Your lack of traditional masculine qualities (self-sufficiency, emotional resiliancy, sense of duty, work ethic) leads me to believe you lacked a strong male role model, if any at all. — Hanover

Yes and no. It's hard to explain, and once again I'm going to be talking about 'me'. So, I was born and raised in the states but moved around the age of 12-13 to Poland. It's hard to state how much my father changed from a solid, stoic (he's the one that gave me The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, he's also very Aristotelian), and hard working person (He used to have me watch him working on patients as a dentist when I was very young), to a (now in Poland) selfish, non-existent (would go to the "library" all day), empty/wife beating person. Keep in mind that he was an immigrant from the Soviet bloc at the time, when he left Poland and found his way to America. He worked his way up the social ladder, starting as a roofer to getting his licence and living in the canyons of North Hollywood. A bona fide case of coming from rags to riches.

I was not necessarily sad at the time because all the basic amenities were provided to me, and since the dollar goes a lot further in said countries I had a life that was not in any manner (materially) lacking.

The above is the only reason I have decided to stay in the US rather than living on my own somewhere in a social democracy in Europe. I value what my father was, and reviled what he became when free to satisfy every whim and/or desire.

Basically, my father figure self-destructed when he was no longer under any pressure. Tragic really.

For the record, I don't see you as a troubled soul, just someone curious as to why you see and do things like you do. — Hanover

I was always an empathetic soul, moreso than others from by my take. When I was 8, I cried for a week for being separated from my teacher. Then, around the same time (must have been some feature of the brain being developed) I realized that one day my parents would die, which left me in a sorry predicament. I still think about my mother passing, and it troubles me. At my age, what a pathetic thing, and how much that emotion and sense of emotional dependency I have towards my mum are even more pathetic.

Maybe I belong in a Charlie Chapin skit or something of that sort?

Do you feel like your personality, your "you", is maybe not quite a fully realized personality? — Bitter Crank

I honestly, don't understand the context where one has a 'realized personality', it sounds like some kind of metaphysical thing. I do have an anti-social or verging on schizotypical personality, so that's quite a pickle.

Maybe, I should prepare for a really bad midlife crisis if I make it that far?

Do you feel that you carry out reality testing fairly well? — Bitter Crank

Yes, I think I am able to tell fact from fiction.

How have you experienced psychosis (it doesn't seem to be "one size fits all")? — Bitter Crank

Mainly a feeling of infinitesimally small significance in the grand scheme of things. Leaves me feeling quite futile, although that hasn't happened in the recent past. Other instances would include feeling inadequate or of low-self esteem. The most recent psychotic or verging on the psychotic was the belief that I was sexually abused as a child. I have good reason to believe this might have happened, though nothing definitive.

Who is your current avatar? — Bitter Crank

Nel Noddings, a feminist philosopher, and public educator.

So there's some irony in saying the you in you doesn't exist yet you desperately want to discuss you. In fact, your wanting to hear from me about you is another example of this irony. You love talking about you, sharing your history, your concerns, your limitations, your day to day trial and tribulations.

No criticism, just observation. I'm my favorite topic as well. — Hanover

I can only thank the moderators and administrators, you included, for making it possible for me to discuss these matters rather than holding them inside. *Checks if I have enough money in the bank to support this forum*.

You seem to have had some reason for pointing it out though. If you want we can go over said reason. No prejudice, just proposing a thought.

Does that bother you?

I agree. From what I've seen from Posty on the forum, he seems like a person who doesn't know what they want. It is not infrequent for Posty to radically change aims - one day Posty says he is an idealist and has decided to go back to University to study philosohpy - another Posty says that he will work with a friend on supplement business. These frequent and quick changing in thinking is, I believe, an important clue. I think Posty may contextualise this inability to anchor himself in some purpose or way of life as "egolessness". — Agustino

Posty is just a boat without a rudder, moved by the whims of his desire. The more he limits his desire the better off he will be, methinks. Self-determination is overrated.

Yes, people are what they are and it is not up to us to expect them to be otherwise. We can only be ourselves and share what we wish to share. — Rich

How does one respond to this state of affairs? Pick up the trash and throw it away or just let it pile up and create an even stronger cognitive dissonance?

Rereading Nel Nodding's Happiness and Education.

Oh, how I yearn for her philosophy of education to become manifest.

What do you wish to share? — Rich

I'd like to share my care for other people; but, I lack the compassion to do so. I feel bitter inside from the realization that people don't care as much as I would hope they would.

To give up entirely on yourself is to avoid responsibility and yet treat that avoidance as though it were virtuous. How is doing nothing a virtue? — TimeLine

I get the existential postmodernist drift; but, never really cared to feel obligated in some way to take life by its horns and tackle it with resounding action. I ain't no lawyer nor priest, I don't see myself in an ashram or temple. I take the Cynic attitude of letting life deal whatever it has in store for me (did I mention that I had a mental breakdown when I was 17?). It's true that I isolate myself; but, not to such a degree as others are infatuated with themselves to stare at a screen, post what I had for lunch or dinner, and then text someone to keep me preoccupied with random bullshitting.

Life is surreal, no doubt. I just enjoy life in a solipsistic manner at home, in bed.

Addressing your Kantian drift, I don't have any duty to fulfill, I gave up on college, and will most likely work from home online making some spare change to complement my disability pay. My desire to fulfill a duty, say, was already decided when I was discharged from the military, medically, under honorable conditions. So, I tried and failed. I don't feel like a failure though, had I not tried would have been worse.

In a Sisyphean or Wittgensteinian manner, I simply disregard the task of making right the wrongs of the world. It's not my cup of tea, maybe for others but not me.

I have a rich inner life despite the above sentiments. I enjoy living, I don't feel in pain. The depression is manageable. The psychosis is a thing of the past, as far as I can tell. I have no complaints towards other people for my state of affairs. It's just me and my mom, and I find meaning in supporting her morally, financially, and with a sense of care.

Perhaps, what I'm getting at in all my rambling is the lack of care in life that I see. I've worked retail, in a cinema, and gardening and all people care about is their sphere of interest. I rebel against this lack of care for other people. It bothers me that people can't or don't want to care about the welfare of others. I look with envy towards Scandinavian countries or other social democracies, which are so different from the American idolization of the individual or self.

I don't want to end this post with the characteristic feelings of philosophical pessimism, such as; resignation and futility. I'll keep on squeaking by in life.

I think the problem is that you have made the word ego synonymous to egotistical. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Well, if there is no desire to be egotistical then, there are some options;

1. One doesn't equate one's ego with selfishness.
2. One is selfless (hence no ego?)
3. One is just desireless.
4. Being egotistical has no meaning for said person.

I seem to fit each one of those points to some degree or another, though I think I lean towards point 4. Giving rise to my self-assessment that the prefix to being egotistical is lacking somewhere.

Start with, oh I don't know, the hullabaloo against the Bell Curve and Charles Murray, and work your way down to the contemporary kerfuffles on American campuses re. conservative speakers, Alt Right speakers, etc.. You're not living that sheltered a life are you? — gurugeorge

That book is demonstrably racist. See:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/

Seems like the above discussion is a repeat of what would have been said in relation to Bush being president some years back.

Well the problems with the human condition could be said to be endemic, and potentially systemic but to say such things would be a gross understatement as to how bad things really are. In a nutshell you are fretting over certain issues while not exactly realizing what lays beneath the parts of the iceberg that which is a little bit harder to see. — dclements

I don't catch your drift here. Though I think the allusion is to some evil or darkness inherent in man, no?

I personally think it as much of it as fabrication as well as anything else that comes from Abrahamic beliefs; however when one questionsing other things and realize what else they believe in are merely fabrications, then things can get more complicated then they might expected them to be.

if you really start questioning all the so called "self evident truths" they hold dear, they may not find much left to hold on to. — dclements

Yes, governments can be Machiavellian. What can I add to that trite statement? However, governments can change behavior in a democracy, so the question is what kind of democracy do we want? One with ignorant buffoon at the helm? I hope not; but, the reality is that we have a dangerous buffoon at the helm as it stands.

Are you just trying to point out that anti-intellectualism exists in the US or are you saying it is more of a problem here in the US and/or our day and age than it has in other places or other times? — dclements

I believe it is both. Again, the wiki entry is filled to the brim with America being the prominent example of anti-intellectual sentiment, based on-most likely-structural 'deficits' of intellectualism in places of government. I mean, if trust in God is of higher value than scientific truths or facts, then there really isn't much more that can be said about the situation.

However the latter which is "anti-intellectualism is becoming a bigger threat" may be harder to prove. — dclements

Maybe the question is ill-phrased; but, intellectualism or more simply intelligence on the part of government officials is required to confront threats. What threats? Well, climate change for example, which Republicans simply dismiss as leftist science or science with an agenda or some Chinese conspiracy to weaken American manufacturing...?

After all what constitutes "anti-intellectualism" if it is not based some kind of ideology/morality in and of itself (which to me sounds likely), and if beliefs are based on ideology then arguments against "anti-intellectualism" will have the same issues that any other debate between one or more ideologies/religions/system of beliefs etc. — dclements

It's not an ideology. More of a sentiment originating from ignorance.

I'm not saying that you are 'wrong' to go after "anti-intellectualism", I'm just saying that if it turns out to be a type ideology vs ideology conflict than be ready for whatever can of worms that opens up. — dclements

Well, if ignorance of simple scientific facts are dismissed based on said sentiment, then the problem is endemic, and potentially systemic, resulting in a pathology or distorted policy-making on the part of officials derived from the misguided beliefs of the ignorant. I'm sort of playing with words here; but, I hope I got the point across.

If for whatever reason the people supporting this "anti-intellectualism" do it as a kind of spin doctor/propaganda type thing than maybe it might be best to point out that these people are doing just that than to go after them because they support " "anti-intellectualism". — dclements

I'm not aware of people who are active, 'anti-intellectual's' (although Fox News comes awfully close to this label). It's more of a pathology that cannot be treated with reason alone.

Or perhaps a better way to put it, any debate between "intellectualism vs anti-intellectualism" should be framed in some other way in order to avoid the obvious bias of labeling someone as "anti-intellectualism" could bring. — dclements

Well, I think we can agree that creationist or intelligent design interpretations of science are a symptom of 'anti-intellectualism', where authority is granted on neither side of the debate based on exploiting notions of 'free speech' or 'religous freedom'.

I didn't think the thread would blow up; but, might as well address these posts instead of laying in bed. :halo:

I don't know all of the sources, but I am sure fundamentalism (whether among pentecostals, Lutherans, or Catholics) is one cause. An inerrant Bible with an infallibly clear message doesn't require intellectual examination. If the Bible says God created the world in 6 days flat, well, that's that. Say no more about it. It wasn't the descendants of Ralph Waldo Emerson that brought the 1925 case against one Mr. Snopes for teaching evolution; Snopes was a high school biology teacher in Tennessee . — Bitter Crank

Well, yes, America was founded on a promise to never let authority get in the way of freedom. So, there are many ways in which anti-intellectualism can become systemic or structural. And, that's kind of the point. Intellectualism and authority don't mix well, at least politically in the US. Never has.

While the US has fostered a number of excellent educational institutions since Harvard was founded in 1636, but most Americans didn't need to go to college (or school at all) to make a living. There was land for the taking and most of the time an expanding economy. One could afford to have narrow intellectual horizons. — Bitter Crank

If you read the Wiki entry, then there is evidence to support the notion that being an "egghead" was not something that has ever been encouraged in the US. Nowadays, they're called geeks and nerds with zits on their face, while being socially awkward, while the jockey gets all the girls...

I'll start a new thread on the matter...

It's been going on for a while already. I don't see why this has become an issue as of recent.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#United_States

American Transcendentalism was romantic fluff that lead to the acceptance of bullshit over fact. — Banno

I wouldn't equate Transcendentalism with the arch-typical American anti-intellectualism right off the bat. It can be used to that end though.

"Wallowing" is what irresolute people do when they can't make a decision. — Bitter Crank

Wallowing is what I do best. Thank you for defining my whole life.

Does anyone else see parallels between Schopenhauer and Transcendentalism? It's like Schopenhauer's philosophy with a positive twist to it.

I found it an entertaining read. Have you read Emerson's "The Over-Soul"? I haven't and I don't think it's studied at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have not; but, I do see parallels with the singular thought that inspired my philosophic endeavor many years ago on the old PF. The thought was centered around the self and its relation to itself. Namely, that if a human being can have the powers of g/God, within a dream, to shape and form "reality" as s/he desires it to be so (a lucid dream), then there's no reason to think that there is no g/God in apparent reality. I was heavily drawn to Transcendentalism after the contemplation of this thought and its implications.

Upon reading the wiki entry about the book, it seems that the ego has subjugated the soul of the Transcendentalists. Emerson and Thoreau would be wallowing in their graves if they saw how individualism has been twisted to mean the gratification of one's ego in this day and age. Among the religious, this isn't as pervasive, fortunately(?)

Well "Self Reliance" was an article of faith among the Transcendentalists, wasn't it? — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I remember reading Walden with a sense of reverence during my younger years. It was a rather boring book; but, in many respects a great self-report on living on the far end of society. I remember reading that there were some great fire and Thoreau just sitting and watching it ablaze, which he later had to go to prison or court for the amount of ignorance for the welfare of others that act bestowed.

And, that's perhaps what went wrong with American Transcendentalism. It is too individualistic to entertain, at least nowadays. Most of the communes that were inspired by the book and Transcendentalism have failed or languished, although "success" is such a relative term according to the philosophy, that nobody but one's self can entertain the qualifications to that word.

No man builds the house he was born in nor can live as if on an island. I still have fond memories of reading Walden Two by B.F Skinner also.

I can see some benefits to Trump being president. For starters, it exposes the swamp which he claimed to want to drain, such as opening a new market for guns to be used for self-defense in schools by teachers, something most teachers unanimously reject as being a ludicrous idea. His politics will most likely result in a higher voter turnout, something any vibrant democracy needs. People are showing renewed interest in getting stuff done politically. Basically, the reactionary pendulum swing against Trump and the Republicans is, in general, a good thing in my opinion, which has been a weak teeter-totter for the past decade or so.

Maybe there would be less of an opiate epidemic if people were allowed to use the poppy plant itself. — Anthony

I don't entirely agree with this sentiment although I've heard that before the world wars many drugs were legal at the time and people weren't buying hoards of speed or opiates to remedy their problems. Drugs, for the matter, have always been or have become a social issue once made illegal. I don't mean to spew libertarian sentiment against big government; but, people can be irrational, and even more so when under the influence of drugs.

What are the benefits of these isolated experiences, exactly? — TimeLine

http://www.maps.org/research

You also appear to be purporting that induced psychotic episodes are the only real method of enabling a person to accept and articulate trauma, which is simply wrong. — TimeLine

Where did I say that? I'm an advocate for rationally based therapy, be it logotherapy, CBT, dialectical therapy, REBT, psychoanalysis, etc. Some cases are difficult to treat, so if there is a need then I'd also be willing to consider the other options mentioned in that link, not deny them based on years of prejudice against a drug.

Amen Rich. Amen.

Yes, and paradoxically the less you own the more in control you feel. So, much for capitalism if people knew such a thing and applied it in life? Maybe the Cynics we're onto something and the Stoics just a bad copy that tries to make itself feel special?

Anyway, I feel as though we're at an impasse so I'll return to the OP.

Namely, (in the majority of cases) drugs are a means to escape the torture on not feeling in control of one's life. Escapism put another way. Sorry don't have much to say, you know feelings and all being 'irrational' and such...

And I think it is the result of violence within the shooter, which is likely caused as much by socially sanctioned psychoneurosis as psychosis. What causes violence within the individual? — Anthony

No idea, the interpretations vary greatly. Most people who go to war come back with PTSD, yet they don't seem to disproportionately cause crimes when back from the war-zone to society. Sometimes suicide seems like the only option available to them to prevent themselves from losing control.

So, lack of control? Control seems to be the issue, no?

I believe that acts of great violence, such as public shootings as seen recently or the Las Vegas shooter, are bona fide psychotic experiences, although greatly distinct from the typical connotation of schizophrenia. Somehow the mind is left intact during these psychotic acts of violence...

Yes, but I am a firm believer in reason. My first experience with psilocybin was truly a terrifying and psychotic experience. Let us not forget the palpable delusions and disorganized thinking that arises during psychosis. If anything I just became aware of how many issues I had condensed into a short and unpleasant experience.

And yet you fail to mention the positives of induced psychotic episodes as seen by psilocybin and LSD. Many psychologists and psychiatrists are waiting in great anticipation when these tools can be harnessed to treat deeply depressed memories or traumatic events, obviously in controlled settings and under the guidance of someone who can help ease the arising anxiety, and with the proper screening methods too to prevent the emergence of more enduring forms of psychosis.

I have to say that your previous post about psychosis is highly interesting. What are your thoughts about psychosis long-term effects on the mind? My impression is that the ego becomes irrelevant or miniscule after many occurrences of psychosis. This is a BIG issue to deal with for some in a society that idolizes big egos and the pontification of it thereabouts.

Some people think that the mind becomes shattered or broken after a psychotic episode, if by which you define "shattered" or "broken" as rather "disillusioned". But, that's not something I entirely agree with.

The plant get's a lot of bad rap for making people docile and bad consumers or at least consumers of the wrong products.

But, I've learned not to be a big fan of self-medicating. However, we prescribe speed and cocaine in a pill for kids that can't focus in school, while cannabis has yet to show any persistent long-term damaging effects in adults, even those with schizophrenia. Go figure.

Just don't smoke high THC strains if you expect it to solve your issues related to anxiety. Most of the pot nowadays is really strong stuff.

The receptors that THC targets are heavily concentrated in the limbic system of the brain, so mood-related issues like anxiety or depression (never heard of either one in isolation) can be overwhelming to the first time user. I personally cant smoke pot socially, only in the safety of my home in peace and quiet.

Yeah, but let's be realistic, it was a Hollywood movie.

It's interesting that this thread turned to a discussion about love. I have read Harry Frankfurt's The Reasons of Love. He makes a strong case that the highest good attainable is that of self-love... from which acts of virtue derive from.

What do other members think about this? At face value one feels as though he is advocating some form of narcissism or infatuation with one's self; but, if you think about it, then self-love is what the world needs. To love another one has to love oneself to some degree to be worthy of their love.

The internal cynic and critic squirms with unease:

*How can I love myself! I am an 'XYZ' after all!*
*I don't deserve love, that's only for romantics!*
and so on...

I agree that the images are beautiful, and the music actually contributes more to the emotional mood than the visuals do. It's a great opening sequence, and the following sequence where he retires the farming replicant is incredibly done. Overall, though, the movie I thought was a let down; disappointing ending, and just a cash-cow milking of the original, which was a cash-cow milking of the PKD novel of another name. — Noble Dust

Well, I would have to disagree with calling Blade Runner 2049 a cash cow. The director, Denis Villeneuve, made it abundantly clear that the movie wasn't made to make money. Besides the original Blade Runner was a box office flop too. Many people were spellbound with the sequel, by which I mean that it was worthy of a follow up on the original. I know I loved it at least.

I fail to see how this Skinnerian analysis of behavior is accurate. One can say, based on these sentiments, that people who are depressed will remain depressed because it is an instinctual trait of human beings to become depressed. Yet, people come out of depression...

A lot, methinks.