the patient and doctor, reinforcing their significance to the patient.

If we talk about needs as involving fantasy (the fantasy of having our needs met) then there is an unreality involved. — csalisbury

Pretty much.

I find it rather peculiar that many college students need or want amphetamines and methylphenidate, or safer drugs like modafinil to be able to function in college settings. Do you think they actually derive benefits from those drugs given the highly competitive nature that college imposes on students or is it illusory? Sorry if this isn't the point of the thread, just was wondering.

In any case, I would never recommend taking psychotropics regularly, so your objection is not really relevant. Although some people do claim that micro-dosing can give a mental and creative edge; but that is a different matter; I have no experience to speak of with that. — Janus

I used to be heavily into the area of nootropics (I used to be quite active over at Longecity and the Reddit nootropic stub), and I used to micro-dose also. LSD is amazingly potent and I've researched a lot about how it affects the Default Mode Network, unlike stimulants that enhance it through altering the signal to noise ratio through phasic and tonic brain activity, think Ritalin (methylphenidate) or amphetamines. I've always preferred stimulants to microdosing LSD, due to the ego-hardening effects it has.

It's really popular in Silicon Valley. Anyway, what I learned is that drugs don't really make you smarter or more intelligent, along with the false premise that altering one's perception itself is a benefit. It can be a benefit; but, you have to be guided and losing control over one's self for a couple of hours isn't everyone's cup of tea.

EDIT: I also don't think that 'deconditioning' yourself is really the answer to any question, it just means a shift in perceived goals and values.

Given that the import is what hasn't been said here, then does't that necessitate the unavoidable-that is reality?

Otherwise, solipsism.

I like the idea behind reality therapy. I'd never heard of it before. — csalisbury

Glad you liked it.

There is a difference between "ego-centric" and egotistical, self-centered, narcissistic, and the like. We must be ego-centric, focused on "I am" because we don't apprehend the world, and other selves, directly (the 5 senses and all that). There is a difference between mature adult ego-centrism and infantile narcissism. It is the latter that is so detrimental to the shared world. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps, indeed, I am throwing away the baby with the bathwater; but, realizing that distinction is very difficult. This is because the logical conclusion of ego-centrism entails the latter, so nobody knows when to delineate the two or more aptly, nobody cares to.

Truth: there is no eliminating the fear of death from various threats. We just don't like thinking about it. Compared to death, just about everything is more interesting and pleasant. (One of the benefits of aging is that we can get to a point where one can realize that roughly 90% of one's life is spent, and a lot of it was actually quite well spent, and it was good. If one is lucky one has forgotten the fine details of the stretches which weren't so good.) — Bitter Crank

Yeah, but what would life look like if nobody ever died?

But it isn't DEATH that is the most visible threat for much of one's life. What is more present is the loss of the tangible and intangible goodies we have collected. This is where the infantile narcissist suffers the most. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune could deprive him and her of all their goodies, and then leave them very much alive to suffer from their loss. — Bitter Crank

So, two steps forward, and one back I guess. One realizes that life isn't all about the gratification of personal needs and wants; but, what then?

Families falling apart? Family cohesion is steady. A percentage of families have always lacked cohesion, particularly when society was loose enough to allow it. A certain percentage of people marry, decide that they made a big mistake, and break up. — Bitter Crank

This is a big issue. Divorce rates are incredibly high, so why bother at all if we all live in our own worlds as it is?

Work? People seem to willingly spend a lot of time at work in more or less cohesive groups. — Bitter Crank

Work, hmm. The issue seems to be about what we want. Hence, again the ego-centrism becomes an issue again, with all this talk about wants and complaints about never attaining it.

"We" Homo sapiens haven't changed. We're still the same old hunter-gatherers we've been for the last couple hundred thousand years. — Bitter Crank

Not true. We are incredibly and plastic and malleable. The fact that so much progress has been made since the Industrial Revolution, attests to this fact.

For the most part, I agree. The non-conscious mind isn't all that open to inspection. What is more or less open, though, is our memories of our lives so far, and all that is at least somewhat open. And, let me add, the ways we evade dealing with reality right now are open to inspection--and modification. — Bitter Crank

Yes, drug addiction, rising rates of depression and other mental disorders, the disenfranchisement with the current status quo and form of governance are all symptoms about the above. So, one must address the underlying issue here and focus on the self or the reality we find ourselves in?

I am not a Buddhist. Whatever gave you that idea? — Bitter Crank

Why not? Isn't the cessation of suffering which we are all too aware about, the setting of the limits on the desirous and lustful nature that we profess all too much?

No -- progress is NOT made by appealing to selfishness, lust, wants, and desires, fears, anxieties, and so on. Progress is made by acknowledging our lusts, needs, desires, fears, anxieties, and fantasies. We can't deal with them if we haven't faced up to their reality. And the end goal isn't to deny, or destroy what we wish for and fear. The goal is to achieve control. So, we will still have lusts, for instance, and if we are mature adults we can decide whether, when, where, and how our desire may be satisfied -- or not. We will still have fears, but we can deal with them more effectively. — Bitter Crank

This just sounds like the same thing to me. I have wants and desires; but, acknowledging them entails that I want to either realize them or limit their appeal to my psyche. So, again either we all become egotistical, and suffer, or in some manner or form limit their reach on our sanity and emotional well-being.

One of the more perplexing fantasies is that we can be free of our human-animal nature and be purely rational beings untroubled by disruptive urges. On a good morning one can get by for a few hours feeling purely rational, but then a bowling ball of lust, hunger, rage, or blind ambition will plow into all that dry, cool rationality and we'll be upset for days. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I agree.

I guess this is where I say, I agree to disagree.

Oh, so there's no such thing as collusion and cartels are make believe?

Economic self-interest is rational - so long as it is framed within a generally shared social context that generates sufficient real equality of opportunity (and factors in the true long-term costs of its economic activities). — apokrisis

I'm trying to highlight the fact that those two concepts of being rational through self-interest and ensuring that the social context that generates sufficient real equality of opportunity, are at odds with one another.

Just think about monopolies for example. Every firm strives to be a monopoly, within certain bounds and limits before they're penalized for becoming one...

You are still talking as if I said something different. — apokrisis

That's because you assume that rational self interest is always optimal, which it isn't given the Prisoners Dilemma. That's what I surmised from what I understand in regards to the below (if you care to expand on this, please do.)

But to the degree these are models of how collaborative good can arise out of selfish actions, then they are hardly egocentric. — apokrisis

Economic self-interest is rational - so long as it is framed within a generally shared social context that generates sufficient real equality of opportunity (and factors in the true long-term costs of its economic activities). — apokrisis

EDIT: I neglected to emphasize that calculating or generating "sufficient real equality of opportunity", along with "factors in the true long-term costs of its economic activities" is hopelessly ambiguous or an unattainable ideal, again assuming rational self interest as the guiding goal to any end.

So, let me introduce the concept of Pareto optimality:

Pareto optimal (comparative more Pareto optimal, superlative most Pareto optimal)

(game theory, economics) Describing a situation in which the profit of one party cannot be increased without reducing the profit of another. — Wiki

So, if I behave selfishly and choose to defect in the Prisoners Dilemma, then I have decreased our net Pareto Optimal outcome. If I choose to cooperate with the other prisoner, and so does s/he, then we have attained a Pareto Optimal outcome.

So, yes cooperation is necessary to guarantee Pareto Optimal outcomes; but, the point I am making, is that it has to take place on a higher level than personal self interest. As to how to ensure that Pareto Optimal is always attained is a deeper topic, which entails ideal information asymmetry on which I'm not knowledgeable about enough to discuss.

The reason why prisoners don't snitch on each other is because the consequences of doing so outweigh the benefits.

Therefore, to ensure Pareto Optimal outcomes on a global scale, cooperation is necessary, and has to be instituted (not by force necessarily, I think and hope). One solution that I am aware of is devising a calculus to determine the cost/benefit analysis of net positive and negative externalities. This is done through the process of price setting and estimating transaction costs. But, as I've mentioned, this is almost impossible on an individual basis, as an ongoing guiding principle in all decisions pertaining rational self interest.

You didn't answer the question though, you just deflected the issue. What is the threat that society poses? A limitation of personal freedom, through taxation or something else?

Well then what don't you agree with or where have I gone wrong in my beliefs?

The fact that I disagree is not indicative of validating your point, even though you can label me as simply being irrational because I am advocating something contrary to the established truth that rational self interest always leads to the maximization of personal utility, which I have illustrated that it is not the case due to never being able to calculate the net total of positive and negative externalities.

Edited the post slightly.

What do you need from society? — TheMadFool

Not much. Just food, clothing, and some shelter or domesticile. Everything else is just a luxury of sorts.

So, instead of finding the golden mean we let both flourish - let them go their separate ways. All we need from the group is safety. That can easily be achieved through an army of bots (AI). With safety ensured the individual is no longer bothered or ''burdened'' by having to adjust him/herself in society. — TheMadFool

Safety from what? What threat's are we talking about here?