You keep replying in non sequiturs.

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

I'm just pointing out that psychology has been too ego-centric for a good while now, and that leads to the risk of developing values or beliefs that are detrimental to our shared world. — Posty McPostface

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.

Yeah, there's no eliminating the fear of death and threats, unless one chooses to mindlessly distract themselves into some oblivion. — Posty McPostface

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.)

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.

Oh, come now. It isn't that bad is it? Sure, we don't face lions or hyenas anymore as our main source of desperation. Which, has been a contributing environmental force to group and social cohesion. So, why is group cohesion disintegrating in the West, nowadays? — Posty McPostface

Hyperbole has its uses. But what makes you think group cohesion is disintegrating in the West (or North, South, and East)? Groups of people are as cohesive as they have to be. It's been 73 years since the World was at war and we were all (allegedly) cohesive. On a much smaller scale, (groups of 100 or less) people are as cohesive as they ever were -- which is to say they are ready, willing, and able to work together for common goals.

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.

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

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

Well, yes. Though, I don't think it can be found by looking deeper within the soup of the unconscious. — Posty McPostface

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.

How is progress made by appealing to inner values such as selfishness and lust and wants and desires? Are you not a Buddhist? — Posty McPostface

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

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.

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.

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

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

Glad you liked it.

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

Extremely crowded. There have been maybe 50 to 100 billion people born since we became Homo sapiens.

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. — Posty McPostface

It isn't, and you identify the difference.

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? — Posty McPostface

Well, you know, we set limits on our desires and lusts. That isn't the same as taking the vail and vowing poverty, chastity, and obedience (shudder). We devise a budget of pleasure. 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.

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. 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.

"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. — Posty McPostface

We are Individually plastic and malleable. As a species, not so much.

So what? We've been a species for 300,000 thousand years, and then in the last 300 we did all these amazing things. What about the previous 299,700 years? Some significant achievements in the last 300,000 years:

1) we settled the entire planet
2) we domesticated several species
3) we invented a host of technologies (from glue made from bark to boomerangs)
4) we invented language & culture
5) we invented agriculture
6) we invented writing
7) we invented government (much to the sorrow of early libertarians)

And yes, electricity, steel, radios, cameras, guns, pneumatic nail guns, tampons, and the Wonder Bra.

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.

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.

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?

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? — Posty McPostface

First and for what it is worth, I said I define philosophy as a discussion regarding the the nature of the real. In that sense, it is only the subject matter that is arguably the same thing. At no point did I say or reasonably imply that we would have the same understanding of any agreed upon subject. Even if someone understood my understanding, they would not be required to agree with it. And finally and most important of all, I never insisted my definition of philosophy is correct. I only insisted that it is mine. How do you define philosophy? :smile:

How do you define philosophy? — Arne

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

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?

if the goal is to understand the nature of the real, then disagreement is indicative of not sharing the same goal, or is it? — Posty McPostface

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. I already have an understanding of the real and I suspect that may be true of most people engaged in philosophical discussion. 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. Whether others agree with me is not a significant matter per se. 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. Neither consensus nor agreement is the equivalent of truth. Coming to consensus could mean that we are all wrong.

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...

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.

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? — Posty McPostface

The social glue is made of sacrifices of the individual. Law and order, most important for society, consists of curbing the individual's basic instincts to achieve the best possible state of existence. However, no single person can do that without infringing on someone's elses territory. So, what we need, as you said, is the golden mean.

Let's set aside all the distractions and focus on the bare essentials of what benefits accrue from social existence. All I can see is safety. Can't safety be achieved through non-social means e.g. intelligent robots to control us?