You use the phrase "fail in the world". I want to know exactly what you mean by that. If you don't want to tell me, then fine; that's the end of the conversation.

On the face of it, it looks like you are moving the goalposts in a great hurry, because earthly, as in cockroachly success, certainly didn't include not surviving a few posts ago. — unenlightened

But do you think personal survival always makes sense? What if I die, and then my entire tribe gets to become a great kingdom that will last for 400 years, and if I had not sacrificed, then they would have been wiped out? If Jesus didn't accept crucifixion, nobody would have been a Christian today. Isn't that, in a way, survival too? If Socrates didn't take on death so defiantly, would the Platonic Academy have existed? Would Plato have been inspired to dedicate his life to philosophy? Probably not. If Socrates had not taken on death so defiantly, I too, probably would have never been interested in philosophy.

Certainly evolution and everything we know about natural science must be capable of explaining such sacrifices in terms of survival too. In fact, that's precisely what I claim - they - Jesus and Socrates - made a rational choice, anyone who was rational in their shoes should have chosen the same. It was a pragmatic question. In some instances it is foolish to choose your own survival because the costs of survival are too great.

that's the end of the conversation — John

Ok, no problem! If it sounds like chest beating bullshit, then I surely deserve to know what you mean by that, before I shall tackle your other concerns. If you don't wish to accept even this request, then I don't feel compelled to answer you either.

But do you think personal survival always makes sense? — Agustino

No I don't think that. I think that personal survival is part of earthly success, along with having rendered unto one some of that which is Caesar's, and so on. I don't think either, that Socrates' taking on death succeeded in founding an academy. I think he would be insulted that you thought that he died for anything other than in defence of his principles - a spiritual reason.

Earthly success is about survival and earthly prospering, as you say, if not for oneself then for the tribe, or for humanity, and I suppose, if you count the treasures of the Vatican, then Jesus' death was an earthly success. But I don't think Jesus counts them at all.

But this is getting a bit off topic. One can perhaps judge the sanity of a man by subsequent events, but it is no help in judging his sanity now. His survival or not, his prospering or not, his adulation or not, these are not good guides to his sanity.

I don't think either, that Socrates' taking on death succeeded in founding an academy. I think he would be insulted that you thought that he died for anything other than in defence of his principles - a spiritual reason. — unenlightened

And tell me unenlightened, if Socrates had chosen to run away instead of accept death, would his principles have survived?

Earthly success is about survival and earthly prospering, as you say, if not for oneself then for the tribe, or for humanity, and I suppose, if you count the treasures of the Vatican, then Jesus' death was an earthly success. But I don't think Jesus counts them at all. — unenlightened

But it is an earthly success when your values and principles are passed on. Some like Genghis Khan are the fathers of 1000s of biological children. But others like Buddha, Muhammad etc. are the fathers of millions and billions of people, many of whom are ready to die for the same values they believed in and fought for.

No worries. My referring to it as "chest-beating bullshit" was probably just an example of my unfortunate tendency to be provocative; which is amply justified in this case, though, as a propadeutic technique designed to exercise your self-avowedly thick skin and render it even thicker in order to benefit you in relation to your professed desire to become a superlative politician.

Translated into more civil parlance, "chest beating bullshit" would be something like 'hyperbole supported by empty rhetoric'. It is on account of the fact that I believe "fail in the world" is a phrase that is vague enough to be classed as 'empty rhetoric' that I asked for a concrete account of its meaning.

Only when we have a solid account of what it means to "fail in the world" will we have the means to assess the justifiability of your claim that spiritual success is not possible when people "fail in the world". Although, a need for a cogent account of what 'spiritual success' consists in might also become apparent.

The skills and mindsets that maximise the chance of survival in war on the other hand are controlled aggression, courage, daring, pragmatic intelligence, critical thinking, patience, resisting pain, decisiveness etc. But notice there is an asymmetry in terms of fitness between the two mindsets. The "war" mindset, let's call it, is superior to the "peace" mindset. It's true that during peace the person with the "war" mindset will have a harder time - he won't be as successful as the other guy. But he'll manage. But - during war on the other hand, the "peace" mindset is first to be exterminated, while the "war" mindset has a greater chance of survival. — Agustino

And tell me unenlightened, if Socrates had chosen to run away instead of accept death, would his principles have survived? — Agustino

You are so busy arguing, you are missing the point, and arguing against your own position. Jesus, Socrates, and the principled man of peace, not to mention the principled man of war, and the suicide bomber are not to be judged by their survival or their death.

It is exactly the man of principle, who holds to the rational consequences of his principles who is least adaptable and far from the cockroach like resilience you seemed to extol, is most fragile and vulnerable in purely physical (worldly) terms. Their anti fragility is mental and spiritual in being true to themselves, and 'single-minded' in the sense of not suffering from a conflicting need to 'succeed' at the cost of their own integrity.

Their anti fragility is mental and spiritual in being true to themselves, and 'single-minded' in the sense of not suffering from a conflicting need to 'succeed' at the cost of their own integrity. — unenlightened

Yes, but this single-mindedness certainly transforms and shows itself in the world, in worldly terms. I am arguing for what I have told you I'm arguing - namely spiritual success inevitably brings about worldly success - the two are linked. Absolute and unwavering dedication to one's principles does, and will always attract, worldly success. It is because of that absolute and unwavering dedication to his principles that Socrates' death had such an effect on his contemporaries, and inspired some, like Plato, to create a movement around it. I'm not saying Socrates does it for the worldly success - no, absolutely not. But the worldly success follows like a shadow.

Absolute and unwavering dedication to one's principles does, and will always attract, worldly success. It is because of that absolute and unwavering dedication to his principles that Socrates' death had such an effect on his contemporaries, and inspired some, like Plato, to create a movement around it. — Agustino

Yes, Hitler still has his followers. But that does not prove him sane. Unwavering dedication can also be stubbornness to the point of monomania. Principles can be wrong.

Yes, Hitler still has his followers. But that does not prove him sane. Unwavering dedication can also be stubbornness to the point of monomania. Principles can be wrong. — unenlightened

Indeed - but that's still mental strength. Hitler is mentally strong and sane. So is Ghandi. But one is morally evil, and the other one is morally good. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Evil or good - morality or immorality have little to do with mental strength or mental illness for that matter. In our society, very frequently we seem to associate evil with mental illness, and goodness with mental strength. One of my main points in this thread is that such an association is wrong.

In our society, very frequently we seem to associate evil with mental illness, and goodness with mental strength. One of my main points in this thread is that such an association is wrong. — Agustino

One form of mental illness in particular. The mad axeman is mainly, but not entirely a myth with respect to schizophrenics, but I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that psychopathy is a mental strength, or are you going back to the 'success proves sanity' trope?

No, I'm making the point that what is understood by "psychopathy" there isn't that. It's actually mental strength, but it's painted as mental weakness merely because people are afraid of strength, and they're especially afraid of strength when it could be used for evil. But Socrates, Jesus, etc. all suffer from "psychopathy" as well. It's just that they, much like Ghandi, use it for good, instead of for evil, like Hitler. So we should remove this framework of understanding which treats mental strength as mental illness - that seems to me to be putting us in a position, where, as Nietzsche said, we're reducing everyone to their weakest state.

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).

... what is understood by "psychopathy" there isn't that. It's actually mental strength, but it's painted as mental weakness merely because people are afraid of strength, and they're especially afraid of strength when it could be used for evil. — Agustino

I think you need to look at that again, and see if this bears any relation to what you think Jesus was like.

No, I'm making the point that what is understood by "psychopathy" there isn't that. It's actually mental strength, but it's painted as mental weakness merely because people are afraid of strength, and they're especially afraid of strength when it could be used for evil. — Agustino

You appear to have gotten lost and confused now Agustino. Look at the op, you clearly define mental strength as the opposite of mental illness. Now you're saying that some forms of mental illness are actually mental strength, they are just misunderstood by society, misdiagnosed you might say.

But that is exactly the problem I pointed out with the op, you position mental illness as the describable condition, then proceed to position mental strength as opposed to this. That is the very problem, you have nothing to determine mental illness except the diagnosis of the doctors. You haven't produced any principle of mental strength, to refer to, by which you can say that a doctor's diagnosis of mental illness is wrong, and that the person really displays mental strength. So you have absolutely nothing to stand on if you are to say, as above, that a certain psychopathy is actually a misunderstanding.

You got too tied up in the health and welfare of the individual:

Definition of Mental Illness: Incapacity of non-physical origin (non-genetic, non-inherited, non-aquired from accidents/diseases) which prevents one from successfully navigating and prospering in one's environment — Agustino

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.

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.

See, your idea of mental illness refers specifically to the individual, "one". — Metaphysician Undercover

There is something, but not everything, to be said for the view that sanity/madness is relational. To call someone, or some behaviour insane is to admit that one cannot 'make sense of it'. And then of course to try and make sense of it in terms of some deficit or excess. The implication then is that one cannot be mad on one's own, or mad to oneself - not that one cannot find oneself to have been mad from the POV of having 'recovered one's wits'.

But then consider PTSD. The sufferer may know he is 'not himself', with or without knowing the cause or label.

But talking of madmen, one might take something from Wittgenstein's discussion of family resemblances here. It may be that there is only one way to be sane, but there are certainly many ways to be mad. What seems to be coming from this discussion, at least it's coming to me, is that a mental condition can be at the same time a weakness and a strength, a deficit and a (compensating?) talent.

Things are not made simpler by the fact that most disorders are 'spectrum' disorders, such that more or less everyone is to some extent traumatised, paranoid, psychopathic, schizophrenic, autistic, and so on. I speculate that whatever leanings one has in one direction incline one to find that disorder less real. Thus to the extent that I am paranoid, I find paranoia to be a perfectly sensible way of thinking and acting, not a disorder at all.

Another person worth considering is Van Gogh. Both his huge talent and his mental fragility are pretty much unquestionable. Likewise his failure in his lifetime and his huge legacy and influence after his death. And I think he was a good man.

I think you need to look at that again, and see if this bears any relation to what you think Jesus was like. — unenlightened

That's such a bait and switch tactic. So first you link me to the forbes article which suggests:

Several abilities – skills, actually – make it difficult to see psychopaths for who they are. First, they are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities… Second, many psychopaths come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people… Third, they are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.

And then you link me to the article which talks about the following as psychopathic traits:
-uncaring
-inability to plan for the future
-violence
-selfishness
-narrowing of attention
-insincere speech
-shallow emotions

Now can you see that the two of them are very different? Yes I agree that shallow emotions, insincere speech, selfishness, violence etc. are quite possibly psychopathic traits in the mental illness sense. But take the first set of skills you've suggested to me as psychopathic traits - reading people, identifying their likes/dislikes/motives/needs/fears/vulnerabilities, not having the social inhibitions of most when jumping in a conversation, and being skillful with language and words - that sounds to me like mental strength you know. A leader, take Ghandi, for example, needs to be able to do that. He needs to identify - is this person trustable? If not then he may betray me - if he betrays me, is there a way to turn his betrayal into a useful situation for my cause? How does he respond? How does one get him to do something the quickest? Does he respond to some sort of fear, or does he respond to rewards? And so forth. These are very very important matters, and good leaders, as well as evil leaders need to have such skills. If these are the skills you call psychotic (as that article certainly does), then certainly they don't represent a mental illness to me, but signs of mental strength and intelligence.

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). — Gooseone

Yeah I agree with you. I referred to psychopathy only as shown and illustrated in the forbes article, not generally. Obviously I don't think psychopaths - in what we traditionally understand by psychopaths, such as serial killers, rapists, and so forth are mentally strong. I think, actually, they are quite mentally weak, precisely because they cannot feel emotion, and thus can never understand others. I would see someone who is purely selfish as mentally ill - or otherwise just plain stupid/irrational - because such selfishness ultimately undermines itself. If you destroy your environment, that's no different than committing suicide.

Now can you see that the two of them are very different? — Agustino

Well I apologise if I misled you. I assumed you had some familiarity with the psychological terminology. But the difference is not all that huge. The Forbes article rather assumes that we know that a psychopath is more or less as described by Psychology Today, and proceeds to explain how someone who has these traits can nevertheless appear plausibly competent and talented.

I wish I could wean you off your black and white thinking about this. You have just seen the same condition being described positively and negatively in your own view. But they are talking about the same condition, psychopathy.

A medical surgeon needs the ability to de-empathise with his patient to the extreme of being able to treat them pretty much as a piece of meat. But hopefully, this talent is used only when needed, and he does not regard his wife and children that way, or even his colleagues. Now the psychopath typically lacks in empathy, but can feign it when he finds it convenient, because he does not lack insight and understanding of others. This is a simple example of a talent and a disability coinciding.

Well I apologise if I misled you. I assumed you had some familiarity with the psychological terminology. But the difference is not all that huge. The Forbes article rather assumes that we know that a psychopath is more or less as described by Psychology Today, and proceeds to explain how someone who has these traits can nevertheless appear plausibly competent and talented. — unenlightened

Alright, because to me some of these traits sound contradictory. For example - inability to plan for the future + narrowing of attention don't go well with reading and understanding people.

I wish I could wean you off your black and white thinking about this. You have just seen the same condition being described positively and negatively in your own view. But they are talking about the same condition, psychopathy. — unenlightened

In my opinion, I have seen two different conditions described, and the same name stuck to both of them, which is what my problem was. Or do you mean to say that being able to read people, having excellent use of language, and lacking social inhibitions of most when starting conversations are signs of mental illness? You'd probably be hard-pressed to find many leaders who lack these skills indeed.

Now the psychopath typically lacks in empathy, but can feign it when he finds it convenient, because he does not lack insight and understanding of others. This is a simple example of a talent and a disability coinciding. — unenlightened

I don't see how this is possible. He may try to feign it, but since he lacks the first-person understanding of empathy, his feigning will only ever be very imperfect. It's like me trying to feign that I'm in love with someone without ever having experienced love myself. I can look at what other people who are in love do, and mimic it, but since I don't actually have the feelings, then it's going to be imperfect, at certain points and in certain particular situations it will become clear that I'm only pretending to those who do have those feelings or know about them.

The surgeon on the other hand CAN access feelings of empathy, he nevertheless closes them off while performing surgery. That's different. He doesn't lack in a capacity for empathy - but from my understanding, psychopaths lack precisely in this capacity. Since they've never had it, they simply have no first-person knowledge of empathy.

Only when we have a solid account of what it means to "fail in the world" will we have the means to assess the justifiability of your claim that spiritual success is not possible when people "fail in the world". Although, a need for a cogent account of what 'spiritual success' consists in might also become apparent. — John

Ok, sure. "Fail in the world" means failure amongst worldly matters, such as not being able to procure food for oneself, being disregarded by one's fellow men, failing to achieve one's worldly goals, and so forth. Spiritual success implies self-knowledge and understanding, devotion to the right principles, and virtue.

I think that's still mighty vague on a very broad spectrum, and on that account there would not be many people counted as failures. Not that many people who are in a situation where procuring adequate food is possible, fail to procure it, for example.

What kind of regard counts as greater, the regard of your family and friends or of the public? The regard that proceeds from love or from fear, from admiration or envy? And in the context of worldly goals; one person may have very modest goals and succeed in all of them, while another may have fantastic aspirations and achieve them only to a moderate, or even small degree, and yet achieve far more, in worldly measures such as money, fame, power and so on than the first. Who, then would be the greater failure? Or think of art; what is better; to achieve greatness but fail to be recognized or to achieve universal acclaim and yet be a mediocrity?

I don't disagree in principle with your criteria for spiritual success, but how would you go about measuring spiritual success according to them? Who decides whether you truly possess self-knowledge and understanding or whether you are merely deceiving yourself? Who decides what are the right principles or whether you are in reality devoted to right principles, rather than to your own ego?

I think that's still mighty vague on a very broad spectrum, and on that account there would not be many people counted as failures. — John

Sure, but then there's a lot of ways that would qualify as "worldly failure" so to name all of them entails being broad.

What kind of regard counts as greater, the regard of your family and friends or of the public? — John

Family and friends probably.

The regard that proceeds from love or from fear — John

Love, because fear only works when you also have power.

from admiration or envy — John

Admiration and envy don't depend on you though - they depend on the character of the other person. Me for example, I have very high admiration for great people - when I see a great person, whether they're an artist, a writer, a businessman, a songwriter, a politician - anything, I always respect them. But I notice that most folks feel jealous of greatness rather than admiring of it. Perhaps this merely represents their own regard for themselves. I regard myself in a good light, and so I merely treat great people the way I would want to be treated if I was like them.

Who, then would be the greater failure? — John

Hard to say. Did the first have small goals because that was truly all that he wanted to do with his life, or because he was afraid to seek to do more?

Or think of art; what is better; to achieve greatness but fail to be recognized or to achieve universal acclaim and yet be a mediocrity? — John

To achieve greatness and fail to be recognised - because sooner or later, you will be recognised. Whereas if you are a mediocrity, sooner or later you will be forgotten, even if at present you enjoy fame.

Who decides whether you truly possess self-knowledge and understanding or whether you are merely deceiving yourself? Who decides what are the right principles or whether you are in reality devoted to right principles, rather than to your own ego? — John

By faith.

To achieve greatness and fail to be recognised - because sooner or later, you will be recognised. Whereas if you are a mediocrity, sooner or later you will be forgotten, even if at present you enjoy fame. — Agustino

You say that sooner or later recognition will come, but I wonder to what degree luck may play a part. Let's say you are a great artist and you produce a body of brilliant work but have achieved no recognition. All your voluminous body of work is in your studio with you when it burns to the ground, killing you and destroying all your work. Would it still be better to be that artist than a brilliantly successful mediocrity?

Sure this is an extreme and unlikely scenario. But how can we ever know how many great artists, poets and composers have been consigned to the recycle bin of history due purely to unfavorable circumstances of one kind or another?

You say that sooner or later recognition will come, but I wonder to what degree luck may play a part. Let's say you are a great artist and you produce a body of brilliant work but have achieved no recognition. All your voluminous body of work is in your studio with you when it burns to the ground, killing you and destroying all your work. Would it still be better to be that artist than a brilliantly successful mediocrity? — John

Absolutely, because a priori, the probability of remembrance is always greater if you are authentically great. You simply played the best cards you could have played, and lost. You could've done nothing better.

Yes, but the salient thing is there is never any guarantee of greatness; whether one is recognized or not.

Yes, but the salient thing is there is never any guarantee of greatness; whether one is recognized or not. — John

Sure, so? Virtue is still the safest bet, the most likely one to win. If not even virtue succeeds, then certainly nothing, not even crookedness, will succeed. For example - if I am the crook artist, who is in reality a mediocrity - that will fail - I will be forgotten, regardless of the current popularity I am enjoying. So why choose a road where the final conclusion is certain, instead of choosing the road where there is at least some possibility? That's the ultimate irony - those who succeed spiritually also happen to be the most likely to be successful in the world - and those who sacrifice spiritual success for worldly success, will actually lose the worldly success as well.

OK, but my point is that one should ideally not be at all concerned, in such spiritual or creative endeavours, with the the regard of others, or success as measured by acclaim, whether now or later.

In politics, of course, it is an entirely different matter; you cannot possibly be a successful politician without achieving recognition.That is why I responded critically to your apparent equation of spiritual with worldly success.

So, I actually don't think you have any real justification for saying "That's the ultimate irony - those who succeed spiritually also happen to be the most likely to be successful in the world - and those who sacrifice spiritual success for worldly success, will actually lose the worldly success as well."

OK, but my point is that one should ideally not be at all concerned, in such spiritual or creative endeavours, with the the regard of others, or success as measured by acclaim, whether now or later. — John

Yes of course. But I'm saying that the way to gain it, is precisely and paradoxically not to be concerned with it.

In politics, of course, it is an entirely different matter; you cannot possibly be a successful politician without achieving recognition.That is why I responded critically to your apparent equation of spiritual with worldly success. — John

I don't think so - most politicians are fleeting, their names are forgotten. Few are those remembered by history, because most of them make too many sacrifices to achieve power, and hence the power itself becomes useless. To me, as I said, spiritual and worldly success always go together. Even in politics - it is better to be principled and lose because of it, than to gain the whole world and lose your soul. being principled is in truth still your best bet to win. If even that doesn't get you victory, nothing else can, not even being a crook.

Now this doesn't mean that you shouldn't be sly as a serpent. You should be - you should know who will be a crook to you, who will not, and take all factors into account, including actions of betrayal and so forth that will happen. You would need to know this. You can't be a fool who thinks everyone will be as virtuous as you, because then you will most certainly lose. But it's not worth winning while sacrificing virtue. The whole art of politics is winning without sacrificing virtue.

So, I actually don't think you have any real justification for saying "That's the ultimate irony - those who succeed spiritually also happen to be the most likely to be successful in the world - and those who sacrifice spiritual success for worldly success, will actually lose the worldly success as well." — John

How so?